Thinking on things eternal... and that body nailed up on that piece of wood. We are but products of a divorce, and like some rebellious child lost and cowering in some dark place, our father has come to find us, extending his hand. Will we take the hand, or beat it away and then 'cut it off' as so many have done before us? It’s December, and there’s the usual fanfare, commercial festivities with the proviso of ‘time with the family’ or ‘the holiday season’, filled with ‘good cheer’, tinsel, trees and fairy lights… and buried deep within all that fake shrubbery, is a hammer (Jer 23:29) striking the anvil of our stubborn subconscious. There the obligatory nativity scene plays out, the “silent” night that never was… (The night of Jesus birth was not silent). If Jesus’ birth was God’s subtle remedying injection to salvage a dying humanity in this broken and ill world, then Christ’s death and resurrection was the hammer blow that quite literally shook the earth to revive/resuscitate/recreate the dead creation. Products of a divorce This is about the state of the world and the nature of the relationship between God and Mankind. There was a time when the Spiritual and the natural were one. That time was, to put it simply, ‘in the beginning’. It is the way they were created, or should I say that the natural was created, and is a product of (a child of) the spiritual. There is a deeper part of the natural that is related to the spiritual. Soul and consciousness, or spirit, which gives life to, and ‘animates’ the natural. Hence the spiritual being more real than the natural, since the natural was created by the Spiritual, and without (divorced from) the spiritual element, the natural will only result in death. The ‘divorce’ came as a result of Man choosing his own way, to disobey God, resulting in this fallen world, where every person seems to be on their own path, looking for answers to the question/purpose to his own existence. Everything a man does is in essence a search for validation. Because ever since Man turned from God, he's been lost, floundering around in a vain attempt to find significance outside of the Creator’s design. So how does God salvage the situation? Something you’ll often hear in churches is that Jesus, the son, was the perfect sacrifice…but what does that mean exactly? Well the key is in the next part – the rising up, the resurrection. He is described as being “transfigured”… this is the key interplay where the natural body of Christ was (elevated) transfigured to the spiritual. His physical body was sacrificed. But if he (Jesus) is God, then he cannot die - Since God cannot die! – Many have difficulty reconciling this issue. How did Jesus (God as man) die, when God cannot die? This is where a deeper understanding of the Trinity is necessary: The Trinity Think of a King – specifically the King’s Right-Hand-man, the one who enacts the will of the King and often acts in his stead. (in pop culture you may also recall the title of ‘Hand of the King’ – a man entrusted with decision-making rights and often even does so from the throne. In history, as well as fictional tales, the Kings ‘hand’ is usually a trusted advisor, a friend or even a mentor. But none come close to the heavenly equivalent. “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well.” - John 14:6-7a I envision it (in a literal sense), that God placed his hand on the earth (in the form of Jesus), and then sacrificed that hand (“My God why have you forsaken me” – Matt 27:46), before God then “reattached” his hand. “I can do all things through Christ (the righteous right hand of God; yoked with the one who is seated at the right hand side of God) who strengthens me” Phil 4:13 (emphasis & expansion my own addition) If this image of amputating (sever, separate, detach) and reattaching a hand seems a little too graphic, then think of this: some synonyms for “attach” is ‘couple, fuse, join, anchor … and yoke’ –Matt 11:29-30 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”. Also: Gal 5:1 The image of a sacrificed and reattached hand also resonates with the image of taking God’s hand, or letting God take our hand, to guide (shepherd) us as a father holding his child by the hand (Isa 42:6). Psa 63:8 “I cling to you; your right hand upholds me.” (NIV) Isaiah 41:13 “‘Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’” (NAS) So when we choose to be yoked with Jesus, we place ourselves in the hand(s) of God – (hence we are in him – and Jesus is in us, via God sending down the Holy Spirit to dwell within us; hence also baptism - to be immersed) And when we acknowledge Christ as our personal saviour, we yield to Him and as a result are yoked (to him like oxen to pull in one direction) with him to live as he lived, and thus God ‘grafts’ us onto himself when reuniting with his Son Jesus. Another image: the severed hand – when reattached, is already holding something – what is Jesus holding onto? – those who have chosen him. The Holy Spirit What is this – and why do we need him? To think that before, we were all dead (spiritually) and we will all die (physically), separate from God – sin. So Jesus provided the way (IS the way) to God. But when we pray, talk to God, developing our relationship with Him, what