Like-Minded

The other day my dad made a post on his blog that was then reposted by an opponent on an atheistic forum. One of the comments on that forum, and one I’ve heard many times over, is that the blog post was just Christians affirming each other that atheists are wrong. They talk like it is wrong for people of like minds to come together and agree with each other…oh wait, the entire purpose of that forum is for like minds to agree with each other. My question is, why is alright for one party to slap each other on the back and say good job, but another party is wrong, ignorant, stupid, hateful to do the same? Not a single one of the forum poster’s asked for the address of the blog so that they could go there and talk directly to the blogger, they all just agreed with each other how horrible this Christian is.

Anyone that doesn’t regularly confer with like-minded individuals is a fool. 

Homosexuality - Bad For Males

I was watching an older movie the other day that portrayed two men who were extremely close. I mean really, really close. So close, that if they had been seen on the streets today everyone would assume they were gay. It got me thinking, homosexuality is alienating men. Granted, the symptoms began earlier, but homosexuality has closed the deal. Guys today cannot be as close to each other as women can. They even make jokes about it in sitcoms. Two guys that are as close to each other as their girlfriends/wives are assumed to be gay. And through our new lens of “close guys are gay” beloved heroes have been tainted. Growing up, I enjoyed reading my Hardy Boys. I have since heard it suggested that they were gay. The Bible speaks of the love David and Jonathan had for each other…gay.

This is a detriment to men. We are losing out on an important relationship. Being intimate with our spouse is an excellent thing, but there is something a male “brother” can provide that no wife can. Nobody can deny that men and women think differently, and men need that male input, that camaraderie, that support. While it is still possible to get some of that, the intensity of it is dampened by the new view that intimate men are gay. Now I see older movies with two guys as close as brothers and think, “That would be a nice thing to have”, and then, “If this were made today, those two would be gay” and I shake my head.

I bet you, if Jesus and His disciples were to walk down the street today, they’d be assumed to be gay. I know that the male relationship took its turn over time as it became unmanly to express emotions, but homosexuality has pushed in an even larger wedge between the bonding of men. 

Open Mind

I recently had a debate with someone that said something to me that has been said before, “You just don’t get it because you don’t have an open mind” and that, “You are only questioning this because you don’t have an open mind.” What I didn’t get doesn’t matter at this point. My concern is about the “open mind” bit. Apparently, being unwilling to change my worldview because someone else said I was wrong means I have a closed mind. Apparently, questioning something in opposition to your beliefs is a sign of a closed mind.

I submit, if you were to truly have an open mind as some would like you to have, then you would follow anything anyone says and would not be capable of self-expression or able to contribute anything to society.

I will admit, I am pretty staunchly grounded in my beliefs. It takes a lot of hard work to make me change them. However, there is a difference between a closed mind and a guarded mind. I don’t believe what I believe because my mommy and daddy told me so. I grew up wanting to know why. I still want to know why. Why does this happen? How does this work? I believe understanding the why and how make for a firmer foundation than “X” said so.

You can believe what you want, but just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean my mind is closed. I honestly cannot see how having an open mind is in any way beneficial.

Compelling Arguments

Recently, one of the blogs I follow wrote about “compelling arguments”. The gist of the post was that one person or party would make an argument using facts, ration, and logic, and the opposing person or party would just say “No” and not present any meaningful opposition. At the end he stated, “You know, I really begin to wonder exactly what a ‘compelling argument’ really looks like.” I sarcastically left the comment that we see “compelling arguments” all the time, in the form of emotionally driven arguments. He then proceeded to contradict me (just go read the post and you’ll get it).

Originally I thought his response was serious, and so it got me thinking. How do you define a compelling argument? From one point of view, a compelling argument would appear one way, and from the opposite point of view, it would appear a different way. From the point of view of a person wanting an argument (as opposed to just automatic gainsaying), the most compelling argument would be factual, logical, reasonable, and consistent. As long as both sides are using reason and truth to debate, they should both have compelling arguments. On the other hand, if you view the argument from the result, rather than the content, then a compelling argument is merely the argument that causes change. The former is harder to see and is not often thought of because when we think of “compelling” we often think of the outcome, not the substance. The latter may not be based on logic, reason, or truth, but because it was the more emotional, it compelled people to side with it. Both lead to a change, ideally, but one looks at the content, and one looks at the result.

