The quest to understand, or to wander, or do both... *** I close my eyes and cover my face because it feels like I’m clutching at straws, and because I know I’m not the only one banging my head at this same old proverbial door. If one could see my mind’s eye, I assume, it would look like my physical eyes, tired and reddened from too many late night hours. Hitherto, art and “inspiration” can often be described as (and forever it will be) … a poisoned chalice to my grimacing lips. Sweet and richly rewarding, but also tempting and all consuming, like a labyrinth, luring you in, only to hold you there in a deluge of sometimes false insight and glimmers of hopes and truths that also sometimes disappear just as quickly as you reach out to grasp them. The realms behind - Could it be that art is something apart from us… that we remain the same simple beings, but that some of us are gifted with the ability to tap into this realm…? That the talents we possess are there to enable us to peel back our plain reality and existence to reveal what lies beyond it. And that the subject of this revelation is something apart from us, yet we are inexorably linked to it. That artists are simply some kind of strange gatekeepers to the intangible, interpreters of a realm beyond our grasp. But that all we do is the act – that Art simply is the act of revealing. I’ve asked the question before of ‘why we thank God for our own accomplishments’… well, it leads me to think of Michelangelo who said "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” Some time ago I wrote a piece entitled “The Future of Art” which included a somewhat somber but no less hopeful and objective look at the art world; what it is now, compared to what it was. It came to mind as I read a recent article by my friend David Martinez Romero (Here) in which he quotes Hegel stating that art has lost the immediacy it had in the glory days… With this we’re led to the exploration of what art actually is, and why we feel the way we feel, because it has and always will be entwined with our emotions, as much as our imagination. Now I have constantly ‘watched’ myself in the way I approach issues (not to be apologetic in my manner, but just self conscious) knowing that many or most people do not take things so seriously, but I am reassured when with my colleagues (other artists, writers) because it is our role to take these things seriously, because if we didn’t, who else would? So what is art, essentially… and why is this important? At its core, is creativity… But more than that, it is ambitious, or inspirational creativity – encompassed by a goal, a desire to get there, to achieve something, to do, to make… something that needs no other purpose, but to exist. A work of art doesn’t need to inspire the onlooker, or invoke an emotion or feeling , because the world of art exists within the abstract. To connect with something, or form something that cannot be fully defined and explored in the physical and finite world. Art exists because there exists within us the ability of abstract thought. That although we are finite beings (in one body/mind, living a mortal existence) we seem to have abilities that reach well beyond us – But for what reason, what purpose? And we might say that it is the link to the spiritual world (or a remnant, a clue to something more than this life – even if we choose to ignore it), the question alone is worth exploring… but being ready for whatever answer comes our way, this is another matter entirely, a matter which requires you to ready your heart. Mind you, to reach this place is not easy. Why do we all have different talents and abilities? That one person has the ability to perform immense and complex equations whilst another can render a detailed and immaculate sketch – it comes across as an eerie kind of randomness. Precision and abstract beauty coming from each individual, like various colours making the tapestry of our humanity… viewed from close it looks like a mess, but step back and the image begins to make a little more sense. But why does this exist? – Again the question is inspiration itself. Of course artists may explore any issue, minute or infinite, material or intangible… all for his or her own pleasure, to explore the abilities they have found within, and though they may not know or understand why they have a particular talent, they are at peace with the fact that they have it, and that it in some way defines who they are or signals their purpose in this life. I would put it to you that the creative ability we possess is merely a reflection of the same infinite ability present in our creator. He made us in his image, and just as we look around us, and the world, we see many things that apparently have little to no purpose (in our lives, other than aesthetic appeal), other than to simply exist. Mountains and embankments covered in new blossoms that on any given day can go unseen by human eyes, yet they are there, they exist, with or without our knowledge or sight. Why did God make them, why did he make us? Is it simply for his own pleasure? Is that not why we create, for own pleasure and recognition, to distinguish ourselves from others? Pleasure is present, but I am not saying that there will not be turmoil and pain within the process, that it will only be pleasurable, or that perhaps the results are not what you were looking for, or perhaps people misinterpret your work… Ask or study any great artist and I will guarantee that there was pain involved, depression, self doubt, lack of inspiration or any number of issues that come hand in hand with the process of creating something. It is usually a deluge of toil… Some struggle, in the effort to experience something great, to catch a glimpse of something Godly, but if we were only to start with God first, and move from there (from Him), from that place of rest, and then explore the labyrinthine garden we call Art. When exploring something such as creativity itself, then perhaps, is it not best to start with familiarizing ourselves with the inventor of the thing we wish to explore; in this case the Creator himself? "The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection." As we look at the world of art, some might say that we are in trouble… its as if years ago we’d entered the fantastic abstract world and started exploring, but now it feels that, much like the world itself, there’s very little that has not been seen or explored, that art (like the world) is over explored, and there’s very little mystery left. Its like we’ve somehow found the walls or the outer borders of this world as we struggle to find new mediums to explore. We cannot go sideways or forwards or back without revisiting where we were, so perhaps all that's left is to go up or down... But perhaps, if we change the way we see things, change our vantage point, we might see this world differently. It feels like many artists sense things like they’re walking through a gallery, looking around or looking out and up… but maybe we could look at things from the outside in. It may seem odd to define the art world as a confined space, as many would see it as something without limits, or that its only as limited as our minds make it to be… but my view is that art exists outside and apart from the human mind, “it” was there before us, it is beyond us… Art is beyond expressionism, or application of human imaginative capability, or “creative activity”… I would propose that it is a means to access or reach into something which is essentially greater than us all. I mean just think, Art imitates life, art cannot exist without it, and we are fearfully and wonderfully made... Our form, our appearance, our design, is a work of sublime art, hence we are to change our thinking, because we are exploring something that we ourselves are a part of, revealing and understanding our place in it... Creation! * - This writers opinion . . .
