Sign In
Register
Help
Board Index
The Forgiveness of God
Posted by IamsSon , 20 November 2009 - 01:34 PM
This was today's entry in my daily devotional.
I know this view will not be popular with most of the members of UM, it's probably not popular even among the masses that consider themselves "Christian," but as the author says, it is the Biblical view.
Quote
November 20, 2009 The Forgiveness of God ODB RADIO: | Download
READ: In Him we have . . . the forgiveness of sins . . . —Ephesians 1:7
Beware of the pleasant view of the fatherhood of God: God is so kind and loving that of course He will forgive us. That thought, based solely on emotion, cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. The only basis on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ. To base our forgiveness on any other ground is unconscious blasphemy. The only ground on which God can forgive our sin and reinstate us to His favor is through the Cross of Christ. There is no other way! Forgiveness, which is so easy for us to accept, cost the agony at Calvary. We should never take the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and our sanctification in simple faith, and then forget the enormous cost to God that made all of this ours.
Forgiveness is the divine miracle of grace. The cost to God was the Cross of Christ. To forgive sin, while remaining a holy God, this price had to be paid. Never accept a view of the fatherhood of God if it blots out the atonement. The revealed truth of God is that without the atonement He cannot forgive— He would contradict His nature if He did. The only way we can be forgiven is by being brought back to God through the atonement of the Cross. God’s forgiveness is possible only in the supernatural realm.
Compared with the miracle of the forgiveness of sin, the experience of sanctification is small. Sanctification is simply the wonderful expression or evidence of the forgiveness of sins in a human life. But the thing that awakens the deepest fountain of gratitude in a human being is that God has forgiven his sin. Paul never got away from this. Once you realize all that it cost God to forgive you, you will be held as in a vise, constrained by the love of God.
READ: In Him we have . . . the forgiveness of sins . . . —Ephesians 1:7
Beware of the pleasant view of the fatherhood of God: God is so kind and loving that of course He will forgive us. That thought, based solely on emotion, cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. The only basis on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ. To base our forgiveness on any other ground is unconscious blasphemy. The only ground on which God can forgive our sin and reinstate us to His favor is through the Cross of Christ. There is no other way! Forgiveness, which is so easy for us to accept, cost the agony at Calvary. We should never take the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and our sanctification in simple faith, and then forget the enormous cost to God that made all of this ours.
Forgiveness is the divine miracle of grace. The cost to God was the Cross of Christ. To forgive sin, while remaining a holy God, this price had to be paid. Never accept a view of the fatherhood of God if it blots out the atonement. The revealed truth of God is that without the atonement He cannot forgive— He would contradict His nature if He did. The only way we can be forgiven is by being brought back to God through the atonement of the Cross. God’s forgiveness is possible only in the supernatural realm.
Compared with the miracle of the forgiveness of sin, the experience of sanctification is small. Sanctification is simply the wonderful expression or evidence of the forgiveness of sins in a human life. But the thing that awakens the deepest fountain of gratitude in a human being is that God has forgiven his sin. Paul never got away from this. Once you realize all that it cost God to forgive you, you will be held as in a vise, constrained by the love of God.
I know this view will not be popular with most of the members of UM, it's probably not popular even among the masses that consider themselves "Christian," but as the author says, it is the Biblical view.
A Mathematician's View of Evolution
Posted by IamsSon , 18 November 2009 - 08:10 PM
Quote
A Mathematician's View of Evolution
Granville Sewell
Mathematics Dept.
University of Texas El Paso
The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7
Copyright held by Springer Verlag, NY, LLC
In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred." When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences.
2An unfortunate choice of words, for which I was severely chastised. I should have said, the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view.
Granville Sewell completed his PhD at Purdue University. He has subsequently been employed by Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL (Houston), The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas El Paso; he spent Fall 1999 at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fulbright grant. He has written three books on numerical analysis.
Granville Sewell
Mathematics Dept.
University of Texas El Paso
The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7
Copyright held by Springer Verlag, NY, LLC
In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred." When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences.
- The cornerstone of Darwinism is the idea that major (complex) improvements can be built up through many minor improvements; that the new organs and new systems of organs which gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla developed gradually, through many very minor improvements. We should first note that the fossil record does not support this idea, for example, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson ["The History of Life," in Volume I of "Evolution after Darwin," University of Chicago Press, 1960] writes: "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?"An April, 1982, Life Magazine article (excerpted from Francis Hitching's book, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong") contains the following report:
"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there...'Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life', writes David M. Raup, a curator of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, 'what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the fossil sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence, then abruptly disappear.' These are not negligible gaps. They are periods, in all the major evolutionary transitions, when immense physiological changes had to take place."Even among biologists, the idea that new organs, and thus higher categories, could develop gradually through tiny improvements has often been challenged. How could the "survival of the fittest" guide the development of new organs through their initial useless stages, during which they obviously present no selective advantage? (This is often referred to as the "problem of novelties".) Or guide the development of entire new systems, such as nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory and reproductive systems, which would require the simultaneous development of several new interdependent organs, none of which is useful, or provides any selective advantage, by itself? French biologist Jean Rostand, for example, wrote ["A Biologist's View," Wm. Heinemann Ltd. 1956]:
"It does not seem strictly impossible that mutations should have introduced into the animal kingdom the differences which exist between one species and the next...hence it is very tempting to lay also at their door the differences between classes, families and orders, and, in short, the whole of evolution. But it is obvious that such an extrapolation involves the gratuitous attribution to the mutations of the past of a magnitude and power of innovation much greater than is shown by those of today."Behe's book is primarily a challenge to this cornerstone of Darwinism at the microscopic level. Although we may not be familiar with the complex biochemical systems discussed in this book, I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe's argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an "improvement", this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.) If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.