My suggestion would to not define a compelling argument based on its result. Emotions are fickle beasts, swaying with the tide. Truth, reason, and consistency will hold out in the long haul. That is why Christianity has survived as long as it has and remained true to its origins. 

Eternality

Eternality is a difficult concept to truly wrap one’s head around. We are bound by time. We have a beginning, we travel along the course of time, and we have an end, sort of. Biblically we are everlasting, we have a beginning, but no end, but we are still bound by time. After Christ’s return time will have less significance, but we will still travel through it.

But God is eternal. He had no beginning, has no end, and is not bound by time. As time-locked beings, this is truly difficult to really understand. We can grasp the concept, but we must continually remind ourselves that it is beyond us. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have always existed. Jesus was there in eternity with the Father. So, to ask when Jesus came on the scene, I mean, He didn’t need a body before creation…and that’s where we see our understanding of eternal break down. For Him, there was no “before creation”. God wasn’t floating along through nothingness and decided to come up with this idea of creation. There was no time for Him. As beings that can only understand time, we often get confused by “no time”.

His eternality is just one of the many attributes that are just so foreign to us that we can’t fully comprehend. We can kind of grasp everlasting, it still has a time component, but eternal is like trying to explain the vastness of the universe to an ant. Don’t let yourself get fooled when someone asks what Jesus and the Holy Spirit did before creation; for them, there was no before creation.

Innovation?

What has happened to innovation? We seem to have hit a plateau when it comes to innovation. Sure, we still have new inventions coming around, but those tend to be rehashings of what we already have. In 1903, fixed-wing, self-propelled flight was obtained. Sixty-six years later we were able to put men on the moon. The imagination of those times thought we’d all be in flying cars, or have jetpacks, or be exploring space with manned missions by now. Forty-four years after the moon, and we have faster planes and faster cars, but we’re still burning fossil fuels, NASA is all but shut down, and computers are more sophisticated. We’ve basically been working on improving the wheel all this time.

Are we merely in a lull, or is this it? Scientists and science fictionists tell us that one day we’ll explore the stars, colonize other planets, and leave our solar system. They tell us we need to do this before we exhaust the Earth. Honestly, I don’t see us reaching beyond the moon in my lifetime. It is going to take innovators like the men and women of 150 years ago. We need people that are going to dream big and make it happen. Personally I see us going the way of the movie Idiocracy. People seem to be becoming dumbed down. Entertainment seems to be the driving force behind people’s actions. Even a cursory glance at Twitter or Facebook will show how rampant stupidity is. Common knowledge, history, grammar, and even current events seem to be a mystery.

I unfortunately didn’t figure out until after high school that I enjoy learning. History has become interesting to me. Higher math could be of more use at times. Science is fascinating. Where was that eagerness when my only responsibility was to learn? I look around and see kids not caring about learning, but about hanging out with their friends or just doing nothing.

They say we’ll make it to the stars, but we’ll be lucky to make it another 50 years unless something changes. 

A Revelation In Revelation

I am currently making my way through Revelation. I was reticent because of all the imagery and prophecy, but according to John, it is just as important as the rest of Scripture. After working through the letters to the churches, John is shown a vision of the throne room. Aside from the 24 elders, it is quite similar to the account in Ezekiel except that it seems to be from a different perspective. In Ezekiel it seems to be looking up toward the throne, while John seems to be level with the throne.

There are two things that struck me while reading the two accounts. One is that there is a separation between the four angels and God, but the elders are around God. This seems to indicate a place of authority of believers over even the angels. The second realization was what the four angels represent. They appear as a man, lion, ox, and eagle, and they worship God for all eternity. The notes in my Bible indicate they represent the “kings” of their field, lions over the wild animals, oxen over the domesticated animals, and eagles over the birds, and of course man over creation. I was trying to understand, “Why four animals as angels?” Then it hit me; all of creation glorifies God. Not just Man, but all the animals as well. All of creation is the manifestation of His glory, and all of it must worship Him.