0 Comments
Why is it so hard to believe in God?’ – or why is his existence not overtly apparent (to many)? There are a few reasons one could mention, but I’m focusing specifically on the challenge, or perception, surmised best in the above question, and it focuses on the need for "faith". If God exists, then why doesn't he just show himself already? Or perhaps you've heard the question of 'where's your proof that God exists?' Many think there’s an onus on the believer to convince or prove the existence of God, but the truth is that they, or many Christians (theists) for that matter, haven’t thought about this issue deeply enough. Those same folk want to have it both ways. Put simply; you cannot have God reveal himself and show up on every proverbial doorstep, AND maintain our freedom of choice. Once God's existence is 'proven beyond all shadow of doubt' - everyone will be forced into action. And the key word here, is ‘FORCED’! There will be no time for choice (in the final days) because as the saying goes "there's no point in saying 'I choose to kneel' if kneeling is the only option. Here's a scenario to explain what I mean: Lets for a moment say that God came and revealed himself to every individual on the face of the earth (no faith required), producing a complimentary miracle to prove he is who he claims to be, and then said "you are now free to choose: Follow me, or don't follow me. BUT, if you decide to turn away from me, after you die you will burn in the fiery pit of hell for all eternity." This, is essentially a threat, forcing people to choose, or live on without God and eventually die and then suffer damnation. This technique is also known as coercion. And according to most courts of law, any testimony offered under duress, is inadmissible or invalid because any choice you make is not genuine. A genuine choice involves a 3rd option - the choice NOT to choose, or to avoid the issue entirely. Also, the way in which many people want God to reveal himself, is a way that completely negates the relational aspect that God seeks. Incidentally it’s also why torture is seen as an unreliable method to gain information, because people will say anything to stop the pain. Why do I escalate this to torture? Well, God turned it on its head - the flip side of this is that the disciples of Jesus were all tortured for their testimony in claiming that they saw Jesus resurrected. All of them had to answer a simple yes or no question – if they denied their claim to seeing him, their lives would be spared… But all chose to rather suffer and die for the certainty of the truth [although Apostle John was the only 1 of the original 12 to survive and live to an old age, albeit exiled/imprisoned to the isle of Patmos, He still had to make the same decision the others had.] If you look a little deeper here you’ll see that, regarding coercion, even if someone had denied seeing Jesus alive after being crucified, that testimony could not legitimately be trusted because their motivation was not the truth, but simply to escape their torment. I don’t know anyone who would willingly die for something they knew was a lie [unless, for example, it was a lie they concocted themselves to save a loved one in immediate danger]. Hence the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the testimonies of his resurrection were ‘purified’ through the martyrdom of the disciples. Here God used death (the very thing Jesus came to overcome) to seal the convictions of these men. Their testimonies are now canonized and accepted as historical record. The Gospel of Luke in particular, is credited as the most accurate historical account as it was written using the Historical Method. Immediately after Christ's death, the proverbial 'Jesus movement' was also dead. The disciples had gone back to their usual jobs where Jesus had first found them... but 3 days later something happened, changing their lives and inspiring these men to take the gospel to the nations, and then suffer and die horrible deaths for what they had seen and believed. It speaks volumes that the very empire that killed the man claiming to be the messiah, then abandoned their false gods – Jupiter, Apollo etc. – and adopted the faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God as the cornerstone of Roman Catholicism. The Bible though, for all its claims, does not force anyone to believe in it. Hence we have a choice. For instance atheists have made their choice; though in recent years many have ‘evolved’ into anti-theists, antagonizing people for their belief in God (or a belief in any god), trying to convince many to adopt atheism. But, atheists Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn write: I've added the two images above from the film "Watchmen" (2006) because I thought of it whilst imagining what a god-like entity would be like if it revealed itself to humanity in the way we humans envision a god-like entity to "behave". The graphic novel dealt with the question of 'what would it be like if superheroes really existed?', correctly assuming that they would be seen as god-like figures (its a common theme in comic books, from Marvel Xmen's Magneto referring to Mutants as "God's among men", and even the title of the DC comics video game "Injustice: Gods among us". In the above scenes the Vietnamese soldiers are either running in fear of Dr. Manhattan as he enters the battlefield, or later yielding/submitting to him. There isn't a legitimate choice here - either run and die as the enemy, or yield and become his subjects. [photos from youtube.com & flickriver.com] The Bible is the most controversial and attacked book ever written, surviving every acid test known to man who has (rightfully) tried to dissect/scrutinize/disprove it for centuries. And yet, still it remains... because the fact is, mere men could not have written a book of this kind based on his wits alone (a book of prophecy, historical and scientific accuracy, inspiration, and without fault, spanning 1000s of years). Even in studying it, many have failed to grasp its significance and power. “It is possible for men to be very studious in the letter of the Scriptures, yet to be strangers to its power.” – Commentary by Matthew Henry on John 5:39, which reads “You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me.” – [Holmann Christian Std] God subtlety and perfectly inserted himself into our story here on earth, in such a way as to keep our freedom of choice in tact. So that those who choose to follow him, come voluntarily, motivated by their own yearning for truth and salvation. This is the foundations of a relationship and the basis of the Love the Bible speaks of. And even when God humbled Himself, taking the form of man by sending his son and performing miracles, even then, people rejected him, and then crucified him. This once again illustrates the defiance and rebellion of man, wanting to be master of his own soul. A person (intellectual or philosophical) may come professing the message of God, but people would rather listen to intellectuals or philosophers outside of faith, because then whatever they say is subjective andi smore open to acceptance or dismissal because they are under their own authority. But God’s Word means wrestling with our nature, and truly submitting to the truth, that there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong - and this means submitting to an objective all powerful authority that is above man. As mentioned, it is a concept man still rebels against, today more than ever. “I have come in my father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.” – Jesus speaking to the Jews… John 5:43 [NIV] Why did God do this? Why did God send his son? - You’ve probably heard the story of repentance and salvation etc. But the story of the whole Bible is how man (Adam) turned from God, condemning man to sin and death; and how God, through his love for us, has been working to bring us back to himself. It sounds simple, because it is. But the ramifications and impact on our lives and deeper meanings of how all this plays out in the world, is not so simple. - A Relationship
