The First in the Deck Series

Our most recent DIY experience through the process.

Out With The Old, In With The New

Gotta love a new beginning, right?

Peppermint Shortage

Just a funny afternoon.

Coffeyville, KS

I loved this experience so much that I had to write about it. Then, through e-mails it spread to Coffeyville itself.

Photo Restoration

I had a lot of fun with this "old school" photo. It turned out too cool to not blog about it.

Kitchen Remodel (part one)

This is the first of a nine-part series documenting the remodel of our 50-year-old kitchen in our 100-year-old home!

Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts

Blind Faith

Last Monday night, we were watching the third episode of a television show on Netflix called "No Tomorrow".  The show is a little quirky.  I really enjoy most of the comedy of it, though I am annoyed at the usage of over-sexualized humour.  But, this isn't a review of the show.

There are no spoilers in this blog (in my opinion) in case you're worried about that.  I'll only summarize the basic plot that you would've known anyway if you had only read the tiny description of the show in the Netflix browser.  The premise is basically: girl meets boy, boy/girl like each other, girl falls for boy, boy tells girl that an asteroid is coming to destroy the earth in 8 months, girl thinks boy is crazy, girl goes on liking boy anyway.

Now, I come to the reason I am writing about this show.  In the third episode, the boy, accompanied by the girl, presents his research and subsequent findings to a scientist.  The camera backs out and the scene closes so that the viewers don't get to hear the spiel, but later it does come back in at the end of the speech and we hear enough of his close to understand that he got a proper platform for which to present his arguments uninterrupted.  Later in the show, the girl is confiding in her mother that he "sounded so smart and insightful and passionate" when he had the chance to present what he had found but that she's feeling conflicted because she still thinks he's crazy.  Then, for some reason I can't explain, she finds solace in her realization that his belief in the impending asteroid-earth collision isn't religion but pure math.  Armed with this new epiphany, she explains to him that she admires him for living by his convictions, admits that his way of life is positive, contagious, and adds real value to others.  She realizes that it doesn't matter if she believes what he believes.  She can continue to have a relationship with him and support him in his beliefs whether she believes them or not.

The real-life applicable takeaway I learned here is this: You can aptly present factual arguments, even in an inarguable mathematical format, and even those who love you the most may still choose to believe the opposite in blind faith.

I'm not saying that the boy is right about the asteroid.  It's a tv show.  I'm saying that the girl sat and listened to the boy, admitted that he made intelligent arguments, has personally witnessed the benefits of harboring this belief, and EVEN understood that it was simply a matter of mathematics.  She did all this but goes on to claim she believes the event won't happen.  Take notice that she didn't make this decision because she looked through a telescope, examined the research, plotted the course of the earth herself, determined the trajectory of the asteroid and found his math to be full of errors.  She simply and blindly chose to accept something else to be true.  Her decision to believe he is wrong is a purposefully uninformed decision.  She's knowingly choosing willful ignorance.

Now, perhaps the boy is wrong, in fact.  It still wouldn't justify the girl's decision to believe that he is wrong without first exploring the issue herself.  Ironically, she understands it only to be a matter of math, but doesn't bother to look at the math to look for the error.  She just assumes it's wrong.

I can mathematically disprove the supposed age of the earth being in the billions of years.  But, in showing people this math, I can't expect to convert someones belief system.  It's a very useful tool in reinforcing people's belief system who already believe the same things as me.  But, it's unlikely that it will serve as a very useful tool of conversion.  Most will just convince themselves that there is some unseen trick in the math or will just simply do like this fictional girl did and write it off through willful ignorance.

The reason why it won't help to convert people is because our belief systems are not necessarily grounded in facts.  We would like to think that they are, but our beliefs go deeper than that.  They're not intellectually born.  They reside in the heart.  No one is without bias.  Our bias' steer us.  If you want to see someone in inner turmoil, find someone who believes differently from how they think.  Regardless of what they may "know", they are a slave to their belief.  Belief and thinking can't indefinitely be out of line.  Eventually, one will win out.

That reminds me of something.  In recent years, I've heard the slang term "whip" used to describe a nice car in hip-hop songs.  The term is derived from a chain of slang starting with the first automobiles where the steering wheel was commonly referred to as the 'whip' since the steering wheel of the car served the same purpose as a whip did to a team of horses pulling a wagon.  Later, since the Mercedes-Benz emblem looks like a steering wheel, urban slang for a Mercedes-Benz became a 'whip'.  Even later, it would be used for any luxury vehicle.

Our beliefs steer us.  Like a whip, they control us.  We can break free of their bondage.  But, it takes something much more powerful than a thought, a desire, a well-delivered speech, a sermon, or a presentation of facts.  It takes an act of will.  It's a matter of the heart.  You can hear one of the aforementioned things like a sermon, for instance, and respond by willfully choosing to break free of your previous beliefs.  But, make no mistake.  It doesn't happen to you.  No one can force you into freedom.  You have to take those steps yourself.

It's a backwards concept to most of us.  But, in Christianity, it requires that we first come to God and accept Him, before you will find it intellectually sound to do so.  Until then, the spiritual blinders are still on.  And, no amount of intellectual pursuit will get you there alone.  If you, the reader, are one of those who don't believe in God, would like to, but don't feel like you can because intellectual roadblocks exist in your mind that are keeping you from accepting His existence, the relief I have to offer you is this: Once you surrender your will and choose God, there is a seemingly infinite amount of intellectual pursuits that stand to justify the choice you made.  Again, it sounds backwards.  But, what I'm suggesting to you is that, despite what you may think, your roadblocks are not intellectual ones after all.  It's completely a matter of your will to choose to step away from the beliefs you've held many of which are baseless.  So, make the choice.  You won't be disappointed.

Coldplay and Understanding God

I'm fully aware that Coldplay isn't a Christian band, but bare with me.