If archeologists of some future society were to unearth the many versions of my PDE solver, PDE2D , which I have produced over the last 20 years, they would certainly note a steady increase in complexity over time, and they would see many obvious similarities between each new version and the previous one. In the beginning it was only able to solve a single linear, steady-state, 2D equation in a polygonal region. Since then, PDE2D has developed many new abilities: it now solves nonlinear problems, time-dependent and eigenvalue problems, systems of simultaneous equations, and it now handles general curved 2D regions. Over the years, many new types of graphical output capabilities have evolved, and in 1991 it developed an interactive preprocessor, and more recently PDE2D has adapted to 3D and 1D problems. An archeologist attempting to explain the evolution of this computer program in terms of many tiny improvements might be puzzled to find that each of these major advances (new classes or phyla??) appeared suddenly in new versions; for example, the ability to solve 3D problems first appeared in version 4.0. Less major improvements (new families or orders??) appeared suddenly in new subversions, for example, the ability to solve 3D problems with periodic boundary conditions first appeared in version 5.6. In fact, the record of PDE2D's development would be similar to the fossil record, with large gaps where major new features appeared, and smaller gaps where minor ones appeared. That is because the multitude of intermediate programs between versions or subversions which the archeologist might expect to find never existed, because-- for example--none of the changes I made for edition 4.0 made any sense, or provided PDE2D any advantage whatever in solving 3D problems (or anything else) until hundreds of lines had been added.
Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck1, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation. - The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen2, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred. The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.
2An unfortunate choice of words, for which I was severely chastised. I should have said, the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view.
Granville Sewell completed his PhD at Purdue University. He has subsequently been employed by Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL (Houston), The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas El Paso; he spent Fall 1999 at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fulbright grant. He has written three books on numerical analysis.
TEXOARKLA
Posted by IamsSon , 07 September 2009 - 02:37 PM
A friend emailed this to me this morning, and I thought it was worth sharing.
THE COUNTRY of TEXOARKLA
In case things get a little tougher during thenext few months, we In LOUISIANA, TEXAS , OKLAHOMA & ARKANSAS have aplan.
Maybe you don't know it, but LOUISIANA , TEXAS , OKLAHOMA, & ARKANSAS have a legal right to secede from the Union . (Reference theTexas/Louisiana-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)
Us TEXOARKLANS love y'all Americans, but we'll probablyhave to take action since Barack Obama won the election and is now thePresident of the U.S.A. We'll miss ya'll though.
Here is what can happen:
1. Barack Hussein Obama, after becoming the President ofthe United States , begins to try and create a socialist country, then TEXAS ,LOUISIANA , ARKANSAS and OKLAHOMA announces that they are going to secedefrom the Union ..
2. George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic ofTEXOARKLA . You might think that he doesn't talk too pretty, but we haven't hadanother terrorist attack and the economy was fine until the effects of BarneyFrank and the Democrats lowering the qualifications for home loans came home toroost..
So what does TEXOARKLA have to do to survive as aRepublic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston , Texas . We willcontrol the space industry.
2. We refine over 90% of the gasoline in the United States..
3. Defense Industry--we have over 65% of it. The term"Don't mess with TEXAS ," will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic ofTEXOARKLA will need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee,we don't know. Why not ask Obama?
5. Natural Gas - again, we have all we need and it's toobad about those Northern States. John Kerry and AlGore will just have to figureout a way to keep them warm...
6. Computer Industry - we lead the nation in producingcomputer chips and communications equipment - small companieslike TexasInstruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, NationalSemiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Nortel, Alcatel, etc.. Thelist goes on and on.
7. Medical Care - We have the research centers for cancerresearch, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as wellas other large health centers.
8. We have enough colleges to keep educating and makingsmarter citizens: University of Texas , Texas A&M,Texas Tech, University of Oklahoma , Oklahoma State University,UL-Lafayette, UL-Monroe, LSU, Louisiana Tech University , University ofArkansas , Arkansas State University , Baylor, Rice, TCU, SMU and MANY more.
9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force and itisn't restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in TEXOARKLA, we are aRight-to-Work State and, therefore, it's every man and woman for themselves..We just go out and get the job done.. And if we don't like the way one companyoperates, we get a job somewhere else.
10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics, andinsurance industries, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the TEXOARKLA NationalGuard, the TEXOARKLA Air National Guard, and several military bases. We don'thave an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six guns and a pile ofammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation reallygets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them tosend over the Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs,and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and let's not forget seafoodfrom the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so thatthey taste good. We don't need any food from somewhere else.
13. FIVE of the ten largest cities in the United States and THIRTY TWO of the 100 largest cities in the United States arelocated in TEXOARKLA. And TEXOARKLA also has more landthan California , New York , New Jersey , Connecticut ,Delaware , Hawaii ,Massachusetts , Maryland , RhodeIsland and Vermont combined.
14. Trade: FIVE of the ten largest ports in theUnited States are located in TEXOARKLA.
15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don't needto. You see, nothing rusts in TEXOARKLA so our vehicles stay beautiful and runwell for decades.
This just names a few of the items that will keep theRepublic of TEXOARKLA in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we needand don't have.
Now to the rest of you folks in the United States underPresident Obama:
Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for yourcars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the Space Centerin Houston will cut off satellite communications.
You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, butsince AlGore has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long asyou survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from Global Warming.
In other words, the rest of ya'll in the USA can enjoychange!
Signed, The People of TEXOARKLA
P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note togive you something to think about!