A sub-note that I realized while writing this, believers will have a position not only above angels, but also above non-believers. However, even believers will bow before God and praise Him, acknowledging that even their righteousness comes from Him. It seems that when the Bible says that, “…every knee will bow and every tongue confess…”, it is not only in reference to human knees and tongues, but all creation.

Reasonable Faith

Somehow, faith has become a bad word these days. Somehow, faith has been divorced from logic these days. Somehow, faith rules the heart but reason rules the mind these days. When did this happen?

It used to be that faith and reason walked hand in hand. Faith led to scientific discovery. Faith formed nations. Faith changed people. Faith without reason was fantasy. Not so today. Somewhere during the Renaissance, faith left its rational roots and became some sort of hocus pocus.

Earlier I said that I grew up in a Christian home. My faith defines me, but my faith is not irrational. My faith must remain consistent with reason otherwise it is fancy. If my faith were not rational, I would be a fool for holding to it. Faith without reason leads to all sorts of craziness. My faith is so rational that without it, my world would crumble. If my faith proved false (not the logical order) then my faith would be useless, and I would be the most pitiful fool. Anyone that holds to irrational faith is just asking for ridicule. Apologetics is all about the reason for faith. Yes, faith has a supernatural quality to it, but if it doesn’t make sense it will guide you to places you shouldn’t go. Be ready to give reason for your faith, not to defend it against others to convince them, but to keep it steady in your life.

Totally Biased

I grew up in a Christian home, with Christian parents, with Christian stories. I accepted Christ at a young age. I have been a Christian for about twenty-four years. So I must admit bias. But is that bias wrong? Is it wrong to be biased? How would we function if we weren’t biased?

We all have our biases. They are part of our worldview. Some biases are harmful, to us and to others, while some are neutral, and others are helpful. Without them it would be difficult to comprehend our world. Unfortunately, in terms of spirituality, it seems Christian biases are the only ones perceived as bad. An Atheist is biased against God, so any evidence presented that indicates God would be immediately dismissed, and this would be a good thing. A Christian with the bias that human life is sacred and thus abortion is wrong? Oh, you silly Christians, we know better now.

You and I cannot function without our biases. Biases should only become wrong when they prevent us from accepting the truth. But our biases must be rational. They help us to weed out bad information or faulty logic. They keep us from blowing on the wind of every new idea. Without them, we would not have the technology we have today. They guide us in our daily lives as our default mode of thinking. They can lead to stagnation, true enough, but without them we cannot progress. Hold to your biases, but not so tightly that you shut your eyes to everything else. Compare the new ideas to your bias, and if they make more sense, make new biases. 

Jesus, One Among Many

There are many out there that claim that Jesus is just one savior among a host of other saviors. There are many cultures before Jesus’ time that had similar persons that showed up claiming deity, being born of a virgin, having disciples, performing miracles, and saving mankind. Admittedly, I had never heard about these others until I started looking into the opposition, so I was a little taken aback at first.

Then I engaged my brain. How many of those “saviors” fulfilled over 200 prophecies written as much as a millennium before His arrival? How many have changed the lives of millions of people? How many started a religion that has lasted over 2000 years?

The logical train of thought would be that, if He were just one among many, He should have followed suit along with them. What makes Him different, beyond the Christian belief that He was God? For one, He was real. Many of the “saviors” were merely mythical, stories told as tales. He was a real person in time. For another, He was consistent. He preached the same message from the beginning of His ministry until His ascension into Heaven. I’m sure there are a few more, but these are sufficient for my point.

When you come down to it though, He is the one true Savior because He has stood the test of time. From an earthly perspective, that just does not make any sense. He should have followed in the footsteps of His predecessors, but He did not. Ultimately, the reason He hasn’t faded into the obscurity of history and myth is because the Holy Spirit is active in keeping His followers true. Without some sort of external force, Jesus would have been a footnote in the history of failed religions. He is singular in His ministry, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension. He is the Lord on high, and in the end, EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that He is Lord and Savior.

Jesus The Madman

The argument is out there that Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. Rationally, He could only be Lord or lunatic. Most people lie to improve their lot or the lot of others. It would be irrational for Jesus to maintain the lie while in front of the High Priests, or even further in the court of Pilate. At that point, any sane person would hold up their hands and recant. So, either He was God as He claimed, or He was insane.