Three years ago, I wrote a blog titled Free Will that discussed the nature of our God-given freedom to choose what we do with our lives.  I believe that this blog will be understood without reading Free Will but if you're up for it, I believe it would be a good read to understand this blog a little more in depth.

This morning, on my morning commute to work, I was listening to an old Coldplay album I hadn't given airplay in a while.  Specifically, I was listening to Warning Signs off of their Rush of Blood to the Head album.  Here are the lyrics:
A warning sign, I missed the good part then I realized
I started looking and the bubble burst
I started looking for excuses
Come on in, I've got to tell you what a state I'm in
I've got to tell you in my loudest tones
That I started looking for a warning sign

When the truth is I miss you
Yeah, the truth is that I miss you so

A warning sign, you came back to haunt me and I realized
That you were an island and I passed you by
When you were an island to discover
Come on in, I've got to tell you what a state I'm in
I've got to tell you in my loudest tones
That I started looking for a warning sign

When the truth is I miss you
Yeah, the truth is that I miss you so
And I'm tired, I should not have let you go

So I crawl back into your open arms
Yes I crawl back into your open arms
And I crawl back into your open arms
Yes I crawl back into your open arms
This song brought to mind a lesson that I learned a few years back that I thought I'd share with you, whoever you are.  The lesson is this: Give Glory to God for the good things He does despite whether or not you believe He did them.

A few of you may be nodding your head in agreement but I imagine that most are wondering what I mean by that.  Either reaction is okay.  I've done both.

I'm very logically minded.  I need things to make sense using reason, logic, and facts.  This is a neurological requirement.  I believe wholeheartedly that God made me this way and that He is not in the least bit bothered by it.  He isn't bothered because He literally is truth and knows quite well that, using reason, logic, and facts, I will find Him over and over again.  And, He likes to be found.  And, I like to find Him.

In my experience, I found that I could pretty easily explain away with natural occurrences what others would call miracles.  In fact, it was the first thing that came to mind when hearing about or seeing one of these so-called miracles. I would immediately know how that could occur naturally.  Early on in my Christian walk, I would even write off these miracle stories as fake.  Perhaps the people telling them or claiming a healing were, in fact, feeling healed.  But, feelings are subjective and cannot be corroborated by others.  So, I didn't think people were intentionally lying.  They were just being naive.  I know I'm not alone in this.  Admit it.  If you're not there now, you were at some point before.

But, what I have come to realize is that there is some real truth to the cliché that God acts in mysterious ways.  It's not that God is trying to be mysterious.  It's that He's operating in such a way that maintains free will.  (This is the part of the blog where I hoped that you chose to read the Free Will blog I linked to at the beginning of this one.)  He is operating so that there is no definitive proof.  See?  If He intervened in our lives in such a way that there was literally no room for doubt then there would be literally no room for choice to disbelieve.  Imagine if He just showed up at your door all shining in incredible glorious light and looked you in the face, grabbed your hands and instantly made you 18 years old again.  We'd have no room for disbelief.  Our choice to believe or disbelieve would be gone.  It seems like a good thing on the surface.  But, if our choice is removed from the equation, then our free will is lost.  If free will is lost, then I no longer can choose to love Him.  If I cannot choose to love Him, then I am forced or programmed to do so.  And, we all know and understand that robots cannot be made to love us.  Love inherently requires the choice not to love.

That said, when I witness someone experiencing a miracle or hear about one second hand or even witness coincidences in my own life.  Even though my brain still goes straight for the natural explanation, I know that I have a choice right then.  I can choose to accept my brain's interpretation or I can choose to believe that God miraculously intervened.  There is no cost to believing the latter.  It takes no special effort.  In fact, accepting a natural explanation is no more than believing that God didn't do anything which is disbelief by definition.  I have the opportunity to give God the glory in all things.  Conversely, I have the opportunity to practice disbelief in all things.

Now, since I made this life change a few years back and began to give God the glory and accept that these are instances of miracles, I have experienced a renewal of perspective.  It's difficult to describe exactly, but I feel that I have been blessed considerably by God for giving Him credit for good things.  It wasn't easy at first.  I admit that I was forcing myself to ignore the possibility of a natural explanation, but it got immensely easier to the extent that I even see now that it's the logical response.  God has to act a certain way to maintain our free will.  One might even suppose reasonably by this logic that God has the ability to move more obviously in people's lives who are more grounded in their choice to love Him since this increased exposure doesn't affect a change in their free will, just a confirmation of it.  This brings to mind Psalm 34:8 "Taste and see that the Lord is good."  You know once you've tried.  You can't know till you do.  That's not to say that everyone who has tried has stuck with it.  We all still have free will to choose.  But, we must first choose to accept that God is good before we can see God's goodness.

The Coldplay song written out above reminded me of my own struggle to accept God's goodness in action.  'I started looking and the bubble burst. I started looking for excuses.' 'You were an island and I passed you by, you were an island to discover' 'When the truth is... I miss you'  I love the redeeming quality of the end of the song.  It is true of how God waits patiently for us to come around, giving us opportunity after opportunity most certainly not because we've earned those opportunities but because of His great grace.
So I crawl back into your open arms
Yes I crawl back into your open arms
And I crawl back into your open arms
Yes I crawl back into your open arms

Global Warming, Yay or Nay? Or Something Else?

It seems that there are two major camps on the subject of global warming (at least in the social circles in which I find myself):
  1. Those that believe the earth is heating up slowly, humanity's actions are its cause, and immediate environmental action needs taken to reverse current effects.
  2. Those that deny that the earth is heating up and thus don't feel that action needs taken to control things that aren't negatively affecting anything.
I never really knew what to believe.  I was never too concerned about it.  I grew up being taught all about the greenhouse effect and thinking that the use of Aqua Net and the popular 80's hairstyles that required it was mostly to blame for us dying someday in the future from solar radiation.  I have recycled most of my life, I love reusing and repurposing things, and have even made a career in remanufacturing so, in comparison to the average American, I'm very environmentally conscious and have a comparably small carbon footprint.