Sleep well tonight 'cause the eyes of TEXOARKLA are onYOU!!<br style=""><br style="">
THE COUNTRY of TEXOARKLA
In case things get a little tougher during thenext few months, we In LOUISIANA, TEXAS , OKLAHOMA & ARKANSAS have aplan.
Maybe you don't know it, but LOUISIANA , TEXAS , OKLAHOMA, & ARKANSAS have a legal right to secede from the Union . (Reference theTexas/Louisiana-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)
Us TEXOARKLANS love y'all Americans, but we'll probablyhave to take action since Barack Obama won the election and is now thePresident of the U.S.A. We'll miss ya'll though.
Here is what can happen:
1. Barack Hussein Obama, after becoming the President ofthe United States , begins to try and create a socialist country, then TEXAS ,LOUISIANA , ARKANSAS and OKLAHOMA announces that they are going to secedefrom the Union ..
2. George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic ofTEXOARKLA . You might think that he doesn't talk too pretty, but we haven't hadanother terrorist attack and the economy was fine until the effects of BarneyFrank and the Democrats lowering the qualifications for home loans came home toroost..
So what does TEXOARKLA have to do to survive as aRepublic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston , Texas . We willcontrol the space industry.
2. We refine over 90% of the gasoline in the United States..
3. Defense Industry--we have over 65% of it. The term"Don't mess with TEXAS ," will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic ofTEXOARKLA will need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee,we don't know. Why not ask Obama?
5. Natural Gas - again, we have all we need and it's toobad about those Northern States. John Kerry and AlGore will just have to figureout a way to keep them warm...
6. Computer Industry - we lead the nation in producingcomputer chips and communications equipment - small companieslike TexasInstruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, NationalSemiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Nortel, Alcatel, etc.. Thelist goes on and on.
7. Medical Care - We have the research centers for cancerresearch, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as wellas other large health centers.
8. We have enough colleges to keep educating and makingsmarter citizens: University of Texas , Texas A&M,Texas Tech, University of Oklahoma , Oklahoma State University,UL-Lafayette, UL-Monroe, LSU, Louisiana Tech University , University ofArkansas , Arkansas State University , Baylor, Rice, TCU, SMU and MANY more.
9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force and itisn't restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in TEXOARKLA, we are aRight-to-Work State and, therefore, it's every man and woman for themselves..We just go out and get the job done.. And if we don't like the way one companyoperates, we get a job somewhere else.
10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics, andinsurance industries, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the TEXOARKLA NationalGuard, the TEXOARKLA Air National Guard, and several military bases. We don'thave an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six guns and a pile ofammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation reallygets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them tosend over the Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs,and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and let's not forget seafoodfrom the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so thatthey taste good. We don't need any food from somewhere else.
13. FIVE of the ten largest cities in the United States and THIRTY TWO of the 100 largest cities in the United States arelocated in TEXOARKLA. And TEXOARKLA also has more landthan California , New York , New Jersey , Connecticut ,Delaware , Hawaii ,Massachusetts , Maryland , RhodeIsland and Vermont combined.
14. Trade: FIVE of the ten largest ports in theUnited States are located in TEXOARKLA.
15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don't needto. You see, nothing rusts in TEXOARKLA so our vehicles stay beautiful and runwell for decades.
This just names a few of the items that will keep theRepublic of TEXOARKLA in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we needand don't have.
Now to the rest of you folks in the United States underPresident Obama:
Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for yourcars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the Space Centerin Houston will cut off satellite communications.
You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, butsince AlGore has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long asyou survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from Global Warming.
In other words, the rest of ya'll in the USA can enjoychange!
Signed, The People of TEXOARKLA
P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note togive you something to think about!
Sleep well tonight 'cause the eyes of TEXOARKLA are onYOU!!<br style=""><br style="">
Just Wanted to Share
Posted by IamsSon , 23 August 2008 - 01:36 PM
Found this poem a few minutes ago. I don't know how long its been around, I intend to find out, but I wanted to share it. I think the majority of the Christians on UM would agree with the poet's view.
QUOTE
When I Say I Am a Christian...
by Carol Wimmer
by Carol Wimmer
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not shouting "I am saved;"
I am whispering "I get lost"
"That is why I choose this way."
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I do not speak of this with pride.
I am confessing that I stumble
and need someone to be my guide.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not trying to be strong.
I am professing that I am weak
and pray for strength to carry on.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not bragging of success.
I am admitting I have failed
and cannot ever pay the debt.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not claiming to be perfect.
My flaws are too visible
but God believes I am worth it.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
which is why I seek His hame.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I do not wish to judge.
I have no authority
I only know I am loved.
I am not shouting "I am saved;"
I am whispering "I get lost"
"That is why I choose this way."
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I do not speak of this with pride.
I am confessing that I stumble
and need someone to be my guide.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not trying to be strong.
I am professing that I am weak
and pray for strength to carry on.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not bragging of success.
I am admitting I have failed
and cannot ever pay the debt.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I am not claiming to be perfect.
My flaws are too visible
but God believes I am worth it.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
which is why I seek His hame.
When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I do not wish to judge.
I have no authority
I only know I am loved.
Bike Ride with God
Posted by IamsSon , 07 June 2007 - 05:34 PM
Lately, I've been going through some hard times personally. My wife, my kids, my family, my friends and God are showing up in fantastic ways to support me. As a Christian, I have learned to look for the small and BIG ways God shows up in my life during difficult times.This morning on my way in to finish clearing my personal things from my office, I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio, and he read a small story that was so "spot on" I found myself, laughing, crying, and thanking God, all while trying to make sure I didn't swerve off the road. Here it is:
This story so clearly describes my life, I'm still feeling deeply touched by it.