Opponents to Christianity like to claim He wasn’t a real person, but that has been refuted time and again. The next claim is that He wasn’t God. He was a moral teacher, or a good person, but certainly not God. But if He wasn’t God, in what sense could He be seen as a moral teacher? If He was so insane as to go to His death on the claim that He was God (make no mistake, He made that claim clearly and repeatedly), how could we possibly look on Him as any source for moral life? He was INSANE! We don’t look to the crazy people for Truth.

I recently read in a book (Evidence That Demands A Verdict) about how He could not be a liar because of how consistent He was. I have more to read on His lunacy, but I imagine the argument could be made equally well as applied to His insanity. From beginning to end, Jesus was calm, cool, rational, loving, coherent, and consistent (barring His two clearings of the temple). It would be extremely difficult for someone concocting this illusion to remain as consistent as Jesus was during His ministry. It would be nigh impossible for a lunatic to do what Jesus did. Insane people that believe themselves to be God do not maintain such an even personality.

Finally, Jesus made the claim that He was God repeatedly and clearly, so clearly that the Jews were always trying to stone Him for His blasphemy. Either you believe His claim and follow Him, or you don’t believe Him and ignore His teachings. You cannot do a little of both and be consistent or rational. To believe He was just a man with good lessons would be a horrible position to take.

Punishments of Sin

One of the arguments against Christians is that we claim that the Bible is God’s Word, and yet we don’t follow all of it. Most often it is in reference to the Old Testament, and even more often the punishments are pointed out. Children stoned for disobedience, adulterers stoned, and so on. Often those in the debate are put on their heels when someone brings up the Old Testament punishments. I don’t see a problem with believing that the Moral Law still holds while the punishment for disobeying that Law doesn’t. We do it all the time even today in America. It used to be that the punishment for premeditated murder was death. Over time we have changed the punishment for murder, but we haven’t changed the belief that murder is wrong.

That is the exact teaching of Scripture to Christians about the Law. We are no longer held under the punishments of the Law, but we are still held to the morality of the Law. It is still a sin to disobey your parents, or to commit adultery, or to have sex outside of marriage, or to have homosexual sex. The fact that we no longer hold the same punishments for those sins doesn’t mean they are no longer sins. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not remove it. Without the Law, it becomes difficult to delineate right and wrong. We can see that clearly in our society today. We want to redefine right and wrong so that we can do what we want to do. The Law says that homosexual activity is a sin, but since there are those among us that want to participate in homosexual activity, we must redefine the Law, and since we no longer punish homosexuals with death, then it must be alright, right?

Don’t let the world fool you. What God considered sin 5,000 years ago He still considers sin today. The fact that the earthly punishment for those sins has changed doesn’t diminish the fact that they are still sins. Ultimately, the punishment has remained the same for all sins for all time, “The wages of sin is death.” Temporally, punishments shift, but the sin remains sin.

Opposition With My Allies

I often find myself confounded by the things people say they believe. A famous atheist said that he would believe aliens deposited life on Earth before he’ll believe God did. Really? And the fact that that still doesn’t answer the question about the origins of life doesn’t faze you? While I can’t see this as a reasonable statement, it would be consistent with an atheistic view. The ones that really irk me are more often the beliefs professed by Christians, and I think rightfully so. Nobody likes to see their personal belief system maligned by others, and it is especially worse when the insulter is on your side.

I may balk at the claims made by my opponents, but I must cringe and shake my head when my abettors say things completely antithetical to our side. When Christians rally with signs and shouts of “God hates gays”, I must cringe. That is hateful speech, not loving, and is completely unbiblical. But the ones that really get to me are the ones that clearly contradict Scripture. I once heard a widely respected pastor tell a woman that she did not need to love her husband if he didn’t love and respect her. That one made me scream at the heresy. Scripture in fact tells the complete opposite, love your spouse no matter what they do. Or how about the claim that God refuses to directly interfere with the thoughts and actions of people? It is foolish for a Christian to hold this position because Scripture clearly teaches and shows examples of God directly interfering with people’s thoughts and actions, and nevermind the fact that it is in opposition to the Sovereignty of God. And the list goes on.