Unless you live under a rock, you've been told through television, newspapers, magazines, coworkers, friends, etc. about how the earth is getting hotter.  In January, the New York Times published the article, 2015 Was The Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say.  And, I have little doubt that the information that they reference is correct.  Glacier depletion is commonly referred to as stone-cold proof of global warming (sorry for the pun).  Glacier depletion has been well documented over the course of the last 100 years or so with the availability of photography and is pretty much undeniable.  Anytime the media reports on someone or some group who speaks about global warming not being the issue that it's all chalked up to be, they are generally referred to in negative terms and called things like "global warming deniers" and often compared to "flat-earthers."

It's clear that the media has made up its mind on the subject and that they are whole-heartedly supporting camp #1 defined above.  But, if you look to the Internet, you'll quickly find conflicting information about how news media outlets report on climate issues.  Wikipedia has a nice little section on Media Coverage of Climate Change that upon finishing leaves the reader with the conclusion that news media is a very poor source for information concerning the science of climate change.  Scientists believe that news media is ill-informed, ignorant of the science, and too intent on writing and filming pieces that purposefully cause division and confusion and then capitalizes on it.  It's the discourse, not the truth, that the media is interested in maintaining to help sell their product.  To hear it from the scientific community, there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is indeed warming up.  But, as you may read in previous blogs of mine, Shaky Foundations, for example, I don't fully trust the scientific community's opinion since so much of their foundational beliefs are unwise and illogical.

So, what do I believe?  Do I have to believe something?  Do I have to pick one of these two camps?  Can I just go on being unconcerned about it?  If not, where does one find the truth so that one can know for sure that they aren't going to become part of the problem?

One place I admittedly never looked for truth about global warming was the Bible.  I imagine that I'm nowhere near alone, though.  Even being a Christian, why would I look to the Bible for information about a modern problem?  I mean, it is a modern problem, right?

Well, maybe that's our collective problem.  Perhaps, we have an incorrect understanding of history and therefore do not know how to interpret what we see in the present.  A few years back, I was presented with some information.  Upon first hearing it I regarded it as craziness.  As the explanation continued, I began to understand it as an alternate theory.  But, by the presentation's end, I was intellectually rocked by it.  What followed was a fury of research that would later confirm it for me and finally bring acceptance as truth.  Now, I would like to present this to you.

Suppose for the sake of this presentation that the Bible is actually true.  This means that the whole world was under water at some point around 4,300 years ago.  If that were true, what would we expect to see?
  • Evidence of sea life found in high mountain ranges
  • Flood legends found distorted in virtually every culture
  • A lot of available water on earth (3/4 of the earth is covered in water)
  • Billions of dead creatures encased in sediment (fossils)
  • Bent (not broken) sedimentary rock layers
  • Examples of massive erosion caused by more water than what is currently available
  • Huge layers of coal (dead vegetation) found miles deep in the earth's crust
  • etc. etc.
Here's what I propose to be the true and biblical earth's history concerning global warming:
  • Genesis 1:9-10 "Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good."
    • All the waters were in "one place" and land appeared as one super continent. (Secular science believes this, too, and named this super continent Pangaea.)
  • Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
    • The continental plates were broken apart which caused molten rock (lava) to pour out into the seas and literally boil the oceans causing great "fountains" of steam that fell back to earth in the form of rain from the "windows of heaven".
    • Evidence of this ocean boiling can be found in the presence of diatomaceous earth, which is fossilized diatoms.  "The worldwide association of diatomite deposits and volcanic deposits suggests that the availability of silica from volcanic ash may be necessary for thick diatomite deposits." - Cummins, Arthur B., Diatomite, in Industrial Minerals and Rocks, 3rd ed. 1960, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 303–319
  • Genesis 7:12 "And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights."
    • The continents, while submerged under water, sprinted apart over the course of less than 40 days unleashing billions of tons of lava into the ocean creating a new sea floor while sending plumes of steam into the atmosphere that fell back as rain since the atmosphere was much too saturated to hold it.  At some point under 40 days, the continental plates came to settle roughly at their current locations, the steam relented, and the rain ceased after 40 days and 40 nights.
  •  Genesis 7:19 "(the waters) rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."
    • This was not a local flood nor was it merely symbolism.  It was a global flood that covered the whole earth, even the mountains.
  • Genesis 7:20 "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."
    • Even the tips of the mountains were around 23 feet under water.
Now, consider this.  Glaciers are large bodies of ice formed by snow collection that are moving from a high point to a lower point.  A glacier's formation requires lots of snow.  Now, let's continue my proposed true and bible-based earth's history presentation:
  • After the water receded, it wasn't just the surface of the planet that had drastically changed from the catastrophic events of volcanic activity, erosion, and continental sprint.  The climate had largely been affected.  The increased volcanic activity during and the years following the flood filled the upper atmosphere with ash and aerosols (fine particles) that reflected some of the sun's light resulting in a cooled atmosphere.  Also cooling the earth's atmosphere was the year that the entire earth was covered in water.  Water does not absorb the energy from the sun as efficiently as exposed ground does.  It's the absorbed energy in the ground that is released back out that helps keep the earth warm at night until more heat can be absorbed.  The global flood would have created a deficit of heat absorption every day the land was covered.
  • Combine this cooled atmosphere with warmed oceans from all the oceanic lava introduction and you get lots of evaporation, condensation, and snow.  (It was likely that the heated oceans helped put off enough warmth to somewhat offset the deficit of the sun's energy absorption while the earth was completely covered with water.  But, warmed oceans and cooled atmosphere together would have created snow storms that the world never saw before nor experienced since.
  • With the cooler summers, snow was not melted and thus it accumulated in large amounts in the mid to upper latitudes forming glaciers in a very short time period.
  • We would recognize this period after the flood as the Ice Age.
  • The volcanic activity settled down eventually, clearing the atmosphere of particles, and starting a familiar climate cycle similar to what we now see today.  The glaciers have been depleting ever since at a faster rate initially in the lower latitudes and slowing exponentially in the higher latitudes.
  • With the return of the ice back into water, the oceans are rising ever so slowly.
  • Temperatures are ever so slightly climbing as the atmosphere finds its equilibrium.
In conclusion, glacier depletion, global warming, and a rising ocean level isn't evidence of human interference with the world's climate so much as it is evidence of God's interference with and destruction of a sinful mankind.  It would be better to look at all these effects and recognize them for what they are:  a standing geological reminder that God is sovereign.  Romans 1:20 states "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."  Even when He destroyed the earth because of overwhelming sin, He did it in such a way that there would be evidence everywhere for us to see, know the truth, and seek Him like we are supposed to.  I will end this with 2 Peter 3.  It is incredibly applicable to this discussion!  In it, the Bible predicts that people will deny that the flood ever happened and believe instead in uniformitarianism ("everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation").  This is one of the foundational beliefs of secular science today.  Wow!  (I did the highlighting not so you wouldn't read the whole thing, please do, but so that you wouldn't miss the highly applicable points to this blog.)