do we say that He does not already know? What do I, this formerly dead clay vessel offer the Creator of this very same clay vessel? So then, God comes and imparts of himself, he places within us the Holy Spirit to converse with Himself. If Jesus (in my earlier analogy) is God’s hand, then the Holy Spirit is God’s breath. *See: Genesis 2:7 (God breathed life into Adam) and then John 20:22 (Jesus breathed on the disciples: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit’.”) We pray by (in/via) the Holy Spirit, through Jesus (in his name, yoked with him), to the father. If you think of it as a journey; the Holy Spirit speaks for us and carries us (helper) closer through Jesus who paved the way and is the narrow gate through which we go, to God the father (for deeper intimacy). So in this whole exercise, all we do is acknowledge Christ, welcome him into our lives, yield to Christ, to be yoked with him and live in this world as he lived – He does all the work. He acts on our behalf. Without God – the Creator of it all – we are nothing. When our breath is up, we return to the earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. And were it not for God’s decision to make everything, we wouldn’t even exist. God placed within us the ability to choose – Free Will – because for some reason he wants a relationship with his creations, to adopt us as his children. The more we allow Him into our lives, and relinquish our ‘ownership’ of these lives He made, the more he will do with these clay vessels. “May my prayer be counted as incense before You; The lifting up of my hands as the evening offering.” Psa 141:2 “We lift up our heart and hands Toward God in heaven;” Lam 3:41 “But at the evening offering I arose from my humiliation, even with my garment and my robe torn, and I fell on my knees and stretched out my hands to the LORD my God” Ezra 9:5 But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands… (11a) you gave through your servants the prophets … (13) "What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. (15) LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence." Ezra 10, 11, 13, 15. And yet despite this…. Despite us turning from God, the Lord has extended his hand to us, to make us right by him. Interesting points of contention: - If Jesus is God, then why did he pray – did he pray to himself? --- Jesus subjected himself to human form, so he gave up/sacrificed some of the Godly attributes we naturally ascribe to him; Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience. Of these, he clearly (in his finite human form) could not be everywhere at once (presence), and although intelligent – refuting all arguments thrown his way, he did not Know ALL (prophetically) in terms of time and place of things to come. Despite the Divine power he displayed (walking on water, authority over the elements and sickness etc.) he was human, he did get tired and sleepy – needing rest (Mark 4:38 – Jesus sleeping on the boat; He got thirsty whilst on the cross – his thirst for water also led him to the well where he met the Samaritan woman in John 4). So Jesus praying is yet another instance of his dependence on God the father, as he submitted himself to human form. Also - prayer is communication (communion) with God - how do you develop/deepen/maintain your relationship with someone? ... you communicate with them. - Wait, there’s 1 God, but you described 3 parts while the Bible describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3 persons – this is confusing… The mystery of the triune God is not something I nor any man can or will completely unravel. What limitations can we put on something that is infinite? All these images, of 3 persons, or parts - hand and breath etc, are just that – images, so that our finite minds form some kind of tangible understanding as to the nature of God – this eternal being that exists outside of time and outside of the natural world. So in essence we are attempting to attach human attributes to something that is not human (anthropomorphism). So for an example, when you hear a claim that there is no son of God because there’s no such need, as in the Quran 112:1-4 “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten” – this is simply looking at, or defining God in human terms, it is also putting limitations on God and what he is willing or able to do… He designed Man, and designed the birthing process. He is free to do with his Creations what he wants. It is also attempting to eliminate/reject the idea of “incarnate” – that God might appear as a human – be personified in human form (since he'd already appeared to others in dreams, in the form of a cloud or of Fire - it does not mean he IS Fire or clouds, but that he can take on these forms)… that does not mean that God is human, but that he can take on the form of a person, if he so desired. God is mysterious, and there are things about him and his nature that we will never know or understand, yet he has made himself known to us (his Creations), even after we turned from him. God decided to reunite man unto himself. But how - How does one reconcile something which is Pure, Good and Holy (God) , with something which is none of those things (man)? Why didn't God simply just forgive us and be done with it? Why was shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness? Answer: The interplay/collision between the Spiritual and the Natural; for man to be reconciled with God (in the spiritual), he had to discard (shed) the natural; but since we turned from God we became spiritually dead, existing only in the natural, hence Jesus coming… and the rebirth (born again) and New Creations – 2 Cor 5:17. So that when we die here on earth, our flesh will die – the natural – and the revived/reawakened/received indwelt Spirit will one day reunite with Christ – [finally reconciled after the divorce/separation between God and man (Adam)] – to be ‘the bride of Christ’. “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1 Cor 2:14 Shalom *