Unfortunately, this is a sad outcome of the wide “popularity” of Christianity. I’ve heard claims that the United States is made up of as much as 85% Christians. That number seems absurdly high to me, seeing as how Christians are being attacked on so many fronts. My concern in all this is consistency. I would rather debate someone who I disagree with vehemently who is consistent than be sided with someone I agree with who is inconsistent. 

Why Must The Bible Be Historically Accurate?

In my study of the opposition, this question has come up repeatedly. Honestly, the question answers itself, but that would require thinking about the implications of the question. Why does it matter if the Bible is accurate? The implied statement is, the Bible is a religious document just like any other. And that is the answer to the question. If the Bible is not accurate, it is merely myth book, or a morality play, not the inspired Word of God and holds no more authority than any other religious text.

“But it still holds good ways to live among others,” is often the response of Christians that don’t hold to an accurate Bible. Unfortunately, they aren’t thinking this through. It becomes merely a social gospel without authority. Christianity is based on the authoritative teachings of Christ. We must believe that Christ is who He claimed to be, and if the Bible isn’t accurate, how can we believe the words He said? If the Bible is not accurate historically, it moves out of the realm of inspired Word of God, and into the realm of conglomeration of writings by several human authors trying to teach a lesson.

People try to remove the authority of Scripture because they know it claims that authority. They also know that without that authority, it is no more important to live by than any other religious text. Sure, it has good social teachings, but so do many others, but they are no more authoritative than this blog. Without the morality given by God through His Word, morality becomes fluid and only conditional on the culture’s definition of what is moral. Hold to the accuracy of Scripture, because without it, we are the most pitiful people.

Assumption Isn't Evil

Why can’t the ideas of Creationists even be debated? As I posited earlier, Creation and Evolution diverge initially on the point of origin. Neither origin can be proven. So, because that is out of the way, why can’t the interpretation of data by Creationists even be considered? Just because they have God as their starting point doesn’t mean they can’t see the intricacies of life, the universe, and everything. The founding fathers of modern science believed that the universe could be studied BECAUSE there was a Designer.

Beyond that, Evolutionists turn up their noses at Creationists. There are scientists out there that believe in a Creator and Creation, and have looked at the same data that Evolutionists look at, and come to a different conclusion. My understanding of the scientific community would be that differing ideas would be welcome. It helps to promote growth and research. Unless of course, you’re a Creationist. Then you are a simpleton not worthy of serious discussion. There are plenty of scientific ideas coming from the Creationist camp that are not, “God said so” or “God did this”. But those ideas are ignored because they come from a different worldview than Evolutionists.

One final problem, Creationists are accused of making assumptions as if that is a bad thing. As if assumptions are not allowed in scientific inquiry. Evolutionists must necessarily also make assumptions. For things that are not currently verifiable, assumptions must be made. The Big Bang, steady decay, and evolutionary natural selection are all examples of assumptions made by Evolutionists that cannot be verified. Assumptions are impossible to avoid in this debate. But just because one scientist doesn’t agree with the assumptions of another scientist doesn’t mean one is more right than the other because of that assumption. As long as the conclusion is rational based off that assumption, why can’t we discuss conclusions based off opposing assumptions?

Why Genesis?

Why is the Genesis account of the beginning so important? Why do Creationists cling so tightly to something that reads like any other origins myth? What does it matter, what do we lose? There are believers that have crossed over to the “other side” and made allowances for Evolution in many forms as they try to make Scripture and Science agree. Why not join the rational, reasonable, smart people?

I’ll tell you. We lose the entire meaning of Christianity. Take away Adam and Eve, take away Eden, take away the Fall, and you take away the purpose of Christ. If we have not offended the Creator, if we have not committed treason against our Maker, as an Evolutionary view would promote in any form you give it, then Christ’s work on earth was in vain. Why would God send His Son to die for sin, if there was no sin to die for? Without the Fall, the Bible is just another book of morality tales, has no more authority than “Where The Wild Things Are”, and serves no more purpose than to restrict our enjoyment of the fun things in life. Without the Fall, there can be no Christ.

            “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the

            transgression of Adam, who was a type of the One who was to come.” Romans 5:14

“For as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” 1 Cor. 15:22

Anyone who is willing to remove Adam as the father of humanity must logically remove Christ as the father of Christians. To try to hold onto Christ without Adam is a practice of futility and makes us that much more foolish. Just as we are to be most pitied if the resurrection never happened, so we must be most pitied if Adam never happened.

