Think On These Things

The healing body

Thu, 27 May 2010 07:00:00 -0700

The human body is impressive, and yet who really thinks about its complexities until something goes awry? It is at that point of failure that you realize how much you rely on your (insert ailing body part here) as a critical component to your overall physiology, mentality, etc. In my case, a simple bruised knee (we'll call it that until the MRI {invented by young earth creationist Dr. Damadian} reveals more), affects everything I do, even the way I rest.

Researching your injury or disease, realizing how your body is supposed to work and recognizing how your body can heal itself right down to your DNA, opens your eyes to just how fearfully and wonderfully made you are. I thank God for this. Granted, because of sin and the curse, we are all dying, some in my life doing so with a great deal of peace, even joy, despite the pain. What a testament to how the indwelt Holy Spirit can change one's perspective, focusing on the hope we have in Him. God teaches us that in and through everything, we are to thank Him (Eph 5:20, 1 Thess 5:18). That can only be done with the right heart.

In light of all those who are suffering greatly, I realize that I am hardly qualified to write on such matters. Indeed, I've never had but a light affliction. Nevertheless, I am thankful for prayers and for Gods provision, and amazed at His crowning achievement of creation.

A Lamp to My Feet - Literally

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:05:00 -0700

I typically get up before everyone else in the house, and during the winter months it is quite dark. If I were more preparatory, I'd have everything ready for me to start my day set out the night before, rather than feeling my way through drawers and closets looking for something to wear.

But lately I've geen using God's Word in a way I've not thought of before. Every night, before I go to bed, I read the Bible on my PDA. It gives off it's own light, so I don't need a lamp to read it. It's a great way to end the day.

But I've learned it's also a great way to start the day. Instead of hunting in the dark for a matching pair of socks, I use that pda to illuminate my path. Indeed,

Thy Word is a lamp to my feet, and a light for my path. Psalm 119:105.

I was born for battle

Fri, 01 May 2009 09:19:00 -0700

I really don't need to share my faith anymore by way of telling people that I'm a follower of Christ, because after you inform one person in your circle of influence that you believe the earth isn't much more than six thousand years old, word spreads like wildfire.The results have opened doors, and has been tremendous. My work lies much less in that initial sharing and more on earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3:3) by always having an answer for someone who asks me about my beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).

A friend of mine, we'll call him Steve for the sake of anonymity, though his real name is Jack, loves to send me "scientific" information about evolution and millions of years, mainly to get my reaction. Jack won't tell me what his beliefs are per se, as I guess that is part of the fun. Such conversations make for some lively debate, most of which is worthy of sharing beyond those who are "cc'd" on the emails by which we correspond. Below, I am replying to Jack in response to his earlier comments about evolution being proven true, how many Christians embrace evolution (and so should I). My comments are in green; his in blue.

Jack,

Thank you for your email. My responses are in green below.

I also want to say to you, as one whom I respect and consider a friend that, my occasional “tweaking” aside, I certainly never have any intent to mock or belittle your religious beliefs,

"Religion" is one of those funny words, so let me clarify. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, through whom one must be saved. “Religion” is a list of man-made rules and regulations, and it is a word that the Bible frowns upon in its every reference. Such religions can shut man off from the light of the gospel by which alone one can be saved (2 Cor 4:3-4).

…and fully understand your perspective and the impassioned sense of importance hold to it.

I think that the only way you could fully understand my “impassioned sense” of leading people to Christ is to share it. To those who do not have the Holy Spirit indwelt in them, and who are not led by the Holy Spirit, my preaching is foolishness. (1 Cor 1:21)

In most cases in the past, I have backed down merely because I sincerely do not wish to offend or upset.

You don't have to worry about offending me. (Eph 6:12)

I do however shake my head in perplexity at the ongoing assault upon science in our schools and nation especially in light of all that has been discovered – a feeling with which you would likely agree with me in principle, though arriving at very different conclusions.

If it’s any consolation, you should be encouraged by one of President Obama’s goals, which is to put science “back in its rightful place.” When combined with the his other thoughts on the matter, one could interpret his statements this way: "We will continue to fight against any questioning of evolution in the classroom in the name of 'science.'" This popular, yet unfair, defense tactic for evolutionists inhibits critical thinking. As Dr. Russell Humphreys points out, “once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war”. But why worry in the first place? While the U.S. schools consistently rank among the lowest (if not the lowest) in educational rankings among developed countries, we rank 1^st in self esteem.

However, obtaining a PhD does not preclude one from being a quack or minister of pseudoscience.