QUOTE
A Bike Ride with God
Author unknown
Written sometime between
1910 and 1985.
At first I saw God as my observer, my judge, keeping track of the things I did wrong, so as to know whether I merited heaven or hell when I die. He was out there, sort of like the president. I recognized His picture when I saw it, but I really didn't know him. But later on when I met Christ, it seemed as though life were rather like a bike ride, but it was a tandem bike, and I noticed that Christ was in the back helping me pedal. I don't know just when it was that He suggested that we change places, but life has not been the same since. When I had control, I knew the way. It was rather boring but predictable ... It was the shortest distance between two points. But when He took the lead, He knew delightful long cuts, up mountains, and through rocky places at breakneck speeds, and it was all I could do to hang on! Even though it looked like madness, He said, "Pedal." I worried and was anxious and asked, "Where are You taking me?" He laughed and didn't answer, and I started to learn to trust. I forgot my boring life and entered into the adventure. And when I say, "I'm scared," He'd lean back and touch my hand. He took me to people with gifts that I needed, gifts of healing, acceptance, and joy. They gave me gifts to take on my journey, my Lord's and mine. And we're off again. He said, "Give the gifts away, they're extra baggage, too much weight." So I did, to the people we met, and I found that in giving I received, and still our burden was light. I did not trust Him at first, to be in control of my life, I thought He would wreck it; But He knows bike secrets, knows how to make it bend to take sharp corners, knows how to jump to clear high rocks, knows how to fly to shorten scary passages. I'm learning to shut up and pedal in the strangest places, and I'm beginning to enjoy the view and the cool breeze on my face with my delightful constant companion, Jesus Christ. And when I'm sure I just can't do anymore, He smiles and says ... "Pedal."
Author unknown
Written sometime between
1910 and 1985.
At first I saw God as my observer, my judge, keeping track of the things I did wrong, so as to know whether I merited heaven or hell when I die. He was out there, sort of like the president. I recognized His picture when I saw it, but I really didn't know him. But later on when I met Christ, it seemed as though life were rather like a bike ride, but it was a tandem bike, and I noticed that Christ was in the back helping me pedal. I don't know just when it was that He suggested that we change places, but life has not been the same since. When I had control, I knew the way. It was rather boring but predictable ... It was the shortest distance between two points. But when He took the lead, He knew delightful long cuts, up mountains, and through rocky places at breakneck speeds, and it was all I could do to hang on! Even though it looked like madness, He said, "Pedal." I worried and was anxious and asked, "Where are You taking me?" He laughed and didn't answer, and I started to learn to trust. I forgot my boring life and entered into the adventure. And when I say, "I'm scared," He'd lean back and touch my hand. He took me to people with gifts that I needed, gifts of healing, acceptance, and joy. They gave me gifts to take on my journey, my Lord's and mine. And we're off again. He said, "Give the gifts away, they're extra baggage, too much weight." So I did, to the people we met, and I found that in giving I received, and still our burden was light. I did not trust Him at first, to be in control of my life, I thought He would wreck it; But He knows bike secrets, knows how to make it bend to take sharp corners, knows how to jump to clear high rocks, knows how to fly to shorten scary passages. I'm learning to shut up and pedal in the strangest places, and I'm beginning to enjoy the view and the cool breeze on my face with my delightful constant companion, Jesus Christ. And when I'm sure I just can't do anymore, He smiles and says ... "Pedal."
This story so clearly describes my life, I'm still feeling deeply touched by it.
American Kids vs Hispanic Kids
Posted by IamsSon , 16 May 2007 - 10:34 PM
My sister-in-law sent us this yesterday... I don't know where she got it, so I can't credit the writer... but it's funny, and may even get some people ticked off! 
American Kids: Move out when they're 18 with the full support of their parents.
Hispanic Kids: Move out when they're 28, having saved for that nice house and are a week away from getting married .... unless there's room in the basement for the newlyweds.
American Kids: When their Mom visits them she brings a nice bundt cake and you sip coffee and chat.
Hispanic Kids: When their Mom visits them she brings 3 days worth of food and begins to immediately tidy up, dust, do the laundry.
American Kids: Their dads always call before they come over to visit them and its usually only on special occasions.
Hispanic Kids: Are not at all fazed when their dads come over, unannounced, on a Saturday morning at 8:00 and starts pruning the mango & avocado trees. And if there are none, he will plant some!
American Parents: You can leave your kids with them and you always worry if everything is going to be ok plus you have to feed them after you pick them up.
Hispanic Parents: No problem, leave your kids there and if they get out of line your parents can set them straight .... plus they get bathed, fed and sprinkled with lavender cologne.
American Kids: Always pay retail and look in the yellow pages when they need something done.
Hispanic Kids: Just call their dad or uncle and ask for another dad's or uncle's phone number to get it done .... cash deal.
American Kids: Will come over to visit their parents and get only cake and coffee, no more.
Hispanic Kids: Will come over to visit their parents and get croquettes, plantains, a few bottles of their favorite beverage, a chicken & rice dish with choice of dark or white meat, salad, bread, a nice flan, latin coffee and a few after dinner drinks .... time permitting there will be a late dinner as well.
American Kids: Think that being Latin is a great thing,
Hispanic Kids: Know that being Latin is a great thing,
American Kids: Never ask the reason you have no food.
Hispanic Kids: Are the reason you have no food.
American Kids: Will say 'hello".
Hispanic Kids: Will give you a big hug and a kiss, and pat you on the back.
American Kids: Call your parents Mr. and Mrs.