1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
Above 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 ancestors 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 came into being 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 the ungodly.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.


Theistic Evolution Reexamined

You may recall that in three blogs back, Shaky Foundations, I wrote about how we were all taught some things about the world's history and beginning that were just wrong.  I promised at the end of that blog to write some follow-up blogs to support my position.  So, if you forgot about or skipped over my promise, have noticed a reoccurring theme, and are wondering why I've been on a creation soapbox lately, that is why.  I promised to be.

The reason I feel that it's so important can be summed up in the blog I wrote that preceded the one with the promise, The Power of a Worldview.  And, just as the name would suggest, it's the power that our worldview holds over our thinking that should be a matter of grave concern for us all.  If we are harboring false information and believe it to be true, all of our present and future decisions will be based upon this incorrect standpoint.

I've heard people in the church, even pastoral staff, shrug off this concern as if beliefs about the world's origin have nothing to do with our relationship with God.  I've heard non-Christians who already don't believe in God specifically say how they can't believe in God or the Bible because it goes against everything they know about "science".  Unfortunately, due to knowing very little about biblical theology and even less about geography, anthropology, astrology, etc., the church has largely taken the position of either ignoring the findings of the scientific community or worse, trying to insert them into the biblical text.  This compromised gospel has confused professing Christians where they mostly attempt to avoid the subject, while also becoming a stumbling block to potential converts.

I've even personally experienced being a Christian and running into my own beliefs that were based on false information that caused serious doubts about God and the reliability of the Christian worldview.  I was confused for so long, in fact, that I was afraid to have someone breach any one of a variety of subjects.  I knew that I could not articulate the Christian position.  I knew that I would not be convincing, after all, I was not convinced myself.  I knew that I was to tell people about the good news, but my internal intellectual struggle with the inconsistencies of my beliefs caused me to be ashamed and useless to God and Christianity.  I believed in God, the Bible, and the gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ... but I couldn't tell you why I believed it.  I was in direct violation of 1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you."  The hope was in me, I just wasn't prepared to explain the reason I had for it.

God created all things and just like all creators, He is outside of the things He created.  He is not governed by the things He created.  That would be backwards.  He is only governed by His own promises since He is truth.  He created time, therefore He is outside of it.  He created the natural laws, therefore He is supernatural.  Since He is not governed by natural laws, He can and does act supernaturally.

The atheist has no logical explanation for the existence of natural laws nor can he explain the reason for the existence of universal physical constants such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the elementary charge, etc.  There are tons of known constants that allow us to "know" anything.  Without these constants, there could be no way to understand anything.  You couldn't calculate anything because even mathematics wouldn't exist because there would be no rules to govern the consistency of outcomes.  The atheist cannot explain the natural formation of these constants because he must attempt to break one of them in order to explain it.  Information does not form itself, information only comes from information.  Suggesting otherwise breaks the laws of logic.  Furthermore, it's circular reasoning to postulate that natural laws could come about naturally.  Since nature would not yet exist, there would be no way for it to form by the laws of nature that didn't yet exist.  If the atheist alludes to the preexistence of these universal constants before material existence, then he is simply inferring the existence of transcendent intelligence which equates to an admission of the existence of God just by a different name.

The Bible-believing Christian would expect these constants to exist.  Colossians 1:17 states "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."  Hebrews 1 says "...He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."  So, we would expect to find universal constants.  Materialism, on the other hand, wouldn't expect to find nor can explain their known existence.

It's not illogical to believe in the Bible.  Quite the contrary, it's the only worldview that can make total sense of our universe.

Now, a lot of Christians profess belief in the Bible being truth and attempt to say that modern scientific theory isn't necessarily incompatible to the biblical narrative.  They think that God could have taken billions of years to create and that He could have used evolution in His creation method.  They say that it doesn't matter how God created.  Well, I think this isn't just a dangerous position because it's some slippery slope, it's dangerous because it's not what the Bible says.  The question isn't what God could have done, it's what God said was done.  And, the issue is whether we are prepared to believe Him or not.  And, make no mistake, it is an issue of the reliability of the Gospel.  Some of you are like, "Wait, wait, wait... How is Genesis tied to the Gospel?"  And, I'm glad you asked.  Let me show you in as few words as possible.

If there were billions of years worth of creatures living and dying before Adam and Eve, then death existed before sin.  If death existed before sin, then it was not sin that ushered in death and death couldn't have been a penalty for sin.  Therefore, Jesus' death on the cross was meaningless and didn't pay for our sin... because there was no paying for it.  God could not save us.