So then what does it mean to fear God? We’ve heard of being ‘God fearing’, but many do not understand it. They only recognize it as an attachment to slavery. But to be God fearing is similar to when you feared your parents (or father) as a child. It was a fear born out of respect, and not wanting to disappoint. But here its a natural fear, born from the knowledge of God's incomparable Power and Authority. Another note on “fear”: The phrase “do not be afraid” appears In the Bible 365 times (one for every day of the year); this is not by chance. An ALL powerful God, a spiritual and supernatural realm – these are things that could easily frighten us, just the thought of the possibility of another realm alone… But God has sent a message to those who choose him, through all the mess of humanity and worldly distractions, defiance and insecurities… a simple message that entails peace, love and to ‘not be afraid’, meaning in addition to faith, we need to exercise Trust... the foundations of a relationship. Make no mistake; experiencing the heart of this message carries unspeakable comfort, but our journey toward that place of comfort, begins in a mess of inner turmoil as we wrestle with our soul and spirit, deal with repentance and the beginnings of this thing called faith. Just as a chaos ensues within a seed just prior to germination as it breaks open and 'dies' for the plant to grow, similarly we go though a deep inner turmoil at the start of this journey with God. “…but Lucy never thought…stopped to think whether he was a friendly lion or not. She rushed to him. She felt her heart would burst if she lost a moment. And the next thing she knew was that she was kissing him and putting her arms as far round his neck as she could and burying her face in the beautiful rich silkiness of his mane. “Aslan, Aslan, Dear Aslan,” sobbed Lucy. “At last.” The great beast rolled over on his side so that Lucy fell, half sitting and half lying between his front paws. He bent forward and just touched her nose with his tongue. His warm breath came all round her. She gazed up into the large wise face. “Welcome child,” He said. *** "Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you." --- C.S. Lewis, 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe'. Photo: 'Aslanlucyreunion' from narnia.wikia.com *of course in the book, Aslan represents God* "things we obtain too easily, we esteem to lightly" Yes, you’ve heard this line from a Maya Angelou poem… I was thinking about time, and how it doesn’t apply to dreams And if you know me, then you know by now that at some point my thoughts will always turn toward God . . . in this instance, the inventor of time. It’s awkward to think of life outside and apart from time, but to think about it, our dreams are like glimpses into this world. I look at my dog who is growling and barking in his sleep, his whole body is moving… so even animals can dream, or maybe just dogs. One time his leg twitched, so maybe he was chasing a cat in his dream. Since man’s infancy we have wondered about this thing, why we have it, or where it comes from, and if it has a deeper purpose and meaning. I could tell you that it’s a remnant of our forsaken spirituality, as we plunged into this moment of time called life. That it’s a fragrance or a hint of something more than the physical, of a place beyond the natural, a place without time. But we’re free to choose or imagine for ourselves, to attach our own meanings. I realise though, that this taste of a timeless place, is an entity often taken for granted, left unexplored or forgotten, relegated to superstition and fantasy… a playground for your subconscious imaginative power, nut nothing more. But contemplating our existence and the concept of an immortal soul and awakened spirit, the dream becomes more relevant, makes more sense if we are actually spiritual beings living in these temporary skins. But just like the dreams themselves, which waft in and out of our lives, so too do these deep thoughts, pushed aside by the natural world, by the reality we make before us. This world of endless distraction. Perhaps this is the duty of those like myself, as we’re given license to tentatively reach out to these realms outside of time, because we’re naturally seeking more than what we see, recognising that there appears to be something behind or above this natural world… We chose to turn from the eternal and embrace the temporal, because the immediacy of the things around us placed a great power within our fleshly hands; ruled by our senses, we mould our future with our own works. We chose to rule our lives, instead of submitting to something spiritual. But in turning to our own devices, forsaking the spiritual, we bowed to time, and with that, we too would become like dreams – the very thing that haunts us now, as we lowered ourselves, our lives, to slip in And eventually out Of time. For without the spiritual eternal, we placed our heads in the jaws of time, of age and decay And in our passing, if we continue to place highest value in the pursuit of things governed and hunted by the clock, then our destiny is tied to the forgotten dream, Forever lost. * We only occupy a space in time. --- Photo: [Václav Chochola: 'Night Walker' - self-portrait standing in the night city. He put his camera on a tripod and left quite a long exposure and he stood near this street lamp. Eventually he went back and closed the shutter.. "Every picture may show more than I want to say.."] [Image credits: Nadya Lukic photography, Vaclav Chochola self portrait, meetville.com]