0 Comments
Let me start with Aliens and outer space... We start with the abstract, the obscure, the ambiguous… we shall start with the unknown, or the unknowable. When allowing our imagination to conceptualize an Alien life form, specifically a more intelligent and advanced alien life form, we assume a number of things… one of which is: That they are superior to us, or possess superior skills/capabilities/technology/intellect. We secede from our absolute (superlative) thinking. Conceding that we are not the be all and end all of the universe, and certainly evidence more than suggests, by observing our placement within said universe, that we are not the proverbial ‘biggest dog in the yard’. In fact our ‘yard’ (solar system/galaxy) is kind of average. We willingly accept the fact that there are things beyond our understanding (in so far as it applies to aliens) – that these would-be aliens would possess things beyond our comprehension. As famed Astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil Degrasse Tyson proposed; to an advanced alien race that had ‘evolved’ by a simple 1 percent (in the same evolutionary direction that we are more advanced than Apes on Earth), that the most intelligent human being would be on a similar intelligence level as an alien toddler. And to think; if God (the supernatural appearing Alien to the natural world), a Creator that created all life as we know it - how much more intelligent is he (who actually invented our intelligence)? Of course, logic follows that he would do things, act in ways beyond our understanding (hence the coined term - mysterious ways). Just like certain elements of a huge plan will not make sense to an individual who hasn't seen the entire picture. So we're willing to entertain the idea of a superior intelligence, but only so far as it is convenient for us. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp? Because of our free will. In the first instance of alien encounters, we as a human race were not subject to them, we were still free to rebel against them and retain our proverbial independence, because their interaction with us was limited (and subjective/proposed/imagined). But in the case of God, we are all suddenly confronted and accountable, we are faced with ultimatums, with consequences and our own mortality… the interaction with a would-be creator is naturally more personal and divisive. You cannot hide behind the collective. You cannot hide at all. The truth is exclusive (hence: specified, unique, absolute - not admitting of other things... so it the truth is by it nature: DIVISIVE). We as people don’t like to be governed. And to acknowledge God or a God-like Creator figure, leads us directly to that dynamic – meaning we are to submit to such a figure… and that usually means making some changes in our lives. So that’s where the line in the sand is, in making the decision: to be or not to be… To acknowledge God, or not. And in our (sometimes) desperation to absolve ourselves from this issue we’ve gone to inordinate lengths to justify ourselves, trying (unsuccessfully) to discredit any and all forms of evidence that would inform our choice, preferring to construct elaborate alternatives to avoid the “God issues” altogether… Simply because it suits our agenda, our yearning for absolute freedom, because in many minds, submitting to God means forfeiting freedom. The truth is though, that you cannot have true freedom without rules. Because no rules, implies no boundaries, no division between good or bad, no restrictions, no accountability, no consequences… because absolute freedom is clinically the definition of chaos. And this is Man’s ultimate goal, to have dominion over himself, to call God a human construct and place him neatly into an imaginary “box” of our own making, and to live in a world where… anything goes. Or at the very least to live in a world abiding by only his own rules. The irony is: we are not so much putting God in a ‘box’, but rather ourselves, attempting to insulate ourselves from any Godly notions. 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 . . . 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" 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]