I think you’ve just proved my point. Why are so many PhD’s also ministers of the pseudoscience of evolution – something that has no basis in real science? Is evolution a “fact” like gravity? Has anyone seen it happen? Can anyone reproduce it in a lab? Can life be reproduced in a lab? No. Sadly, even (and perhaps especially) for PhDs, the power of presupposition and peer pressure (as well as spiritual blindness) outweighs the power of logic, so much that “following the evidence wherever it may lead” is one road they won't go down. So much of their work relies upon peer review and approval, and they respect and thrive on the old adage that the squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced.

Evolutionism is a belief system based on an interpretation of the what happened in the past. Creationism is also a belief system based on an interpretation of the past. Only one can be right, but which one fits the evidence best? For example, evolutionists claim victory because “they have the fossils.” Yet all scientists have the same fossils, and what do they really tell us? One such fossil is of a T Rex femur with soft, pliable red blood cell tissue in it, clearly something that cannot be preserved if the bone is millions of years old, and yet an evolutionist must interpret it as millions of years old, because they adhere to the belief that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. I, on the other hand, have no problem with this discovery, because it is likely this dinosaur died out during the catastrophic Flood that destroyed the earth 4500 years ago.

As another example, diamonds are supposed to be the product of millions of years. Yet diamonds have radiocarbon in them. How could this be? They shouldn’t have any radiocarbon whatsoever if the diamonds are indeed millions of years old. So evolutionists must come up with an unscientific “just-so” story for the existence of the radiocarbon, because they hold to the belief that the earth is millions of years old. Yet the discovery fits in quite well with my belief system.

And the list goes on and on. The bios of PhDs who have broken free for the religion of evolutionism are replete with a sense of liberation and thankfulness that they saw through the lies of evolutionism. Consider the facts, and you may sense this too.

I would put far more weight in the fact that such an individual [a PhD, in this case, Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian evangelist] is being honest in his conclusions of empirical evidence, rather than attempting to push any particular sort of agenda or belief.

As I am trying to demonstrate, there is no such thing as objectivity. Dr. Collins’ presupposition is that the earth is millions of years old. Therefore, he interprets facts based on that belief. If his presuppositions changed, and his paradigm shifted, he would have to reinterpret the facts, as I have.

Here is the rest of the quote from Dr. Francis Collins:

“But why couldn't this [millions of years of time and death] be God's plan for creation?..."

Well, I suppose it could be, if you dismissed the original language and the process by which the Bible is read and interpreted, and replaced it with, say, the “DFC Version.” However, any Hebrew scholar would tell you that Genesis 1-2 can only be interpreted one way – a literal 6 days.

"…True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis,"

Is Dr. Francis Collins a PhD in Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation as well? Maybe he isn’t qualified…

"…So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence …"

Please, someone, show me this compelling scientific evidence. I have looked and I can’t find it. From my point of view, based on the evidence I’ve seen, evolution has only hindered scientific advancements and discoveries and restricted critical thinking.

"…pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.”

It is both wise and necessary to believe in a young earth. Not necessary for salvation (John 3:16), of course, but necessary to understand and fully appreciate why Jesus came to die.

And one from St. Augustine just for fun. I know you don’t hold much esteem for Catholics, but St. Augustine is often quoted by both Protestant and Catholic, so I figure its fair game:

Actually, it’s not Catholics that I do not hold much esteem for, but rather for Catholocism, and I pray for many of her followers.

"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."

You may as well quote the Pope, since he has said the same. We wouldn’t want to have another “Galileo Incident,” would we? Augustine is the doctor of many of the doctrines of Catholocism, and while there is some good stuff in his confessions, he was also the man who opened the door to many teachings that are contrary to the Bible.

Nevertheless, it is unwise and unscriptural to believe in evolution, according to the Bible, my ultimate authority. Why don’t you make it yours? “Whosoever will, come.”

Sincerely,

Andy

Creation vs evolution through the eyes of a computer programmer.

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:18:00 -0700

Molecules-to-man evolution is, at its essence, an attempt to explain how life could have come about without God. The idea is that somehow the universe came into existence, and then, through random-chance processes over millions of years, fish became philosophers.

But can this be true? The sciences of biology, geology, astronomy, etc. say "no." But what does computer science have to say, as I understand it? Can the principles of computer science be applied to the creation/evolution debate?