Have we outgrown religion, or god (the idea of a god/God, or any deity of some sort)? Has science successfully rendered such views baseless? And by that token, has Creationism or Creation Science (the anti-evolutionist view if you will, or those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation) provided any worthwhile rebuttal? Or has Creation Science, described in a recent article I read as a ‘pseudo science’, become the so called ‘laughing stock of the Science world'? The short answer is of course: no… Simply put, the above questions and implications is another form of propaganda – promoted by the secular mindset, which is essentially an atheistic one. The scientific community is rife with it, as many respected scientists (who are also Christians, or religious in some way) quietly go about their work whilst retaining their creationist views without broadcasting it, because to do so would bring about prejudice against them for their beliefs. Ben Stein, a high school science educator, in his DVD “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” highlights the discrimination in the (American) education institutions if you do not believe in the naturalistic evolutionary world view. Is there any merit to the claim that truly intelligent (scientific) people cannot believe in God? The idea that any person with an education, an advanced degree, doesn’t believe in the Bible (or have any religious beliefs) because (specifically) the Bible is unscientific? Bill Nye (famous as ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) in a Youtube video for theBigThink.com said “And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it… Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future” [taken from the article "Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-)Science Guy" by Dr. Jeff Miller] – more than implying or stopping short of saying that to believe in God and/or the Biblical account of creation (or any religion) will hamper your progress in science. In other words, creation scientists or those who share those beliefs cannot offer anything worthwhile/credible because their beliefs taint their findings. Also that anyone with these beliefs are living in a dream world. Of course his statement and what it implies is false. Agnostic Niel Degrasse Tyson stated that nearly half of the practicing scientists in America are religious and believe in/pray to, a god, yet it does not adversely affect their work. If we were to apply this view to history (bearing in mind that the Big Bang Theory has only been around for 35 years) we’d have to fudge out many contributions by so-called ‘creation-scientists’ who, based on Nye's intimation, seem to lack credibility. Men like
I could add a lot more names that are less famous. (I must add that this does not mean I agree with all of their personal views; for one, Newton did not believe Jesus was God, while it’s reported that Einstein – born a Jew – believed in a pantheistic god) but it can be said that they all accepted the Biblical account of creation as Truth. Now you might claim that modern science has unearthed the universe's true origins (minus God), but in fact, everything they have (against the Bible) is actually speculation. Pseudo Science An "old-earth ministries" article I read, labeled Creationism as a Pseudo Science since it cannot be empirically proven, and based on their definition, in this writers opinion, Creation Science can then rightly be described as Pseudo Science as it does not abide by the clinical definition of Science (it cannot be tested and proven in a lab via observational experiments… this being observational or practical and physical science). One can only observe the universe/nature to see if there are indications that are consistent with the Biblical explanation. That is to say, does anything we observe in nature or the universe scientifically contradict the Bible’s account or not? Conversely, Cosmology, with its presiding model of evolution and the Big Bang Theory, also cannot be proven… in fact its for this reason that it remains a theory and nothing more. Scientists have failed to provide any empirical proof, nor can they. What we can do is speculate and simulate, but even if (by way of an example) they do locate the much vaunted “god-particle”, it does not disprove God, nor does it prove the evolutionary theory, nor does it disprove creationists. (FYI, they’re not sure whether or not they’ve found the Higgs-Boson particle but they think that they have. One Scientist described it as recognizing a familiar face in a crowd as it passed by. It could be what they think it is, but it also may not be. So they think they’ve found it but it’s hard to tell because the process occurs so quickly in the Hadron Collider, so the ‘Find’ is yet to be verified). The reason they cannot prove the theory, is because they're speculating about something that happened in history (with no human witnesses), so all the experiments in Cern are speculative simulations of what scientists think happened in or near the beginning, but no one can say for sure. (FYI, In my email response to that article, I highlighted that according to their definition of 'Pseudo Science', they may as well add Cosmology into the mix as well since it fits the their bill... they have yet to respond.) "Concerning the term “pseudo-science,” we’d use that term differently than you’re suggesting. We’d use it to mean, basically, “false science.” Science based, for example, on faulty assumptions. With regard to science that involves unobserved events, we’d probably use the term “historical science” (as opposed to observational science), rather than pseudo-science, to describe those events. Much of geology, biology (notice that evolutionary biology is historical science, since no one has seen one type of creature give rise to a completely different type of creature, crossing a phylogenic boundary; we’d also call it a pseudo-science though, since it hinges on the flawed assumption that naturalism is correct), and cosmology are based on unobserved events, but would still be deemed science. Forensic science is another good example of science using indirect, rather than direct evidence—the scientists didn’t directly witness the event, but instead, are assessing what happened based on indirect evidence." But as I’ve said, what does this prove? If in fact the particle is verified (and I for one think that even if they haven’t found it yet, the particle probably does exist) what does it say about the origins of the universe. Practically, the particle can be ‘used’ by both evolutionists and creationists, but of course it doesn’t explain much. What do I mean? - Well, how did the particle come about in the first place? If it is the catalyzing particle to create all the others, then how was it created, or what catalyzed its formation? What or who created the Higgs-Boson particle? Additionally, this particle does not validate anything in the Big Bang Theory or the evolutionary model. It’s a link in a chain. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that chain is very incomplete. In fact the evolutionary chain has no beginning. As one scientist put it; Evolution and The Big Bang Theory have not made it to the starting line yet to compete with Creationism, because they cannot account for the origin of life/ the veritable “In the beginning” moment. Currently, this model has no beginning, apart from “Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis” which contradict Scientific law. Where does the Higgs-Boson particle “fit” in the timeline of creation/development of the universe? One could say it was merely a tool God created to make the universe. Its like an artists tool - used not to shape the clay, but rather to make the clay required for the sculpture. If one were to apply it to the evolutionary model, then it would be integral to what came before the Big Bang… In other words it doesn’t explain what occurred to incite the implosion/explosion/expansion of the original mass to create the big bang. This of course is another bone of contention, with evolutionary scientists divided as to the origin of the theorized big bang, because some say that it must have had a center, while others disagree (ie. there is no center of the universe). The most preposterous notion though is that the entire universe comes from a “cosmic egg”, or cosmic dot (no bigger than a full-stop on this page) – a “single point” from which everything – you and I, earth, The Milky Way etc… evolved. This by the way, violates scientific law, echoed by Agnostic Scientist and former (he passed away in 2006) NASA astronomer: “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” --- Robert Jastrow (1977, p. 32). Dating [and the Geologic timetable] A major issue of course is dating methods. There are quite a few methods out there, the most famous being Carbon Dating (which is based on several major assumptions, and can only be used for previously living matter with a limit of measuring only up to 40 000 years – meaning any fossil found and measurable using this method is by default, younger than 40 000 years old… thus it cannot be applied to the Prehistoric timescale for Dinosaurs which measures in the millions of years. For this, they instead rely on rocks around the fossil to date the specimen). Hence the need for other methods to suit and somehow aid the evolutionary theory and geologic timescale --- some of which are the Potassium-Argon, Uranium 238 and Fision-Track methods, all of which render vastly different dates for the same geological samples. Here’s a link detailing 20 different dating methods and the assumptions that are needed for ALL of them (they list 7 basic general assumptions and then further outline specified flaws of each individual dating method.) – Science vs evolution – Why non-historical dating techniques are not reliable To give you an idea of how dating works: an archaeologist will take a fossil he’s found, and before testing it, the scientists will ask him for an assumed/estimated date based on his expert opinion (i.e. how old does he think it is, based on his research and experience?) he’ll offer an estimate, and then they’ll search for a date that suits his theory. "Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age. Another article I read recently, on LiveScience.com, outlined the history of the feud between Evolutionists and Creationists, written by a (supposedly) unbiased author. One of the points she highlighted was the Creationist belief that the world came into being in 6 days and the earth is younger than 10 000 years old… She then stated “when in fact it is 4.5 Billion years old” – this of course is an outright lie. It’s odd that a learned scientist, or science writer would make such specious statement. What is a fact is that based on a flawed dating system, the earth appears to be billions of years old, or "according to some scientists, the earth is believed to be...". Why are so many scientists so afraid of accepting that “Earth changes can happen in catastrophic leaps” as we’ve witnessed with floods, earthquakes, tsunami’s etc. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." Some general questions I have:
Summing up – This is an article that can spawn volumes of work, and has for many an individual investigating these sorts of topics in earnest or tackling the philosophical dynamism which starts where science ends. Labeling Creation Science as a 'laughing stock' merely demonstrates the accusers ignorance and brand of bias. It strikes me as odd though that many people in the field do not earnestly want answers, but have rather settled on their own preconceived conclusions. Many (non-Christian) scientists dismiss outright the creation model of the Universe (and God/the Bible etc), before even considering it or investigating it. This in my opinion is unscientific (though scientists have covered themselves in this regard… according the University of California, Berkeley, “the scientific process only applies to the natural world. Hence, anything considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science”). One can claim that you’ve considered something and found it to be a joke, but in reference to Christianity you’re only expressing your ignorance. The fact is that many people evade the Biblical explanation because it means facing some serious personal issues. Because once you’ve decided to investigate the Bible and its claims seriously, it then means you have to open yourself up to the possibility of being accountable to God... in other words it means confronting the truth of God, and that means realistically facing our rebellious nature. Most people in the world don’t want to do this. What it also means is wrestling with the notion of the supernatural, and this plays on one of mankind's most primal fears... the fear of the unknown. "Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind. In a desperate effort to avoid it, some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the measurements that indicate the retreating motion of the galaxies, an interpretation that would not require the universe to expand. If the evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need for a moment of creation would be eliminated,and the concept of time without end would return to science. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an expanding world" --- Robert Jastrow - Until the Sun dies (1977, p.31) "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way..." --- Isaiah 53:6 [Image credits: youtube.com, cern.ch, iconqal.com, quoteinsta.com]
* “The foods I’ve eaten, and the beds I’ve slept in”… it was a working title of a book my father never wrote. It was one in a moderate sized list of things he never got around to doing, or goals that remained in the realm of dreams. But, if he were here today, now… he probably wouldn’t list it under regrets. He wasn’t the type to carry them, barring maybe one or two from his youth that he probably mentioned in passing once or twice, in the time I was a part of his life. But even then, the word ‘regret’ was never used. [Contentment] Sometimes I feel like I’m on the brink of something big, forever questioning whether or not I’m prepared for it, whilst other times I feel like I’m paddling upriver. I’m doing some real work but if I look at the shore, I’m actually going nowhere. I'm aware that in time I'll look back on this piece or period, and what concerns me… Well, I think what will concern me then, is what concerns me now. It’s strange when you find yourself on a road you kind of never chose. I know there’s always a choice, but writing was never in the running in terms of my career choices. I’ve never met anyone who said that when they were young