Hispanic Kids: Call your parents mom & dad.
American Kids: Have never seen you cry.
Hispanic Kids: Cry with you.
American Kids: Will eat at your dinner table and leave.
Hispanic Kids: Will spend hours there, talking, laughing and just being together.
American Kids: Borrow your stuff for a few days then give it back.
Hispanic Kids: Keep your stuff so long they forget it's yours.
American Kids: Know a few things about you.
Hispanic Kids: Could write a book with direct quotes from you.
American Kids: Will leave you behind if that's what the crowd is doing.
Hispanic Kids: Will kick the whole crowds' ass that left you.
American Kids: Would knock on your door.
Hispanic Kids: Walk right in and say, "I'm home!"
American Kids: Are for a while.
Hispanic Kids: Are for life.
American Kids: Move out when they're 18 with the full support of their parents.
Hispanic Kids: Move out when they're 28, having saved for that nice house and are a week away from getting married .... unless there's room in the basement for the newlyweds.
American Kids: When their Mom visits them she brings a nice bundt cake and you sip coffee and chat.
Hispanic Kids: When their Mom visits them she brings 3 days worth of food and begins to immediately tidy up, dust, do the laundry.
American Kids: Their dads always call before they come over to visit them and its usually only on special occasions.
Hispanic Kids: Are not at all fazed when their dads come over, unannounced, on a Saturday morning at 8:00 and starts pruning the mango & avocado trees. And if there are none, he will plant some!
American Parents: You can leave your kids with them and you always worry if everything is going to be ok plus you have to feed them after you pick them up.
Hispanic Parents: No problem, leave your kids there and if they get out of line your parents can set them straight .... plus they get bathed, fed and sprinkled with lavender cologne.
American Kids: Always pay retail and look in the yellow pages when they need something done.
Hispanic Kids: Just call their dad or uncle and ask for another dad's or uncle's phone number to get it done .... cash deal.
American Kids: Will come over to visit their parents and get only cake and coffee, no more.
Hispanic Kids: Will come over to visit their parents and get croquettes, plantains, a few bottles of their favorite beverage, a chicken & rice dish with choice of dark or white meat, salad, bread, a nice flan, latin coffee and a few after dinner drinks .... time permitting there will be a late dinner as well.
American Kids: Think that being Latin is a great thing,
Hispanic Kids: Know that being Latin is a great thing,
American Kids: Never ask the reason you have no food.
Hispanic Kids: Are the reason you have no food.
American Kids: Will say 'hello".
Hispanic Kids: Will give you a big hug and a kiss, and pat you on the back.
American Kids: Call your parents Mr. and Mrs.
Hispanic Kids: Call your parents mom & dad.
American Kids: Have never seen you cry.
Hispanic Kids: Cry with you.
American Kids: Will eat at your dinner table and leave.
Hispanic Kids: Will spend hours there, talking, laughing and just being together.
American Kids: Borrow your stuff for a few days then give it back.
Hispanic Kids: Keep your stuff so long they forget it's yours.
American Kids: Know a few things about you.
Hispanic Kids: Could write a book with direct quotes from you.
American Kids: Will leave you behind if that's what the crowd is doing.
Hispanic Kids: Will kick the whole crowds' ass that left you.
American Kids: Would knock on your door.
Hispanic Kids: Walk right in and say, "I'm home!"
American Kids: Are for a while.
Hispanic Kids: Are for life.
Why does Christianity Scare Some Atheists?
Posted by IamsSon , 17 March 2007 - 05:54 PM
There's a thread out on the forums that asks the question "Why Does Atheism Scare Believers?" the funny thing is though that if you read the posts on that thread, and also the other threads examining everything from advice on how to raise children in a Christian home, to "Purity Balls" it seems like there is either an incredible fascination with what Christians do or think and seem to reflect a real fear of what these Christians are up to. Frankly, it seems to me that some Atheists are scared of Christianity, and I'm not sure why.
Yes, I know that if you look through history you see a lot of bloodshed being carried out in the name of Christianity (or more accurately "The Church"), but frankly what possible kind of bloodshed could come from a father treating his daughter(s) like "princesses" for one evening? Or from raising kids in an environment which teaches kindness, responsibility, respect, and a love for God and for others?
Why this incredible interest in what is especially obvious in UM only one of a myriad of beliefs? Why aren't atheists afraid of Shammanism? or Satanism?
I think the answer in part lies in that despite however many other beliefs there may have been before Christianity, somehow from a small band of poor Jews living in what was the most powerful multicultural, polytheistic empire the world has ever known, and despite being persecuted to the point of being used as entertainment as they were fed to wild carnivores, grew one of the largest broadest, most economically powerful set of religions this world has ever known. And also that despite what others see as clear unmistakable scientific proof that this belief system is wrong, it's adherents continue to put their trust on someone who despite being believed to be the all-powerful Creator of the universe, chooses to concern Himself with each individual life and chooses to make His presence known to each individual instead of just making His presence known to all.
I hope that at some point, in some way, that fear will be assuaged, that all will see that despite how some horrible things have been carried out and been given undeserved acceptance under the broad umbrella that "Christianity" has become, the basic and enduring message of Christianity is one of love and acceptance.
Yes, I know that if you look through history you see a lot of bloodshed being carried out in the name of Christianity (or more accurately "The Church"), but frankly what possible kind of bloodshed could come from a father treating his daughter(s) like "princesses" for one evening? Or from raising kids in an environment which teaches kindness, responsibility, respect, and a love for God and for others?
Why this incredible interest in what is especially obvious in UM only one of a myriad of beliefs? Why aren't atheists afraid of Shammanism? or Satanism?