I remember as a child becoming frustrated by computer programming because I could not understand why the process had to be so unforgiving. If just one comma was out of place, or switched to a semicolon, or not present at all, the system would crash. I, an intelligent designer (arguably), could write 100, 10, or just one line of code, and if there was even the slightest mistake, I'd have to go back and fix it before I could go forward. This principle hasn't changed 30 years later. Computer science is precise.

Not only this, but I have to be working in the right environment if my program was to have a prayer. If I'm creating ColdFusion code, all of that information is meaningless unless something is there to compile and run that code. My program would make no sense to a .Net server or a server running php. Something has to properly interpret that code in order for it to run properly. And that something, the ColdFusion Server in this example, also had to have an intelligent designer, or a team of them.

Much is the same, but to a vastly larger degree, with living organisms. DNA, the code of life, cannot create itself, despite what evolution must claim. The DNA of even the "simplest" living organism is far more complex than any computer program that the folks at any of the top software companies could write. Living organisms are incredibly complex. Irreducibly complex.

An organism's DNA must not only be correctly coded, but it also must be properly interpreted in order for it to function. If I was speaking fluent French to a French audience, people would understand me. But if I did the same thing on Iraqi television, the information would be meaningless. DNA needs to be compiled and interpreted so that the organism knows what to do with the information that it is provided.

A living organism is only living if it has, and can make sense of, the code that it has been given. And this code/compiler combination is impossible without God.

One difference is, unlike my bad code, God created everything perfect, the first time, and in 6 days.

True or Not, the Prayer Speaks Truth

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:01:00 -0700

I don't know if this is a true story, and frankly I'm too lazy to verify it, but since I'm more interested in the prayer than the story about the prayer (which is that a minister prayed it at an opening session of his state's senate), I'm reprinting the text of the prayer that has been sent to me repeatedly in email, below.

Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask
your forgiveness and to seek your direction and
guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those
who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we
have done.

We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed
our values.

We have exploited the poor and called it
the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness and called it
welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it
choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it
justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our
children and called it building self esteem..

We have abused power and called it
politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions
and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and
pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values
of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts
today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

Largest Lutheran U.S. Denomination Not Creation Friendly

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:54:00 -0700

Still not sure where my own denomonization comes down on the issue (though unofficially I think it is very similar to the one reported on below), but The Lutheran pulls no punches.

The publication of a major Christian denomination looks at the Creation Museum—and comes out swinging.

In The Lutheran, the magazine of the largest U.S. Lutheran denomination, William Jennings visits the Creation Museum and Big Bone Lick State Park (down the road from the Creation Museum). “Two museums, two viewpoints of creation,” Jennings writes. “Visiting both, I considered what are the questions for Lutheran scholars to consider.” The questions he asks (with excerpts from his answers) are in the full version of the article, which is only available to subscribers:

How do we interpret the Bible? “It isn’t all to be taken literally, and the use of terms like ‘legend’ or ‘myth’ may be helpful.”

Is Christian faith compatible with evolution? “Since the Genesis stories don’t present a factual account of creation, they also don’t contradict scientific views of how the world evolved.”

How are our children taught? “[A]lmost a thousand scientists from the three states nearest the Creation Museum signed a petition objecting to the misinformation being presented by the museum[.]”

Are there social implications in this disagreement? “The social implication [that the acceptance of evolution is behind abortion, drugs, pornography, etc.] isn’t what the museum claims—but rather a recognition that knowledge of science is essential if Christians are to use their God-given abilities to face so many of today’s challenges.”

Jennings sadly sidesteps the entire scientific debate, apparently either having missed—or ignored—the museum’s crucial presentation of how presuppositions influence scientific “evidence.” Furthermore, he is apparently unaware that accepting evolution is a far bigger issue for Christians than whether Genesis is myth; it devalues God’s character and adulterates Christian doctrine. Even many non-Christians are aware of the fatal blow the millions of years of death and suffering of evolution (if true) would deal to Christianity.

If anything, the Lutheran piece shows once again the fundamental importance of presuppositions. If you reject the inerrancy of God’s Word from the beginning, you can make nearly any doctrine “compatible” with Christianity.

Source

Evolution better than any other religion

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:10:00 -0700

Some have argued that evolution is better than any other religion because there is no "us versus them" mentality:

Marr’s final conclusion is that Darwinism is superior to religion because it does not “divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned . . . there is no us and them.” Yet it seems we have seen exactly the opposite more and more each year as anti-Darwinists are vilified and ostracized. Even committed Darwinists can be excommunicated if they fail to fall in line (see the September 20 News to Note from last year). The behavior of the Darwinian clergy suggests anything but “a deep modesty about conclusions and lifelong readiness to be proved wrong,” as Marr alleges. While Darwinism as a worldview has some uniqueness (as do all worldviews), we nevertheless emphasize that evolution is religion!