Also, if death existed prior to Adam and Eve, then the portrayal of God gets incredibly sadistic.  After all, "God looked at all He had made and saw that it was good." Mind you, this was before the fall of man.  But, if there was already death, then how could any of it be good in God's eyes unless He is in to that sort of suffering.  This philosophy is the cause for so many people blaming God for all the bad things that happen.  They look to God only to assign blame.

No, God created all things, told us exactly how He did it and how long it took Him, provided the timeline through genealogies so we could know how long ago it was, explained to us why the earth is now how it is (sin), provided us a path to salvation, told us all about it, and has kept His word alive, relevant, and available to us ever since despite efforts to eradicate it in virtually every generation of the history of mankind.

Don't be fooled.  Your position on this subject is a foundation for all the rest of your beliefs.  Don't get it wrong because you fear man's scorn more than you fear God's.  God said 6 days.  Will you believe Him?

Shaky Foundations

I went through my childhood like all children.  I believed what I was told.  But, at some point, I started to question things that didn't make sense to me and I wouldn't stop questioning things that seemingly contradicted each other.  My story isn't at all special, though.  All children do this.  If you're reading this, then you did it, too.  It's all part of learning.  Small children take things at face value and do not need a logical order to the different aspects of how they believe life functions.  Though, at a certain age, once their cognitive abilities reach a certain level, they begin to recognize that some things that they've been told don't sit well with others.  That's when they begin asking adults questions trying to sort out their mental inconsistencies.

Anyone who has raised children past six years old knows this is true and has seen it for themselves.  Sometimes, those inquiring children have a hard time accepting the answers that they are being given.  They might start to present rebuttals that seem to turn into arguments.  Sometimes the adults working with them through this process get frustrated and don't understand why the child is having such a hard time "getting it."

What has transpired here is that the child has developed a worldview that is being challenged.  Their worldview is a complex mess of memories of what they've been told, experiences they've had, and what they've chosen to believe.  Some aspects of their worldview have solidified into perceived truths that may be correct or may not be.  And, when presented with answers to their questions that challenge these perceived truths, they can't just accept the new information.  They have to have it make sense alongside all their other previously stored information.  However, children don't always understand how to go about making sense of their thoughts.  They don't ask the right questions and commonly wear their emotions on their sleeve which may come out as a not-so-very polite tone.  Unfortunately, myself included, parents don't remember all this and start to get frustrated with their children and the way they are handling the conversation.  But, we should all try to understand and relate that these children are demonstrating the emotions that come with having a worldview challenged.  And, unlike well-trained adults, they don't have filters yet that keep their emotions at bay while they perform these mental gymnastics.  I say "well-trained adults" because most adults will behave somewhat like the children I have described here when their worldview is challenged, as well.

*** If you haven't read my last blog, The Power of a Worldview, please do so now.  I think it's pretty important that you start with that knowledge before continuing where I plan on taking you in this blog. ***

It's understandable that we lash out in defense when our worldview is challenged, though.  Our worldview is what we believe to be true and when that "truth" is threatened by new information, our intellectual foundation is literally shaken.  I would highly recommend, however, that you make every effort to suppress your emotions and explore new information given to you for if you are actually harboring incorrect thinking and someone or something comes along that delivers to you truth you most certainly wouldn't want to mindlessly reject it simply because it doesn't align with your believed untruths. Truth doesn't align with untruths.

In the last blog, I teased you with statements including "we've all been lied to"  and "step into the rabbit hole".  I don't apologize for the teasing, though I know it's a literary trick to build suspense.  I'll try to refrain from drawing it out any further and just jump right in with both feet.

If, like me, you've been publicly educated then you've learned some things that have become your intellectual foundation.  They are as follows in no particular order:

The earth is old, somewhere around 4.5 billion years.
All life sprung from a happenstance mixture of chemicals and perhaps lightning?
Life evolved into different complex creatures that evolved further into other complex creatures that evolved... etc.
The earth may be old, but the universe is older.
Natural laws (or physics) dictate all things.
The greenhouse effect is the cause for glacier depletion.


This will likely set off your worldview alarm.  So prepare yourself...

All these things in the list above are not true.

Now, reading a blog may or may not be effective in swaying you into the realm of being able to challenge your worldview.  But, I'm going to try to get you there.  And, you shouldn't be alarmed.  The intellectual gymnastics we are about to do can't hurt you.  You will either decide that I'm wrong and affirm your current worldview which feels pretty good, or you will find that I am on to something truthful at which point you will find yourself on a path to finding an assurance and a hope you've never known.  So, with all fear cast aside and our emotions properly tamed, let's begin.

Uniformitarianism is the belief that the rate at which things happen today is the rate that they have always happened.  It's a belief, not a truth, and it's flawed because it's based of the assumption that the conditions surrounding the thing in question have never changed.  Note that I used the word 'never'.  This suggests inherently that there is also no beginning to the material in question which I've properly stated since uniformitarianism, in addition to not allowing for changing conditions, equally does not allow for a beginning.

Uniformitarianism is a "first principle" of virtually all fields of modern science.  Wikipedia states that a first principle is a "basic, foundational proposition or assumption."  Wikipedia then states a proposition is an "object of belief."  So, don't take just my word for it.  Let it be known that all modern science is based off of assumption and belief, not fact.

Here's the problem.  When you start with an untrue statement as your foundation, you are going to have a terrible time trying to arrive at a truthful one at the end.  Now, it could be argued "it's not an untrue statement, it's a logical assumption."  I would argue back that an assumption can, in fact, be wrong and often is and that it's not logical at all to assume that conditions don't change.  Especially since we can observe in nature that conditions change all the time.

I hear people talk about "science" as if it's all proven fact, above reproach, and unquestionable.  I have seen countless times where people questioning it or challenging it won't even get their argument heard but will instead just receive a barrage of condescending remarks about how stupid they must be.  But, this behavior is simply people refusing to listen to new information and lashing out in defense of their worldview, the worldview they were taught to adopt.