I think the answer in part lies in that despite however many other beliefs there may have been before Christianity, somehow from a small band of poor Jews living in what was the most powerful multicultural, polytheistic empire the world has ever known, and despite being persecuted to the point of being used as entertainment as they were fed to wild carnivores, grew one of the largest broadest, most economically powerful set of religions this world has ever known. And also that despite what others see as clear unmistakable scientific proof that this belief system is wrong, it's adherents continue to put their trust on someone who despite being believed to be the all-powerful Creator of the universe, chooses to concern Himself with each individual life and chooses to make His presence known to each individual instead of just making His presence known to all.
I hope that at some point, in some way, that fear will be assuaged, that all will see that despite how some horrible things have been carried out and been given undeserved acceptance under the broad umbrella that "Christianity" has become, the basic and enduring message of Christianity is one of love and acceptance.
On Being Insulting
Posted by IamsSon , 10 March 2007 - 09:53 PM
I just found out today that some people find me insulting.
Apparently being confident and secure in what you believe is now a horrible insulting thing to be. That is really too bad. I know that believing you are without a doubt right is a no-no in today's relativistic society, and I am very sorry that people feel insulted by someone who can be 100% confident even when it's to the exclusion of all other "possibilities".
I really have no interest in being insulting to anyone, but I also don't think I can compromise who I am just so that someone who can choose what to be insulted about and what not to be insulted by will not find me objectionable.
If I have insulted you by something I said, I truly and honestly apologize.
If I have insulted you by sticking to my beliefs, then I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will not compromise what I see as the truth.
If I have insulted you because I saw something you wrote regarding Christianity and felt you were in error and tried to explain to you what I saw as the error, I'm sorry you were insulted, I was doing what I thought was only proper. I would hope that my friends, whether fellow Christians, or all my non-Christian friends would correct any errors I commit, it's what I expect from true friends.
Apparently being confident and secure in what you believe is now a horrible insulting thing to be. That is really too bad. I know that believing you are without a doubt right is a no-no in today's relativistic society, and I am very sorry that people feel insulted by someone who can be 100% confident even when it's to the exclusion of all other "possibilities".
I really have no interest in being insulting to anyone, but I also don't think I can compromise who I am just so that someone who can choose what to be insulted about and what not to be insulted by will not find me objectionable.
If I have insulted you by something I said, I truly and honestly apologize.
If I have insulted you by sticking to my beliefs, then I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will not compromise what I see as the truth.
If I have insulted you because I saw something you wrote regarding Christianity and felt you were in error and tried to explain to you what I saw as the error, I'm sorry you were insulted, I was doing what I thought was only proper. I would hope that my friends, whether fellow Christians, or all my non-Christian friends would correct any errors I commit, it's what I expect from true friends.
What is the purpose of Creation? If man is flawed, did God make a mistake?
Posted by IamsSon , 05 March 2007 - 12:04 AM
As I said yesterday, this is not an exact transcript of a conversation I had recently with a young man who is attending our church.
Me: Very good, so in order for us to determine whether Creation is perfect, we need to know it's purpose. What did God intend for Creation to do? Because in the Creation Story, at the end of every day God looked at what He had made and said it was good, and at the end of the 6 days, after man had also been created, He said it was "Very good," even though as an omniscient being He knew what was going to happen in Creation in the future. So if He knew what was going to happen, sin, illness, war, tornadoes, earthquakes, hatred... all of that He still saw it as very good, that means that Creation is perfect for it's purpose.
YM: OK. So, what's it's purpose?
Me: Well, I think God gave us the answer in Genesis. Creation was not complete until man was on the scene, so I believe the purpose of Creation has to do with man.
YM: OK, but wasn't man perfect until he sinned so, isn't man a flawed creation?
Me: I think part of the confusion there comes from an assumption people make. In the story of Creation, God says, "Let us make man in our own image," and then we see the story of Adam and Eve, and we assume that Adam and Eve represent man made in God's image, but I don't think that's true since it does sort of lead to the idea that God "messed up."
YM: So you don't think that Adam and Eve were perfect?
Me: I think what's more likely true is that Adam and Eve were just the beginning of making man in God's image. They were physically perfect, and I believe they were also significantly smarter than we are and that they knew more about astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, than we'll ever know since they walked with God, and I figure God told them all about it. So, they were perfect in those ways, but they lacked something which they needed in order to be "made in God's image." I believe that they were smart enough to understand completely when God told them, "Do not eat from the fruit of this tree, or you will die." I believe they understood what death meant and that they were supposed to obey or face consequences, but they lacked the one thing that eventually kept them from obeying. Although they had an intellectual understanding that disobeying was wrong, they had never experienced the results of disobedience. In order for man to be made in the image of God, for some reason he needs to have a full understanding of the effects of disobeying Him.
YM: So, why did God say He was going to make man in His own image if Adam and Eve weren't?
Me: I believe that we don't see man created in the image of God until the end of the Bible, until after the Final Judgment, when those who accepted the responsibility for their sins, accepted that their sin had separated them from God, that there was nothing they could do to repair the situation and accepted God's gift of His sacrifice... they are man made in God's image. And then the purpose of creation becomes apparent. The purpose is to provide a place where man will be able to experience all that he needs to experience to be made in God's image.
YM: OK, so Creation is perfect because it fulfills God's purpose, and Adam and Eve were also perfect, sort of, because they also fulfilled God's purpose as the beginning of making man in His image. So you're saying Creation is not flawed because it's exactly the way God intended it to be?
Me: Sort of, I guess I'm saying Creation is perfect because God intended for it to have all the "flaws" it has so it would fulfill its purpose.