When Darkness Reigns

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:26:00 -0700

Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'
Says atheism-promoting book hidden under mattress, last page bookmarked

Please take time to read this tragic story and take note that there is a war going on for the hearts and minds of our young men and women, a war that the opposition is not taking lightly. They have the upper hand - a monopoly in fact - when it comes to worldviews being taught in our public school system. When faced with such strong opposition and ridicule, Christians can have a difficult time if they cannot defend their faith. In some cases, such as the once great evangelist Charles Templeton, you may lose your faith. In other cases, such as this one, you may lose everything.

The point that needs to be made here is that we need balance in our public schools. We cannot let atheism reign unopposed. As the boy's father points out,

"I'm all for academic freedom," Keith Kilgore said. "What I do have a problem with is if there's going to be academic freedom, there has to be academic balance.

"They were undermining every moral and spiritual value for my [son]," he said. "They ought to be held accountable."

And another good point from this greiving father:

"Here's another thing," he continued. "If my son was a professing homosexual, and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry.

"He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit.

"But because he's a Christian, I don't even get a return telephone call," the father told WND.

We don't have a blind faith. We have a logically defensible faith, and we need to equip our children with that Truth, beginning with Genesis, and we must earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

If only this son had answers, answers like this one, to refute the critics who sought to tear him down, darkness would not have reigned.

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1

Earnestly Contending...

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:02:00 -0700

My good friend "Sally" was having a cordial email debate with our mutal friend "James." James likes to play the cynic/antagonist when it comes to Christian beliefs, and during this exchange, he was using half-truths and straw-man arguments against Sally. When he indirectly brought me up during their dialogue, Sally forwarded me the exchange, and asked me if I would like to join in. So I did, with the goal to speak the Truth in love.

Sally and others who were monitoring the email exchange thanked me for what I wrote, and they passed it on to others, so I decided to post it here in hopes that you may find it uplifting as well.

Below is the exchange. Sally's comments are in red, James' comments are in blue, and mine are in green. It makes for quite a pretty post! I hope you can follow along.

...

> (Sally) Just as the old saying goes, there are no atheists in foxholes

(James) Actually …. http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

(Myself) There will come a day when these young men and women will take their last breath, and their tomorrow is gonna suck if they don't know Jesus.

> (Sally) I think God should be left alone.

(James) But if we left God alone, wouldn’t he get lonely?

(Myself) It is folly to attempt to attribute human characteristics to God. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD" (Isaiah 55:8).

> There is nothing wrong with having In God We Trust on money or buildings or anywhere else.

Theodore Roosevelt thought it to be sacrilegious and cheapening to the name of God to put it on coins. The original de facto motto of the United States of E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. Think deeply about what this means.

You are telling only half the story. Roosevelt's complete opinion reveals a meaningful spiritual conviction in which I wholeheartedly concur:

"[In God we trust] is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in buildings such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

> I think if teachers want to pray in class they should be allowed to.

Teachers are indeed allowed to pray privately on their own in class. They are not allowed to indoctrinate, endorse or force ANY particular religion on students. E Pluribus Unum; from many traditions we stand united.

Sadly, only Christianity has been removed from the classrooms, providing evolutionary humanism free reign to indoctrinate our children at great cost. Even questioning evolutionary theory in universities, research institutes, and the media can have one expelled from their jobs, their research, their funding, etc. No, religion is alive and well in the public school classroom, masquerading as "science" and, ironically, breeding intolerance in the name of diversity.

> I think we should celebrate Christmas and be able to say Merry Christmas and not worry about offending someone.

I do too, but then again, I’m typically not too often worried about offending someone. However, I do sometimes feel a bit silly when I say “Merry Christmas” to someone who celebrates Hanukkah.

Sounds like you need to work on your political correctness. You may as well have handed them Isaiah 53 and asked them how in the world could they have missed their Savior. Perhaps you could open their eyes, that their soul might be saved, but we wouldn't want to offend.

> Christmas is because Christ was born. Christmas wasn't meant for Santa Clause.

Christmas is not when Jesus was born (some Historians claim fall). Christmas and nearly all of its traditions has its origins in pagan celebrations. The early Catholic church originally tried to ban the celebrations but were unable to do so (people love their parties). So they turned it into Christ’s Mass. I imagine a small scale analogy of this would be similar to the majority of the church preaching against the evils of Rock music during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s , then coming full circle with Christian Rock, including a Christianized devil-sign hand signal.