But, what I am here to tell you today is that what we were taught was and is wrong.  It's wrong because it's all based on belief, just as I said earlier and to which Wikipedia attests. It's the belief that the Bible must not be true what it tells us about creation because that would imply that it's true about other things it teaches which tells us that we are not our own and we so desperately want to be our own master of our universe.

Rewind to the 19th century.  The majority of the world believed that God created the world just as it was written in the book of Genesis.  Many cultures that had no access to the Bible even believed that the world was intelligently and supernaturally created.  Atheists were a minority.  Yet, there were some in influential positions.  They were determined to find an alternative explanation to the existence of all matter, one that wouldn't require intelligence nor supernatural actions.  This is called Naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is.  They hashed out their theories to support Naturalism which, as I mentioned before, are all based on belief and assumptions.  Yet, a sinful, selfish populace began to pick it up and adopt these beliefs as their own.  For them, the removal of a God who would judge them for their lusts was a new kind of salvation.  They were saved from damnation not because they were granted pardon, but because they adopted a new worldview that denied the very existence of a God who would pass judgement.

Like I spoke about in my last blog, the trouble with adopting a worldview that is all based on belief and assumption is that there is no true satisfaction, no intellectual contentment.  More troubling, is that if they were right and there was no God and nature was all there is, then there is no hope.  We are all destined to die and everything that happens from womb to tomb is utterly meaningless.

So, in an effort to abate their intellectual discontent and hopelessness, they set out to convince others.  Over the years as their numbers and influence grew, they wrote books about it, published studies about it, added it to school textbooks, inserted it into children's books, made movies about it, produced television shows about it, etc.  They pronounced themselves as the authority on the subject.  And because it was just the alternative that a people whose ears enjoyed tickling wanted to hear, it spread until the theories, while completely unsubstantiated in truth, infiltrated the minds of generations.  See, you can act like something is true, talk about it as if it's true, refer to to it as a fact, and use it as a basis for other untrue statements all day long, but none of that makes it true.  However, it may make it be adopted as truth in the minds of the people listening.

Now, as one of the minority who believes the Bible over the beliefs of atheists concerning this subject, I say to you that:

The earth is roughly 6,000 years old.
All life sprung from the Word of God.
Just as they were told to do, all kinds of life reproduced according to its kind.
The earth and all known matter were made during a 6-day period.
God wrote the natural laws that dictate all things, but remains supernatural and can act as such.
Glacier depletion has been happening since the global flood roughly 4,000 years ago.

Long before the popularity of naturalism, we were told in clear and plain language about the truth of how all things came about.  God began his Word to us in the first book of the Bible with this foundational knowledge because He knew we needed a proper platform from which to build our understanding of Him.  Popular modern thinking tries to rewrite this account.  Christians who have this worldview try desperately to marry the two, yet it cannot be done.  God wants us to understand.  He is not a God who purposefully misdirects us.  He says "seek and you shall find."  He made it very clear in His Word and all creation attests to His glory and the reality of a Creator.  I am convinced that if you set out to justify a godless existence, you will find just that.  I am equally convinced that the opposite is true.  For that which we seek, we find.  That is our choice.  It is our freedom.  He does not force our love.  And, He makes His readily available to us if we would only seek it.

I can't write a blog long enough to cover every question that you might have. I certainly can't list out all the reasons I believe that the above statements are true.  So, I would like to open up the comment section below for discussion.  Comments can be made anonymous if you would like.  These blogs stay posted indefinitely so feel free to comment if you have a question about anything that I have said here regardless of how old this post is.  I welcome opposing arguments.  But, stay polite, please.  Rude behavior won't be tolerated regardless of its position.

P.S.  I just had a great idea, though.  I think that I'll write individual blogs explaining why my 6 statements are true over the course of the next few weeks.  So, if you would rather wait and read those than comment here, I commend you for your patience.  But, please don't let me discourage you from commenting here if you'd rather get a conversation started.  I love this topic and am excited to find out more about it through talking with others.

Photo credit to http://www.dailymail.co.uk

The Power of a Worldview

world·view
wÉ™rldˈvyo͞o/
noun
 a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.


In recent years, I've seen the word 'worldview' pop up a lot in books that I've read.  I thought that I understood the word and its definition, but now I'm certain that I didn't fully get it.  To be fair, short and sweet definitions like the one above didn't help me to grasp the importance or power of a worldview.

Think about it this way.  When you are presented new information, whatever it be, your brain quickly references other information previously stored that pertains to the new and crosschecks it to make sure that the new information makes sense and is true.  The more applicable previously stored information you have available to reference, the quicker your brain can let you know whether the new information you are receiving is worth considering or if you should put up your intellectual guard.  This is all done in a flash.  For example, if your coworker passively mentioned to you that the Big Mac he was eating for lunch cost him $104, you would immediately know that that cannot be true based off of all your personal experience.  He would see the look on your face change almost as quickly (our facial muscles aren't quite as fast as our gray matter) and then he would clarify that he got a $100 speeding ticket on the way back from McDonald's.  You would then release the facial expression you were holding throughout your coworker's explanation and probably say something like, "Oh, now I see."

What happened in my example was that your brain would not accept your coworker's statement as being true.  You knew that Big Macs cost somewhere around $4 or less and you knew that your coworker wasn't a complete fool to have paid McDonald's $104 for one.  Your brain rightly alerted you that something wasn't right with the new information that was being given to you.

We all do the exact same thing all the time with all new information given to us.  We can't help it.  It's how we are made.  We are logical beings.  And, because we all have a different set of experiences, we all react differently to different information.  Similar experiences likely draw similar reactions.

Now, where it gets interesting is that most of us have been led to believe by our homogenized public education that we can be objective observers if we choose to be.  We think that to look at something scientifically is to look at it objectively.  I would wholly disagree with that based off of what I have already discussed here so far.  There is no such thing as a human being being objective while taking in new information.  Our brains simply do not operate that way.  We can no more choose to be objective than we can choose to refrain from digesting our eaten lunch.