they always dreamed of becoming a writer. Now that I am one, I understand why. There’s a saying, I don’t know by whom but it says ‘people don’t choose to be a writer, Writing chooses people’. I believe there is some truth to that. I think that many folks seem to have an idea where they want to go and affix their sights on that and move toward it. For me that never happened with Writing. It’s like God took me along the road, showing me various inviting avenues, that I would ultimately not take… and one day he brought me to this point {a ballpoint, hehe} where, in hindsight, many things began to make sense. It’s a diversion I never thought of. It elicits many mixed feelings, because its like I was going one way (a way that looked right and seemed to fit, but just didn’t feel 100%), and God tapped me on the shoulder and said, “No, you’re going this way”. So I feel honoured to have been “selected” for this road, but the struggles I face brings me to realize why it must and can only be a chosen few to travel it, who have the stomach for it, otherwise anyone would do it. And with that in mind, getting selected to travel down this particular road, although there are exits and options to divert from this course, or so it seems to the “outside world”, from my perspective, there really isn’t. Otherwise it’s like descending down a mineshaft, and the only way you’ll emerge in public again, is if you keep on digging, keep on mining until you hit something of value to take up to be scrutinized. And the thing is that we all feel like we’ve found gold, but the public doesn’t seem to think so, or some folk acknowledge that what we have does hold some value, just not to their pockets. So you’ve found (created) something, now the job is to decipher if what you have is real gold (of whatever purity), or just some shiny metal, or just some plain metal… Although any writer will argue that the market needs all kinds of metals, we just need to ensure that we’re peddling our wares to the right crowd. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure (though I’m not saying what you have is junk, but rather that in someone’s eyes - someone reputable, other than yourself – what you have could be a treasure). And so it goes. We forge on, in solitary self doubt, and often darkness, to find a glimmer of light… And it’s not easy, especially when dealing with that ever present companion I just referred to, called doubt. And he’s not alone either. Not only is there the personal doubt, but the often silent doubt (hand-in-hand with waning confidence) of your fiercest fans and loved ones - your virtuous "true believers", if you're fortunate enough to have some. You might say you’re mining (in a way), but perhaps they think you’re sailing, and that your boat is sinking, and there’s no wind to guide your sails. You might think a great many things, that so what if you’re on an allegorical boat, and that you’re fanning the flames of your own budding career, using what looks suspiciously like wood from your own, very same, sinking boat… - what if someone sees those flames? What if someone wades out to ‘rescue’ you… Because maybe they believe, as you always have, that you have a story worth telling. Maybe your chunk of metal isn’t meant for a necklace or ring… maybe it’s meant for a gun barrel, or silverware or a key To unlock other worlds... and if that sounds like a cliche, then you know the kind of plywood we're dealing with to keep the boat afloat. We scratch, mine, sail, sink and/or swim by our hopes... and NOT our fears. . [Image credits: pixshark.com, Radka Malbeck photography, "boy writing"- Ernest Cole photography, thedirtlife.blogspot.com]
- A factional short story - She sat as she usually did at the beginning of one of her more philosophical lectures, with her one thigh resting on the edge of her desk. When she brushed her short dark hair behind her ears, tucking the strands neatly into the arms of her slim spectacles, as she did now, it somehow lured onlookers, in this instance, her students, to sit forward in anticipation. It was her way of readying herself, and us, for what was to come. She interlocked her fingers in her lap and with a vaguely shaky voice, she began. “How hard is it, to believe in the invisible… how hard have we tested our perception of invisibility? An ‘invisible God’, for instance? Why, why is he invisible in the first place? And is the concept of invisibility even believable, I mean, it’s been the subject of many art pieces - films, scientists have actually been working on an actual ‘invisibility cloak’. But can there be any truth to this concept, anything more than fiction? Is it yet another fruitless pursuit of some impossible goal?” She turned her gaze to the open window now. “The more we know, the more we clutter ourselves. Travel to a rural town, experience a slower paced life and it will begin to lend some appreciation, not only for our creature comforts, but also to how simple life can be, or once was. I’ve met people whose only concern, quite literally, amounted to “when was the rain coming?” – that was and still is their main cause of stress. I’ve met farmers who’ve prayed for rain… I started in this manner because I want you to take a mental step back for a moment and think about life differently, to clear the clutter of bills, work, study, even family, from your plate, and let’s just think about life… the roots of it. When it comes down to the essentials, it becomes a matter of perception, because your life is less cluttered, you get to focus on the real things. I think of rural dusty towns because on such outskirts you become most aware of life in general.” She said her two fists together, “You’re conscious of it all the more, and just like that your perspective changes because quite literally, you’re relying more of your five senses to interact with your surroundings. City life often involves things or people jumping out at you, asking for your attention, making a noise, shrouding your vision… assaulting your senses. In remote places, that is removed, and you’re suddenly aware of the sound of your own footsteps, natural smells and aromas of nature, the cleaner air, being able to see to the untouched distance, and after a while you’re perhaps aware of the sound of your own breathing, because it is the only sound punctuating the air. You become fully aware of your own existence because now that everything, family, friends, TV, wifi, noise, is all gone and nothing is begging for your attention, everything around you just is. So your own existence… it feels, strangely “close” because now your senses are required to fetch stimuli from around you." She grabbed fists of air. "What does this have to do with God and invisibility? It’s simple; it’s how we perceive life. How we see this material world before us. Our senses, are our gateway to this world, allowing us to experience it. What we sense, governs what we determine to be invisible or not. The ancient peoples and rural cultures all had a sense of the spiritual, yet city life has diminished that sense by simply droning it out. We’ve become desensitized on