I am sure you are aware that Sally never claimed that Christmas was when Christ was born.

It seems as though you have a passive-regressive animosity against the body of Christ. We aren't perfect, as you are quick to point out, but we love the Lord with our heart, mind, soul, and strength, with a goal to be more like Him every day. Do you think Jesus gets mad when I flash a hand signal to a friend? Which do you think is more important to God, stepping on egg shells to keep from upsetting a few nit pickers, or worshipping my Lord and Savior at full volume, UNASHAMED? I LOVE JESUS! I sing praises to the most High God, and I REJOICE and CELEBRATE his birth, death, and resurrection, because God so loved the world that He would go to such great lengths in order to give me an opportunity to get right with Him. Have you accepted his offer?

> Do I need to sic Andy on you?

I didn’t expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition! Let’s not turn this into a Jihad!

I do not see the connection between my attempt to reach people for Christ, and "some kind" of Inquisition, which resulted in over 300,000 people being burned at the stake, as merely a part of the Catholic Church's atrocities. Such actions are overshadowed only by Jihad, carried out by the followers of Muhammad, totaling roughly 270 million people dead.

My goal is to prevent people from needlessly suffering a permanent spiritual death, by leading them to the Lord. So what about you? Have you accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior by repenting and turning to Him? Now that is something to think deeply on.

“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 3:35-36

test

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:56:00 -0700

this is a test

Somebody Slap Me

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:03:00 -0700

It's probably time for me to man up, but I'm just forlorn over having to get rid of my last cat. Is she the most loving cat in the world? Probably not. Is it normal for a grown man to be sad, perhaps even a little teary (actually, I just got something in my eye), over having to say goodbye to what will likely be his last cat in a long line of kitties extending from early childhood? Yes, that is totally normal. Allergies are definitely part of the Curse. Allergies, aquired late in life, are just plain excessively cruel.

It's not like we're sending her to a gas chamber, in fact, we're sending her to Greg, who is an answer to prayer - a guy with two big fat cats already, and who obviously loves them. Next to being able to keep her, this is the best thing.

So, so long Claire. I will miss you. Below is an email I wrote to her new owner.

Dear G,

Here are some things Claire likes and suggestions for a smooth transition. When we moved out of one house into another, I put her and Yummy’s cat carrier in the closet in our new room, in our new home. It took her quite a while to emerge from the carrier, let alone the closet, but of course she eventually did. You may wish to employ the same technique, modified in such a way to accommodate her new four legged housemates.

As far as bathroom arrangements go, I can provide you with our giant litter pan if you think that is a good idea. I’m sure you know the drill of how to introduce a cat to her litter pan so I won’t go there

Claire’s favorite toy is the ring around a gallon milk jug. Toss one her way and she’ll scoot it down the tile or other smooth flooring surface until it ends up underneath the stove or fridge. I have plenty if you need some. I also may have a Christmas stocking too .

Her favorite nighttime routine is to crawl under my blanket as I read on the couch and of course get petted. Regardless of where I go, there she is.

Hopefully she’ll feel right at home with you. Surely at some point she’ll run to the door upon your arrival home as she does to me. Maybe she’ll even let you scoop her up and rub her belly. I hope you all get everything worked out.

Compromise => Contradiction

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:42:00 -0700

It might come as a shock that after the path I've been on, I am not a big fan of adding to, or taking away from, God's word. It was this kind of compromise, particularly in the understanding of origins and the reinterpretation of Scripture to fit with today's science (so called), that I used as an excuse to keep me from knowing Him for the first 30 years of my life. I interpreted compromise to be on par with contradiction, and from that, I determined the Bible couldn't be completely trusted, and from there, I found no reason to put my trust in God. After reconciling God's Word with God's world through prayer and careful study, I have come to know the truth, and nothing much on the horizon of new scientific or spiritual revelation surprises me anymore. But the following dismissal of Genesis as just a myth, and the warning that Catholics should not adhere to a belief in the plain teaching of scripture in Genesis, has me shaking my head. I'm not surprised by its inaccuracies, nor have only now become aware of the potential damage to one's faith that an adherence to this advice can bring. What surprises me is the outright dismissal of the Word of God as being true. Edward Doshbock, a Catholic Priest, wrote that

..."the [Catholic] church then does not accept the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that would lead us to think that God, for example, actually made two grown adults suddenly from clay and rib. Catholics should be against creation science for at least three serious reasons."