Secondly, we believe in a God who has revealed Himself to us in His word. If that word proves to be inaccurate, how can we believe any of it? In all honesty, if it wasn’t inspired by God, then it is merely a collection of writings by some 60-odd authors over about 2000 years.

The argument that mankind couldn’t have understood Evolution at that time is bogus. In Abraham, we have a man willing to sacrifice his promised son on the word of the Lord. If a father could believe God in that, why could he not believe God when He describes the beginning? Biblically, God has proven Himself to be honest. If the Creation account is not true, God proves Himself to be dishonest, and none of it can be relied upon as a guide for faith and truth.

Remove Adam, remove the Fall, remove the narrative of Creation, and Christianity falls apart. As Douglas Adams said, “God disappeared in a puff of logic.” The theology of Christianity only holds together if Scripture proves true. Otherwise it is all myth and legend and is only good as morality tales. The way we perceive reality should not be based on the teachings of the Bible if the Bible isn’t true.

Keep On Point

I recently watched a video titled “Top Ten Creationist Arguments” on YouTube. It was an Evolutionists simple refutation of Creationist arguments. Again, I like to hear the opposition, but some of the items he listed as “Creationist Arguments” didn’t make sense in the context of Creation Vs. Evolution.

One was that Atheism is a religion. While I agree that Atheism is in fact a form of religion (see my earlier definition of “religion”), that debate has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution or Creation. Anyone that would claim it is, isn’t paying attention to the debate and is trying to insert a red herring.

Another was that America was founded as a Christian Nation. Again, this has nothing to do with Evolution or Creation. While I agree that America was not founded as a Christian Nation, the laws that were made and the reasons given for the succession of the Americas from England were distinctly Judeo-Christian in origin. But again, in reference to Evolution or Creation, that is neither here nor there. It is yet another red herring, by either side.

Finally, Hitler was an Atheist. Yet again, what does this have to do with Creation or Evolution? Internally, Hitler may have been an Atheist, I’ve never met the man or read any of his personal journals, but publicly he was Catholic. Obviously his actions prove his belief to be false or flawed, but Hitler’s religion has absolutely nothing to do with Creation or Evolution.

The other seven points listed in the video were more or less on point. The refutations given were short, but then the argument bullet points were short too, often one or two words. The format given is difficult for either side to make a reasoned argument, one of the disadvantages of technology. 

Jesus Never Existed

This is yet another example of bad arguments. People these days claim that Jesus Christ never existed. He is merely a story from a storybook. He never existed. I find this argument as ridiculous as the argument I presented earlier about us evolving from chimps. The question of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth has been posited and answered over and over for the last 2000 plus years.

Any scholar, secular or Christian or any other religion, will tell you that Jesus was a real person who lived pretty close to 0 BC (I don’t remember the exact dates, but I believe it was within 30 years of 0 BC). We have ample extra-biblical records from the time following Jesus’ life that have proven the existence of the man Jesus that founded a religion that has crossed the globe and continues today. He existed, period. Do the research yourself, though there have been plenty of historians on both sides of the debate that have concluded that He existed. Move on to the real crux of the argument behind the claim that He never existed.

The only thing that can be in doubt is the claims made by the Bible and Jesus’ followers that He was the incarnation of God. That cannot be proven from the historical record one way or the other. So people, please, stop making bad arguments. Jesus existed; there is no debating it. You can argue about His deity all you want, but not His reality. 

The World Is Right

When I use the word “World” in this context, it is in reference to the world of the flesh, non-believers. I like to watch and read views opposed to mine so that I can get an idea of the opposition I am up against; theology, science, history, and so on. Most recently I've been looking at Evolution and Atheism. I've looked at the arguments made by some of the celebrity faces of Atheism in particular. Namely Penn, from Penn and Teller, and Bill Maher who made a mockumentary titled “Religulous”. And I have to admit, from a purely rational, materialistic (as in the real world is all there is, not gaining of material wealth) worldview, they make absolute sense. They got it right. All religions are myth given to the masses to control them. There is no God, and if there is, He just doesn't care enough to get involved. Religious scriptures were written by backwards people in a backwards time. Science has proven the supernatural to be false, to not exist (think about that for a second). I hear and read these things and my mind screams, “Yes! That makes perfect sense.”