a spiritual level. Think about this a moment: Dogs have more powerful olfactory sensors, said to be 1000 times more powerful than ours. So their sense of smell is richer, and broader, detecting odours that we can’t. They’re able to hear certain frequencies that we cannot. Crustaceans, in particular, the Mantis Shrimp, has one of the most elaborate visual systems ever discovered. They’re considered to have the most complex eyes of the animal kingdom. Some species possess 16 different photoreceptor types, of which 12 are for analysing colour. What does this mean? Well we only have 4 visual pigments of which 3 are used for colour perception. The rainbow stems from 3 colours. What this means is that they not only possess a better visual spectrum than we do, but it’s even better than our best technology can offer. It easily outperforms Blu-Ray optical technology. Mantis Shrimps can perceive more colours than we can. Does this mean there are more colours than we know? It makes sense if there are, since most of the light spectrum is not visible to us. What’s certain is that they perceive more than us, including ultraviolet light, and even polarization vision. What is clear to me is that even by studying the material world there’s a whole lot more than meets the eye… or ears and nose - not forgetting taste. So already we know, or are aware of the unknown… sorry to use this once laughed at idiom. But this is the known unknown… So by considering the invisibility of God, specifically addressing people who seem sure that there is no God, or spiritual/supernatural realm, we can already ascertain that even within our humble finite existence, we cannot see all there is to see, or hear all there is to hear… and this is about what we know exists out there. To us, they are known invisible entities. There are definite elements that exist outside our realm of perception. Now, spare another thought for the invisible world of . . . your mind.” Her head cocked to one side, “Wait what? – Yes,” She nodded, looking at our faces, “everything happening inside your mind, your thoughts, your imagination and your dreams. ALL this takes place outside, or apart from the natural material world, and are, by their nature, invisible to others. They are intangible. So already we’ve established 'perceivable' unknowns or invisibilities, and thence indefinable invisibilities. Again, these are invisible elements we know exist. Now think about this: If you’re in an accident, you may lose limbs, have an organ transplant, become paralyzed…" She waited, "the point is, that despite these things, you would still remain who you are, in mind, your personality… the essential things that make you, YOU. And guess what, it’s those invisible things that make us different. I’ve seen a couple of medical cases where patients lost portions of their brain, and though their lives were adversely affected, they still remain essentially who they are as people. So what makes us who we are? This is the existential question, because even through all that I’ve mentioned, there’s still more to us. A relative of mine recently suffered a stroke which has drastically impaired her speech. As a result, she could only enunciate two words: 'Willy boy' – this incidentally is what she used to call her now deceased husband. So of all the words in the two languages that she was able to speak, somehow her brain and mouth 'chose' those words as their default setting as she now learns how to speak again. Is this due to habit, muscle memory, or Love, or all of the above? Either way, its food for thought. We are already more than what we can perceive. Is believing in an “invisible God” really that hard? Ask yourself this: Is your idea of God too ‘provincial’? – The Bible is, well, its like a Vladimir Nabokov quote – ‘not like one wave... and to experience it does not mean you’ve grasped the whole sea. To truly understand it, would mean getting in the boat, going out to open waters until you can’t see land anymore. You then experience the waves that the sea can muster, and in the midst of it, find out what God’s Grace is really about… but still, you would be in the dark as to the teeming life beneath the surface, and the endless undercurrents... Many want to think of God as a simple timekeeper, who wound the universe’s clock, and then let it tick on,” she wafted her hand, “leaving it be, to run its course. But no, when we were created, the first of us, we were created holy, and righteous to stand in God’s presence – it was only Good. So what is Holy? – It means to belong to, or derived from, or associated with - a divine power. Something sacred. Regarded with veneration or specificity. Something reverent. But we disobeyed God, and thence removed ourselves from holiness, from God’s presence, as we descended into sin. And what is Sin? - A condition of estrangement from God, resulting from such disobedience. Romans 14:23 “… and whatever is not from faith is sin” – thus we are born into it, because we are born separated from God – we’re on opposing sides. But this creator of the universe, who sits on his throne in heaven, then stepped off that throne, to be born of a woman, and live amongst us, knowing full well what would happen. He knew he would be killed. But God planned this since our fall in Genesis 3. He planned it perfectly. He chose to dwell among us, to demonstrate his love… and true love is sacrificial – caring not for oneself, but for others. And Sacrifice? - A Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. === Imagine you were sentenced to death for a crime you were guilty of - which we all are, in this life - and someone came, and they said they loved you… even though we did not deserve the love, and they said they would take your place,to be executed in your stead. THIS is the type of love God has for us. God didn’t just choose to die, he chose to be beaten, tortured, laid bare and humiliated… reduced to a bleeding chunk of ripped flesh nailed to a wooden cross. - When this was prophesied in the Old Testament, this method of death, and punishment, hadn’t even been invented yet. God not only humbled himself, but Jesus subjected himself to hours of pain for our sake. It would be simple for God to show up and exercise his power, much like the miracles he performed throughout the Bible, with the same universe-creating power, making it obvious to us that he is the one true God, the almighty, brandishing his majesty in a visual feast of splendour and authority, essentially asserting that man choose to follow him, or choose death. But instead, God chose death first, overcame it, and now offers his hand gently, to follow him. God does want obedience, yes, like a father wants from his child, but he doesn’t want to enslave us, or to force us. He cannot make us Love him, because that is not true love. Read the Book properly, and you’ll find that it is in fact a love story, with a hero, fighting for us. The facts are that historians are unanimous. There was a man named Jesus, and he lived, and died, under the rule of Pontias Pilate. The bone of contention is whether or not he rose again. If