Before we get into the reasons, I'd like to mention that the Bible should be studied by the individual believer, and not left for any organization to do the interpretation for them. Like the Bereans, we should "search the Scriptures daily" to find out if these things are true.

"First, it effectively teaches a distrust of science and ultimately hurts religion as well. By defending a literal understanding of the opening chapters of Genesis, creation science sets itself squarely against the world of true scientific discovery. The myths used by the Genesis authors are simply tools with which they communicate their religious belief."

OK, let's stop for a moment. Those who believe in a young earth embrace science, because real science confirms a young earth belief, and because real science supports God's masterful handiwork in all of the things we see.

"Second, Creation science is contrary to the method of interpreting scripture favored universally by scholars and strongly approved by our church."

The idea that all theologians compromise on Genesis by mixing it with using man's fallible ideas is just plain wrong. However, if he is referring to Catholic church dogma, he would be correct, as the Pope has issued a statement that evolution is true.

"Third, Creation science leads to deep prejudice and bigotry against the Catholic Church. The case in point is the Book of Revelation, when creation science advocates ply their fundamentalist tools to this final scriptural book the church often becomes a target for vehement attack."

One doesn't need the "tools" of creation science advocates to see that there is much evidence that the Catholic church is represented by the woman who rides the beast in Revelation 17. Rather, it is the proper interpretation of Scripture in both Genesis (a plain reading) and Revelation (a spiritual rendering) that gives the Christian a proper understanding of the revealed Word of God.

Kirby Highkick

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:52:00 -0700

The Kirby Highkick sounds like the name of a band. However, it is in reality far more ominous. If you see these two aging clowns wrastlin' at a ski resort parking lot near you this season, please, do not engage them. Simply come over to the sidelines and enjoy the spectacle with me while it lasts (generally under 15 seconds before they get winded or pull a muscle). Of course, my natural instinct is to stop these hooligans, because the result of this particular bout ended with a shortened snowboard trip by 1.5 days. Friends don't let friends pretend they're Randy Couture.

Let's say there is a God...

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:51:00 -0700

A website has been designed whose intent it is to promulgate a day (not sure when, exactly) where all Americans imagine there is no god. It's called "The Great American God-Out," and on that day, we're to then see if we still can identify a sense of morality in ourselves. These aggressive atheists have come up with a host of questions for you in the form of a nice "game" to play, which essentially requires you to (if you are a theist) abandon your presupposition that there is a God. Questions like:

Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not?
Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not?

You can see where they're going with this. "Hey, we don't really need god at all, do we?" One could very easily turn the game around, whereby atheists would have to change their presupposition, just for one day, to "there is a God. " This of course can be demonstrated (Romans 1:20 for example), but that is not within the scope of this article. Once you had them imagining there was a God, you could ask them questions like:

Say there is a God. Would you expect him to reveal himself to you?

This could lead you in a discussion about the Bible, God's revealed Word. The topics would be endless. You could describe fulfilled prophesy, the great proof God gives that He is who He says He is, and so on. There is no more sound evidence (a "more sure word" the Bible calls it) than accurately predicting the future without error, which the Bible does. You could then follow up with the question,

"Say there is a God, and the Bible is indeed His revealed Word. Would you expect that Bible to reflect what you see in the world around you?"

This gets to the heart of a person's worldview, which is at the crux of the argument : either evolutionary humanism, or God Createdism. If you are a Creationist, you could explain the 7 Cs of History, discuss geology, astronomy, paleontology, death, suffering, fossils, rock layers, sin, curse, fallen Man, and redemption through the Saviour. You point to Christ as the solution to the sin problem. Alternatively, if you are a theistic evolutionist, you probably couldn't point to the Bible as being consistent with what we see in the world without some serious mashing-up of Genesis. You may say, "don't worry about the worldly evidence not lining up with what the Bible says way back there in Genesis. Just remember that Jesus loves you, and he died for you." That kind of answer is perhaps what got the atheist to become a skeptic in the first place, because the foundation of the Gospel - our need for a redeemer - has not been built. Winning an atheist to Christ means you have to first take away the idea of a redeemer as foolishness, and replace it with the idea of a redeemer as necessity. Just some thoughts...

In case you're wondering what to buy me for Christmas (or my Birthday) this year

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:37:00 -0700

Needing a little ambiance for the next time I host a UFC event: Perhaps I can recommend a new scent : PAIN :-)