Our worldview is our collective experience boiled down to our decided beliefs.  All new information is crosschecked by our worldview.  It may be better thought of as a set of filters on our mind.  Our worldview is strengthened and made more mentally valid the more experiences we have that validate it.  Right or wrong, our worldview dictates to us what information may be considered and processed and what information isn't worth considering or processing.

A definition for 'worldview' is probably better understood when given the synonym 'bias'.  Interestingly enough, thesaurus.com doesn't agree with me that bias is a synonym for worldview.  They have similar, and somewhat overlapping, synonym lists but they aren't given as synonyms for each other.  However, I feel they should be.  Our worldviews are not at all easily changed or adapted.  People may change their minds on fringe issues, but a change of worldview is totally life-altering.  Because, it's the foundation of all our other beliefs.  It's the filter to everything we have allowed ourselves to consider.  It's the core beliefs that we hold that are the cornerstone to our intellectual identities.

Even when we force ourselves to consider something that our worldview does not allow, all of our considerations are bent by our worldview.  Our worldview becomes a master over our mind and we are its slave.  That's not to say that we can't revolt.  We can.  But, it's nothing short of momentous when that happens.  It's most certainly not an often occurrence.  Quite the opposite, we rely on our worldview to help us understand our lives and the world around us.  It can be a good relationship between your worldview and yourself, but all too often it resembles more of an unhealthy codependency.  You need the reassurance of your worldview that simultaneously requires you to be its crutch supporting it with newly found evidences that support its decided truths.  Of course, when you're out to find evidence to support what you've already decided to be true, you will find evidence.  But, evidence doesn't make something true.  Evidence in itself requires interpretation.  Interpretation is done by individuals.  And, as we've discussed at length so far, individuals are flawed and have deeply ingrained set limitations on where they will allow the evidence to take them.  Their worldview is that hall monitor with tyrannical power.

All that said, I plan on writing a blog this week for which I know most people's worldview will discard it to the spam folder.  I know that you cannot read this blog objectively.  Your brain will make judgements throughout the text.  But, I challenge you to keep reading it anyway.  I challenge you to consider the information against the advice of your worldview.  You may be asking why I would want you to read it or why there would be any benefit to you to read it.  It's because I think we were all lied to.  I think that we were all fed information throughout our entire formative years that was specifically designed to create a worldview in us that would filter out the truth.  I believe that correcting this implanted aspect of our worldview is crucial to being able to accept and retain the truth of this world.  But, I'll warn you.  It's not for the faint of mind.  Having your worldview challenged isn't exactly a picnic, unless you go the route of intellectual self-protection and dismiss the challenge.  If, on the other hand, you resist the urge to dismiss and you instead step into the rabbit hole to see how deep it goes, I believe that you will find a new ability to step free of the binds with which your worldview has held you captive.  I believe that freedom will lead you to finding a much more satisfying worldview, one that allows for hope and a greater logical understanding of our world.

Don't Believe The Lies

I went to read at lunch today which is not uncommon at all, but got sidetracked very quickly with one of the first points the author was making.  I had never previously considered this point so my mind started reeling with the consequences of it.  I couldn't just keep reading.  I felt a blog coming on.

The book I am reading is The Good Life by Trip Lee.  It's a tiny little book, but so far has been pretty good.  Any book that has truth in it and shines light on areas to help me develop true theology is a good one.  And, while the book may be physically small, it has had some huge insight for which I will be eternally grateful.

Trip Lee states in Chapter 4, "He (Jesus) didn't believe lies like you and me, but He lived in light of the truth."  In a cursory reading, I may have missed this little gem.  And, perhaps, it doesn't stand out to you because you've always known this.  But, for me, I never considered it.

We all know that Jesus spoke the truth.  I mean, He was IS the truth.  What I hadn't thought about was that He didn't believe the lies.  He never believed any lie.  Let that sink in for a second.

See, we all believe lies.  We get told lies ... we believe them ... we find out that they are lies ... and we stop believing them.  That's best case scenario.  Most often, perhaps because of pride, we would rather hold onto the lie and go on believing that we weren't dense enough to get fooled in the first place.  We doubt the truth when we hear it.  We test it extensively and demand proofs, when in reality we never asked for this kind of evidence when we initially accepted the lie.  We're being inconsistent to protect our pride.  That's terrible, but it's not worst case scenario.

Worst case scenario, is that we are so fearful of being shown our folly that we not only deny the truth when it gets presented to us, but we set out to preach the lie and make converts to appease our insecurity in the lie we're protecting.  We demean and slander those who present us the truth, anything to make the lie we believe more believable.

Jesus, though, didn't believe lies.  He didn't accept untruths and later have to unlearn them, like us.  I don't know what that would be like.  None of us do, I guess.  However, He is, indeed, truth.  And, the more we know Him, the more we know truth.

I'm thankful for the truth I know and can stand on.  It doesn't promise to grant me notoriety, riches, or fame.  But, it has inherent hope.  Hope for a future.  I'm thankful that I have been presented this truth through grace.  Since, I know I didn't earn it.

I'm Not Color Blind

You:  "Wait.  Didn't you just write a blog back in November stating that you were color blind?"

Me:  "Yup."

You:  And, now, you're saying that you're not?"

Me:  "Yup."

You:  "Explain."

Me:  "Glad to."

I'm surprised that I actually let that negative statement slip out of my mouth in the first place.  It's amazing what curses we put on ourselves out of habit, really.  I've been saying it most of my life actually.  But, I've decided to change all that going forward for two reasons.

First of all, I believe that our words have power beyond what we know and that they change things that we cannot see.  The Bible mentions the power of words a lot.  They not only destroy and cause damage but build up and bring healing.  Matthew 12:36 explains that we'll all be held accountable for all the words that we speak in our lifetime.  If they were inconsequential then there would be no need to be held accountable for them.  Now, don't let this get you down.  In case, like me, you've let your mouth run around unbridled in the past, there are such things as salvation, grace, and forgiveness that God freely offers, as well.  Thank God for that.  It's all very clear that we are in certain need of it.