But then I hear this voice struggling to be heard over the tumult, “No, you know that to false. You know the Truth.” In my worldview, that is the Holy Spirit gently guiding me in Truth. In my worldview, the natural world is not the end all, be all, the world of the flesh is in direct opposition to the Creator. That part of me that still struggles with the flesh sees the rationale. Thankfully I have a Guide, directing my spirit to overwhelm the flesh.

If that Guide were to go silent, I would honestly have to agree with the atheists. If the Christian God isn't real, then no God is real. We are all a simple product of natural, biological processes. There is no overarching morality. There is no true right or wrong, only that which society and self-preservation impose upon us. I would have to be a pragmatic hedonist.

Oddly enough, my Scripture says exactly this. The world of the flesh (i.e. natural man) will see the world of the spirit as foolishness. They will mock the believers of God and worship the creature over the Creator. And this Scripture was written long, long before we had the great god of Science.

            “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for

            they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they

            are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is often amusing for me to see how often that Scripture proves itself to be true in reference to the activities of human nature. 

Bad Arguments

I don’t know if you picked up on it from my last post, but I happen to be a Young Earth Creationist. I have seen clear scientific explanations given for it. I had a class in college called Scientific Models of Origins, and it was all about the science of the Creationist world-view. It was rational, cogent, and looked at the same data Evolutionists look at and came to a different conclusion (which is perfectly acceptable in the scientific community). Finally, it agrees with Scripture.

Unfortunately, we are still surrounded by Creationists giving horrible arguments against Evolution, or just as frequently Evolutionists pointing to horrible arguments made by Creationists in the past. For example, I recently heard the argument against Evolution about, “If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps?” Horrible argument. Horrible premise. Completely ignores natural selection (which I happen to agree is happening).

Of course, in that same vein of research, I heard an Evolutionist say, “It looks like design, but it isn’t.” How does that make any sense? It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it isn’t really a duck. If it appears to be something, and you disagree with what that something shows, doesn’t mean you can just write it off as false.

Make rational arguments. Give up poorly executed arguments. Look into what you are saying before you say it. Stop rehashing arguments that have already been refuted.

Creation Vs. Evolution

I recently watched a series of videos, not in a series together, just a series of like videos, about Creationists and Evolutionists and the debate going on. I have several problems with the debate in general, ignoring what side I come down on. When it comes to Creationism or Evolution, the hugest debate isn’t about processes or even age, but about origin. Neither Creationists nor Evolutionists can prove scientifically their hypothesis about the origin of the universe. Nobody was there to record it, it isn’t a repeatable process, and nobody will be around to see if it can happen again. It simply cannot be empirically proven one way or the other. Either way it is a philosophical debate, but both sides seem to believe it is not.

The debate also flies in the face of our world’s mantra of “Tolerance”. Based on the videos, Evolutionists look down their noses at Creationists as if they don’t have two brain cells to rub together. There is no room for discussion on the matter. Tolerance of a differing hypothesis about the origin of everything will not be accepted. In the scientific community, it is either Evolution or bust.

Why can’t the idea of a Creator even be posited? Neither Big Bang, nor God can be proved. Most Creationists believe that the age of the universe is less than that of the Evolutionist, but the age cannot be accurately proven either, since again, we have no record of it, and the observations made are based on our perception of the evidence, which may or may not be accurate. The age of the universe is made by assumption, not fact. Evolutionists assume that everything has happened at the same rate for all time. Creationists claim that the rate of things happening has changed over time. Neither can be proven scientifically because we have no way of testing it. They are both merely ideas.

One of my hugest qualms with the side of the Evolutionists is the condescension of making Evolution a “Theory”. I remember from my science classes that there was an order to the scientific process. It was roughly; hypothesis, testing, retesting, adjust hypothesis, more testing, theory, time, Law. Evolution has seemingly skipped over hypothesis and testing and been deemed theory. How arrogant is that? In none of the practical sciences can you be taken seriously without lots and lots of testing of an hypothesis. Evolution simply cannot be tested yet. Maybe in time, with all the recording we’ve been doing, it can be tested, but as of now, Evolution can only be an hypothesis, and yet it is given the surety of theory. This simply is not fair on a scientific level.