YM: And the purpose of Creation is to make man in God's image, which for some reason requires that we go through all this crap.
Me: Yeah.
YM: So, it's kind of like being a teenager!
Me: What do you mean?
YM: Well, being a teenager sucks because it's when you start realizing that life is tough. As a kid, someone's always protecting you from all the crap of real life, but as you become a teenager you start experiencing some of the tough parts of life, and it sort of prepares you to become an adult, and you sort of need to go through the experiences of being a teenager to be a good adult, just like man needs to go through the crap of this life to be what God wants us to be.
Me: That's pretty good, I'm not sure I would have thought of that. So, were we able to figure out why Creation is the way it is while staying within the boundaries we set when we started?
YM: Yeah, I think we did. But I may have some more questions later.
Me: That's cool, I may have some more answers, or we may have to find someone who can give us both the answers.
Me: Very good, so in order for us to determine whether Creation is perfect, we need to know it's purpose. What did God intend for Creation to do? Because in the Creation Story, at the end of every day God looked at what He had made and said it was good, and at the end of the 6 days, after man had also been created, He said it was "Very good," even though as an omniscient being He knew what was going to happen in Creation in the future. So if He knew what was going to happen, sin, illness, war, tornadoes, earthquakes, hatred... all of that He still saw it as very good, that means that Creation is perfect for it's purpose.
YM: OK. So, what's it's purpose?
Me: Well, I think God gave us the answer in Genesis. Creation was not complete until man was on the scene, so I believe the purpose of Creation has to do with man.
YM: OK, but wasn't man perfect until he sinned so, isn't man a flawed creation?
Me: I think part of the confusion there comes from an assumption people make. In the story of Creation, God says, "Let us make man in our own image," and then we see the story of Adam and Eve, and we assume that Adam and Eve represent man made in God's image, but I don't think that's true since it does sort of lead to the idea that God "messed up."
YM: So you don't think that Adam and Eve were perfect?
Me: I think what's more likely true is that Adam and Eve were just the beginning of making man in God's image. They were physically perfect, and I believe they were also significantly smarter than we are and that they knew more about astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, than we'll ever know since they walked with God, and I figure God told them all about it. So, they were perfect in those ways, but they lacked something which they needed in order to be "made in God's image." I believe that they were smart enough to understand completely when God told them, "Do not eat from the fruit of this tree, or you will die." I believe they understood what death meant and that they were supposed to obey or face consequences, but they lacked the one thing that eventually kept them from obeying. Although they had an intellectual understanding that disobeying was wrong, they had never experienced the results of disobedience. In order for man to be made in the image of God, for some reason he needs to have a full understanding of the effects of disobeying Him.
YM: So, why did God say He was going to make man in His own image if Adam and Eve weren't?
Me: I believe that we don't see man created in the image of God until the end of the Bible, until after the Final Judgment, when those who accepted the responsibility for their sins, accepted that their sin had separated them from God, that there was nothing they could do to repair the situation and accepted God's gift of His sacrifice... they are man made in God's image. And then the purpose of creation becomes apparent. The purpose is to provide a place where man will be able to experience all that he needs to experience to be made in God's image.
YM: OK, so Creation is perfect because it fulfills God's purpose, and Adam and Eve were also perfect, sort of, because they also fulfilled God's purpose as the beginning of making man in His image. So you're saying Creation is not flawed because it's exactly the way God intended it to be?
Me: Sort of, I guess I'm saying Creation is perfect because God intended for it to have all the "flaws" it has so it would fulfill its purpose.
YM: And the purpose of Creation is to make man in God's image, which for some reason requires that we go through all this crap.
Me: Yeah.
YM: So, it's kind of like being a teenager!
Me: What do you mean?
YM: Well, being a teenager sucks because it's when you start realizing that life is tough. As a kid, someone's always protecting you from all the crap of real life, but as you become a teenager you start experiencing some of the tough parts of life, and it sort of prepares you to become an adult, and you sort of need to go through the experiences of being a teenager to be a good adult, just like man needs to go through the crap of this life to be what God wants us to be.
Me: That's pretty good, I'm not sure I would have thought of that. So, were we able to figure out why Creation is the way it is while staying within the boundaries we set when we started?
YM: Yeah, I think we did. But I may have some more questions later.
Me: That's cool, I may have some more answers, or we may have to find someone who can give us both the answers.
Is Creation Perfect? If it is why is there __________?
Posted by IamsSon , 01 March 2007 - 04:24 PM
Recently, a young man who is attending our church approached me. I was aware that he is an atheist, and has been attending our church because he enjoys the friendly atmosphere. He and my son have become good friends and through my son, he knew that I enjoy discussing interesting questions about Christianity, God, and the Bible and he had a question. Here is basically our conversation (not an exact transcript).
YM (Young Man): If Creation is perfect, then why is there sin, illness, war, decay, death?
Me: Good question. OK, before we begin this discussion, just as with any discussion we need to figure out what we're going to take as givens. First, since we are talking about Creation, I believe we are talking about something that has a Creator, so we are talking about God. Also, since you are talking to me, I assume you want to look at this from a Christian standpoint, so we are talking about God as described in the Bible. So, we are talking about God who is perfect, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Does this sound like what you want to talk about?
YM: Well, yes, but if Creation is not perfect then what does that say about God?
Me: Very good! But first we need to discuss this based on those givens, if we find that we cannot find an answer which fits within those grounds, then we have to question whether our foundations were sound. So, if we can't figure out why Creation is the way it is given that God is perfect, then we will have to figure out if maybe God isn't perfect, OK?