he did not, then the entire Christian faith is based on a lie. In fact it would then mean that Jesus lied, since he said he would rise again, as it is written in Mark 10:34, Luke 9:22 and Matt 16:21. In fact, the majority of sceptics who studied history and the Bible, to search for evidence, came out of it a Christian. It could be claimed that the ones who were not converted, were never sceptics to begin with, but were rather cynics who presented no evidence to back up their claims that the Bible Story is false. Bertrand Russell admits his take on Jesus was, and I quote 'not concerned with historical facts'. Even outspoken critic Friedrich Nietzsche referred to Jesus as 'the only one true Christian' – whilst the Hindu religious leader Dayanand Saraswati made the wildly ridiculous claim that Jesus is 'a hot-tempered person destitute of knowledge and who behaved like a wild savage' – which he said without producing any evidence. So what we have, is historical evidence, and specifically a first generation of martyrs, who either saw what they claimed to see, or they were lying. All of them could choose to end their suffering, instead they chose to die for their belief. Understand… this is not one man’s testimony, this is the core testimony of Twelve men. Or shall I say thirteen, for after Judas Iscariot killed himself, the Apostles elected Matthias to replace him, and thence there was Apostle Paul. Both of these men died for their faith. So there was twelve apostles who died for their testimony of Jesus. Only Apostle John lived to be an old man, though he endured torture and beatings in his life time. Thus they fulfill Revelations 21:14, where John writes about the names of the Twelve on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem. So what does all this have to do with an Invisible God? Simple. These are the signs, the evidence of things unseen. The 'knowns'. Are we to suppose that what we see with our human eyes are all that is there? Let us think about that for a moment. We are claiming that all that our human eyes can see, is the extent of existence. And we do not even know how the human eye works. That is to say we don’t even fully understand the mechanism that allows us to perceive the world around us, and yet we have the audacity to claim “This is all there is”. Primitive men, or people of older times, in rural places, believed in a spiritual realm. It was part of them. Yet modern man has sought to eliminate this aspect of life. Secularism has sought it educate spirituality out of us, to show that it was simply a reflection of the primal uneducated thought patterns. This of course makes the false assumption that you cannot have both spirituality and intellect. And yet, intellects have failed to tear down the Bible. Whether you are an intellect or a simple man, the battle is always in the mind. This is why it is written in Luke 24:45 – “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures. Our physical bodies are visible, yet that which comprises who we really are, our mannerisms, character, personality and thought patterns… these are all invisible. We live finite lives, yet what we are made of, mentally and spiritually, is not finite. Stepping aside from Jesus Christ for a moment, we can reason that God being 'invisible' as we understand invisibility, is simply because our natural finite human eyes cannot perceive something as vast as a creator of the entire universe. Something so immense cannot fit into this world. Yet he ‘inserted’ himself into his creation a number of times in subtle ways. Moses beheld a burning bush, and as a result he had to wear a veil because his face was glowing due to the encounter he had. Every heavenly encounter in the Bible comes with the words 'DO NOT BE AFRAID'. Because we, as humans, have three principle fears," she held up three fingers which she lowered one at a time as she listed them "the unknown; that which we cannot understand; and lastly, the truth. Spirituality, the supernatural... ticks off all three. ... To believe in God, you need to have an open mind. Class dismissed.” [Image credits: fotocommunity.com, pol-ubeda on flickr.com, imgkid.com]
Article by Steven Benjamin I've heard it said that there are three types of men in the world (intentionally generalizing and painting us with very broad strokes); worldly men, religious men, and men of God. The first is those who are subject and governed by worldly things and desires, the second are those who practice religion but live worldly lives (riding the fence so to speak), the third are those seeking God in earnest (still fallible and not without sin or immune to temptation, but who truly and humbly seek God and live for Christ.) Finding the nude through the lewd, with Faith It’s a tricky thing, narrowing this topic down in one article, but I’ll try to zero in on the basics, though there’s enough material here to write a thesis and more. It’s always been difficult to differentiate, especially in the photographic arena tiptoeing through nude-Art, sensuality and sexuality. It’s one of the reasons that any topic involving sex or bare flesh, has been shunned by the church for so long, and that neglect, when looking at the current state of society, well let’s just say it’s telling… These days (in the modern age), the vast majority of men have seen or ‘experienced’ or ‘been exposed to’ pornography at some stage or level. But is there a need to differentiate between the mediums, to find when something actually becomes pornographic, – In short, yes there is. Of course this issue/debate is subjective, but there are discernible lines, however faint they may be at times, made so mostly by the people involved in it – in the making and perceiving - and it is important to find these lines. Many ultra conservatives in the church have a blanket regard for anything involving sensuality and nudity, and see it ALL as sin, actually, not just sin, but SIN – THE Sin of all SINS, because some still abide by the belief that there are varying degrees of it. But of course the Bible outline’s it quite simply, that everything that is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). I was given a word by a total stranger some time ago whilst going through my own encounter with pornography, that I should “stop doing whatever is not of God”. Now, as God has been working in me, I must highlight that it was interesting that the message was worded in this way. In my experience, when someone has a God sent word for you, it’s usually quite specific… and this got me thinking (something I do very well), additionally, it set me into a pursuit - of what? A pursuit of the truth. But why is this issue important? Simple - It is Fundamental. – It is a fundamental struggle of man, as God reminded me, when ‘taking me’ back to the beginning to the Garden of Eden. This though, was sparked by a question I had had since I was a teenager, to which I already knew the answer, that of; Can a man love [a] woman more than God? I simply needed to understand why I knew the answer was [of course] ‘Yes’. |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|