The most important thing is, don’t dismiss the scientific study of someone simply because they don’t believe in the same improvable hypothesis you believe in. Evolutionists claim that Creationists are stunting scientific inquiry, which cannot be further from the truth. No scientist, Creationist nor Evolutionist, worth their salt says, “it just happens”, and then let it be. The Catholic Church has been ridiculed for years because of their stubbornness, don’t fall into the same trap they did, Evolutionists.

Marriage Equity Is For Everyone

I saw this on a sign once and just busted up laughing. It is so wrong on so many levels. No matter how I look at it, how I dissect it, it turns out meaningless or absurd. Marriage equity is for everyone is complete nonsense if you merely apply a little logic to it.

Marriage equity is for everyone. Start with the current definition of marriage, one consenting adult male, one consenting adult female, bound together. Well, obviously we cannot apply everyone to that. That limits age, gender, species. Marriage equity is not for everyone in this case.

Marriage equity is for everyone. What if we broaden the definition of marriage? Maybe that will work. Let’s broaden it to anyone that loves anyone. Now we apply everyone to that, and it becomes both silly and frightening, because now I can marry anyone that I deem to be “anyone”. Do you believe that pets are people too? Then you can marry your pet. Do you love multiple people; then marry them all. Do you love your neighbor’s 12-year-old son? Why not get married? Okay, that doesn’t seem to work. Marriage equity is too broad and everyone is too broad.

Marriage equity is for everyone. How about if we change it to what the homosexual community wants to change it to? Two people bound together, gender need not matter. Let’s apply everyone to that…oh wait, we can already see from the first example that that doesn’t work, because now anyone that wants to marry multiple people, or their pet, or a child are out of luck. Marriage equity is not for everyone.

No matter how you define marriage, the moment you try to apply “everyone” to it, it becomes either wrong grammatically, or morally. But hey, if we’re going to redefine marriage, why not redefine everyone? Let’s make everyone to mean whomever I deem to fit my definition. There, now marriage equity is for everyone. It is rather subjective, but it gives just enough of a boundary to make the statement work. As long as you apply your subjective definition of everyone to your subjective definition of marriage, then you can make it work.

My point being, be careful with what you say. Words have meaning, or if they don’t, nothing makes sense, nothing can be accomplished, nothing can be taken seriously. Words without objective meanings are like traffic lights without color. 

Spiritual, But Not Religious

There is a church near me that often has some odd or disturbing sayings on their signboard. The most recent was, “Are you spiritual but not religious? Come worship with us.” Warm, inviting, open, non-threatening. All things that would appear to be good to attract people. But what is it really saying? What does it mean to be spiritual but not religious?

It seems to me that a church cannot be both spiritual and non-religious. Religion is merely a community of people that agree to worship together and agree on their spiritual tenets. The implication of spiritual but not religious would be that one believes in the supernatural, but there is no centralizing of those beliefs. So how could a church, which is a place of worship for people that share a centralized belief, be spiritual, but not religious? The two ideas are obviously in opposition. A church cannot be both spiritual and non-religious.

A church can be spiritual and religious, which I’d really hope is going on in a church, but the moment you get a group of people together believing the same thing, it becomes a religion. Just because that religion may not have a name yet doesn't mean it isn't religious. It is merely a means of identifying similar belief structures, akin to identifying as American, or Canadian, or Mexican-American. Labels are not the evil things we seem to think they are. Our brains need to label things in order to be able to identify them. If you didn't label anything, it would be difficult to communicate the idea of something without that label.

And just because people have done bad things in the name of their religion doesn't mean religion is evil. Religion helps us to identify, vocalize, and live out our spiritual beliefs. It helps us to find community, fellowship, and acceptance. It is why cliques form, like-minded people enjoy being together. It is much easier to communicate with and understand someone that believes like you.

It seems that spiritual has become good, and religion bad, but without being spiritual, you can’t be religious, and without being religious, you can’t find people to encourage you in your spirituality. It is complete absurdity to try to be spiritual and not religious in a church setting.