That said, I'm no longer going to curse myself by claiming color blindness.  Instead, I'm claiming the truth.  I don't see black and white.  I never have.  I see colors just fine.  Now, in the past, I have struggled with certain colors on the spectrum.  However, I believe that I am being healed of that, which brings me to my second reason.

About a month ago, Jodi attended a conference at our church that was about healing and activating people to pray for strangers for physical healing.  I had just written the aforementioned blog the week prior to this conference taking place.  I had taken the color-blindness test twice that I linked to on that blog and both times had received the result: Strong Protan.

Fast forward to Jodi coming home from the conference and praying for my eyes.  She had me take the test again and I received the result: Medium Protan.  That's an improvement!  So she prayed again.  She had me retake the test.  I received the result: Mild Protan.  Boom!  Another level of improvement!  We repeated this 5 or 6 more times and I continued to receive Mild Protan as the result every time.

So, I may not be completely healed, yet.  But, what I have accepted to believe is that God was showing me something even more important than a specific color wavelength.  He was showing me that He has the power to heal, that He wants to heal, AND that He wants to reinforce the truth in me that He has given us a level of verbal power, as well.  I feel like He didn't completely heal me because He's also given me the charge to heal myself and others.

I've claimed color blindness for three decades  30 years, I've been using that God-given power incorrectly.  No more.  I'm not color blind.

Christmas (A Celebration of the Creator)

It floors me that I grew up in church, here in the "Bible Belt" even, and somehow never put it together that Jesus was around for Creation Week.  Perhaps, I was just a bad listener back in the days of Bible School?  I'm not sure.  At any rate, I've come to realize the truth of Colossians 1:16.
For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him.
With Christmas only days away, I thought it only appropriate to have a Christ-centered blog to write.  I think that most of my confusion on the eternal Jesus started with my understanding of Christmas being the birth of Jesus.  Naturally, I treated His birth as being His beginning.  But, scripture shows that this was not so.  John 1:1 puts it this way.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
So, Jesus created the earth and everything in it.  The Holy Trinity is definitely a little difficult for us to understand at times.  This verse says three things:
  1. Jesus was in the beginning already.
  2. Jesus was with God.  (in other words: distinct from, yet connected to)
  3. Jesus is God.
This blows our little finite minds.  But, this is a pillar of Christian (and Biblical) theology.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same God yet distinct from one another.  1+1+1=1 in this case.

Recently, I saw this article on Google News.  There's been a lot of speculation about life on Mars in the scientific community and all sorts of things are being tossed around as possibilities.  This article tried to summarize what the scientists all agree upon.  I don't know if you can make out the text in the photo but is says this:


For lifeless chemical compounds to organize themselves into something alive, scientists generally agree, three sets of things must be present.
■ Standing water and an energy source.
■ Five basic elements: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus and nitrogen.
■ And time, lots of time.
I would like to point out that which has been pointed out by many already and yet is still not very well known.  Invoking "lots of time" as a supposed catalyst for creating life is transferring Creation from God to a mindless randomness.  It is, in essence, creating a new god.  Because, to believe time and chance created all we know, is done so with faith, faith in time and chance.  It robs the true and only God of Creation of the glory that only He deserves.

What I find ridiculous is that anyone with any amount of education could so easily fall for the illusion that time is a solution to bettering one's chances. 
A simplified model can make the somewhat difficult model easier to understand, so I'll give you a simple one.  Suppose there are three overturned cups like in the photo to the right and I put a coin under one of them.  I ask you to choose one.  Obviously, you have a 1 in 3 chance in choosing the one with the coin.  Suppose you got it wrong.  Then, without changing anything, I ask you to choose again.  Now, your chances have become better because, as an intelligent being, you won't pick the same cup you did previously.  Thus, you will have increased your chances of choosing the cup hiding the coin to 1 in 2.

Notice that this model has a requirement of an intelligence being present in order to have an increase in the odds of success.  If the exact same scenario ensued, but I made you turn around while I rearranged the cups after you initially got it wrong, then your odds would remain 1 in 3 regardless of how many times we repeated the exercise.

Now, with 1 in 3 odds, it is likely that sooner or later you'll pick the correct one.  But, that doesn't transfer to impossible odds.  This is where people get confused.  If your chances are 1 in a million, and those chances never get any better, it's a very safe bet that you'll never get it right regardless of the amount of time you dedicate to trying.

Scientists that propose time does in fact help the chances of life creating itself, have to first propose that there is a chance that it could happen in the first place.  In 1953, the Miller-Urey experiment attempted to prove the possibility and they failed.  With all the advances we've made since then, it's still not ever been shown that life could be created by time and chance.  Yet, articles like this one show that somehow, despite all knowledge and logic, the scientific community still insists that it is a possibility.  Why?  Because, all of their models are based on the assumption that it is.  And, wouldn't that turn out to be a foolish waste of resources?

The author of the article makes it known that "scientists generally agree" that "time, lots of time" can replace intelligence in the equation.  Furthermore, all involved assume that water, an energy source, and a list of some basic elements all happened to exist in a suitable environment just to start this impossible scenario.  They don't even bother to try to explain where the elements originated, how they were organized or why they adhere to natural laws of molecular structure.  For that matter, where did the laws of nature originate?  Can laws of physics organize themselves?

Attempting to create origin models without God the Creator only leaves one having to build models on assumptions that defy all known logic.  Make no mistake.  God the Father created all things through Jesus Christ.  So, this Christmas, celebrate Jesus who not only was born in a manger, not only died on a cross, not only substituted himself for all of our shortcomings so that we could be reconciled to the Father, but also created you, the earth, and everything in it.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More