YM: OK, so if there's no way Creation could be perfect then maybe God isn't perfect?
Me: Right.
YM: OK.
Me: Now, I am going to use analogies based on my understanding of the Bible and Christianity, if that's OK. We can look at verses, but I don't have my Bible and so, we'll have to wait until we can get our hands on one if you want to just look at verses.
YM: No, I've read Genesis, and that's why I have questions. I know you've been a Christian for a long time, have read the Bible and have some understanding.... That's what I want, I want to know what you understand... how it makes sense to you.
Me: OK, good. Let's say I build the perfect ball. It is perfectly round, no microscopic bumps or dents, perfectly smooth, perfect in any way you can measure. It's so perfect it also fits just perfectly in my hand, and is just the perfect weight, made out of an unbreakable material, so that it's absolutely perfect. Now, can we go out and play baseball with this ball?
YM: Not really.
Me: But if I take a brand new baseball and look at it, it's not a perfect ball. The stitching changes it's shape so it's not a perfect sphere and also creates bumps and dents and the leather itself is grainy. So, it's not a perfect ball, but it's the perfect ball to play baseball with. So, purpose is immensely important in determining whether something is perfect or not, right?
YM: Yeah, OK, I can see that. Even a new baseball would not be the perfect ball to play tennis with or football.
Me: Very good, so in order for us to determine whether Creation is perfect, we need to know it's purpose. What did God intend for Creation to do? Because in the Creation Story, at the end of every day God looked at what He had made and said it was good, and at the end of the 6 days, after man had also been created, He said it was "Very good," even though as an omniscient being He knew what was going to happen in Creation in the future. So if He knew what was going to happen, sin, illness, war, tornadoes, earthquakes, hatred... all of that He still saw it as very good, that means that Creation is perfect for it's purpose.
YM: OK. So, what's it's purpose?
(to be continued)
YM (Young Man): If Creation is perfect, then why is there sin, illness, war, decay, death?
Me: Good question. OK, before we begin this discussion, just as with any discussion we need to figure out what we're going to take as givens. First, since we are talking about Creation, I believe we are talking about something that has a Creator, so we are talking about God. Also, since you are talking to me, I assume you want to look at this from a Christian standpoint, so we are talking about God as described in the Bible. So, we are talking about God who is perfect, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Does this sound like what you want to talk about?
YM: Well, yes, but if Creation is not perfect then what does that say about God?
Me: Very good! But first we need to discuss this based on those givens, if we find that we cannot find an answer which fits within those grounds, then we have to question whether our foundations were sound. So, if we can't figure out why Creation is the way it is given that God is perfect, then we will have to figure out if maybe God isn't perfect, OK?
YM: OK, so if there's no way Creation could be perfect then maybe God isn't perfect?
Me: Right.
YM: OK.
Me: Now, I am going to use analogies based on my understanding of the Bible and Christianity, if that's OK. We can look at verses, but I don't have my Bible and so, we'll have to wait until we can get our hands on one if you want to just look at verses.
YM: No, I've read Genesis, and that's why I have questions. I know you've been a Christian for a long time, have read the Bible and have some understanding.... That's what I want, I want to know what you understand... how it makes sense to you.
Me: OK, good. Let's say I build the perfect ball. It is perfectly round, no microscopic bumps or dents, perfectly smooth, perfect in any way you can measure. It's so perfect it also fits just perfectly in my hand, and is just the perfect weight, made out of an unbreakable material, so that it's absolutely perfect. Now, can we go out and play baseball with this ball?
YM: Not really.
Me: But if I take a brand new baseball and look at it, it's not a perfect ball. The stitching changes it's shape so it's not a perfect sphere and also creates bumps and dents and the leather itself is grainy. So, it's not a perfect ball, but it's the perfect ball to play baseball with. So, purpose is immensely important in determining whether something is perfect or not, right?
YM: Yeah, OK, I can see that. Even a new baseball would not be the perfect ball to play tennis with or football.
Me: Very good, so in order for us to determine whether Creation is perfect, we need to know it's purpose. What did God intend for Creation to do? Because in the Creation Story, at the end of every day God looked at what He had made and said it was good, and at the end of the 6 days, after man had also been created, He said it was "Very good," even though as an omniscient being He knew what was going to happen in Creation in the future. So if He knew what was going to happen, sin, illness, war, tornadoes, earthquakes, hatred... all of that He still saw it as very good, that means that Creation is perfect for it's purpose.
YM: OK. So, what's it's purpose?
(to be continued)
Last entries
The Forgiveness of God
A Mathematician's View of Evolution
TEXOARKLA
Just Wanted to Share
Bike Ride with God
American Kids vs Hispanic Kids
Why does Christianity Scare Some Atheists?
On Being Insulting
What is the purpose of Creation? If man is flawed, did God make a mistake?
Is Creation Perfect? If it is why is there __________?
A Mathematician's View of Evolution
TEXOARKLA
Just Wanted to Share
Bike Ride with God
American Kids vs Hispanic Kids
Why does Christianity Scare Some Atheists?
On Being Insulting
What is the purpose of Creation? If man is flawed, did God make a mistake?
Is Creation Perfect? If it is why is there __________?
My Blog Links
Last Comments
- Beckys_Mom on A Mathematician's View of Evolution
- TRUEYOUTRUEME on A Mathematician's View of Evolution
- Copasetic on A Mathematician's View of Evolution
- tcgram on TEXOARKLA
- IamsSon on TEXOARKLA
- Guyver on TEXOARKLA
- tcgram on Just Wanted to Share
- B'Elanna on Bike Ride with God
- tcgram on Bike Ride with God
- truethat on Bike Ride with God