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’. Check your halo’s, harps and clouds at the door... The truth is that our ideas and imaginings of heaven have always been quite conservative, measured to earthly things and dictated by commercialized media. Or many times heaven is represented as just the best the earth currently has to offer, but surrounded by clouds, which is cool maybe for like, an hour or two, maybe even a day, but what then? It seems a bit empty because many or most people don’t take heaven or the possibility thereof, that seriously. Another truth is that we simply cannot comprehend eternity. So what then for those of us who do take this issue seriously; how do we wrap our minds around it to appropriately adjust our perceptions? Firstly, what have we learned from God in our time here on earth? What notes do we have pertaining to the Almighty's personality, his creative design etc? When looking at the purest things on earth, the purest and most beautiful things this world and life has to offer, what incentive do they provide with a view to the “beyond” in mind? I believe heaven will include all these things, simply amplified in ways unimaginable… but let’s not allow that word unimaginable to get in our way – as we’re encouraged to believe in things unseen… the reason I say that heaven will include these pure things, is simply because they came directly from God. Yes we will worship God, but it won't be like any church service you may or may not have attended. We're meant to worship God in our everyday lives (living sacrifices), so heaven will encompass all the elements that God delights in here on earth. [WARNING: NUDITY AHEAD!] The struggle in this world is to reclaim intimacy with God; to develop our relationship with him. When you look at God’s design of marriage, and the two bodies that make up the union, we learn about God’s romantic and sensual nature (Two elements we need to remind ourselves that he invented – he is literally the God of sex). But looking more objectively - Woman: the crown of all creation, the first of her kind (since there is no gender in heaven due to there being no need for procreation – hence no 70 virgins either by the way) is a most intriguing image of sensuality and beauty. She is yet another picture of a certain side of God. When God made man, he took him through a vast untamed land, a wilderness, before leading him to Eden… So in this way we learn of God’s beauty within the mystery of adventure. Can you imagine what earth looked like in the early days, zero pollution, the air clean and pure, not one impurity in the waters nourishing the vast untamed landscape, teeming with life… it is an invigorating vision. So far we have many basic alluring ingredients all located at the beginning of creation lending some colour and hints into what is to come in the hereafter. We serve a God who is in love with us. He is passionate, he is mighty with a voice loader than thunder… he is a frightening prospect when taking from the images the Bible lends us. Hence C.S. Lewis using the image of a Lion (Aslan) in Narnia in his representation, with little Lucy Pevensie constantly wanting to hug and nestle in his mane, whilst still retaining the knowledge that this is a powerful and untamed beast – fear born out of respect (and what the term “God fearing” entails). And yet we speak of the same God who created sunsets and sunrises, mountainous reflections in lakes, the Aurora Borealis, the human orgasm, an infectious smile, music, dance, rainbows and erupting volcanoes, waterfalls and the entire universe with comets, nebula's and the explosive beauty of a dying star. *** Can we ever know what heaven will be like without ever having been there? Is this why he gave us the ability to have dreams, why we have an imagination… to gain further access to this other world, this other realm, gaining better grasp and clarity of his will and his vision. Let us pause for a moment to contemplate heavenly things. In the Bible, every Angel or heavenly being that appears on earth, invariably opens with the line of “do not be afraid”. Now ask yourself why… Imagine the scene, place yourself there. A great and astonishing light manifests in your presence and an audible voice emanates from it. Everything that arrests your senses at this moment, is otherworldly. You’re encountering something spiritual, something supernatural. This would shock anyone, even the staunchest of believers, simply because it apposes our very nature, and nothing on this earth (save perhaps for the Word of God - the Bible) can fully prepare us for such an encounter. [Click HERE for my Bible Book Review.] “There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire within a bush.” – Exodus 3:2 (NIV) The Supernatural world is literally frightening to our natural earthly selves and shatters our perceptions. To make us understand the imagery the Bible uses things like rumbling, thunder and blinding light in the descriptions of heavenly creatures, with huge audible claps accompanying every flap of their wings. Side-note: (the Biblical word ‘Seraphim’ means “burning ones” – and taking the literal form of burning, the temperature of flames dictate its color,the hottest of which, is white… from yellow to red to purple to blue and finally – white heat). Also, in metallurgy, fire and heat is used to purify the metal, hence the colour and symbolism also denotes the purity of the Angels. In Genesis 3:24 the Cherubim (yes the same angels for which the little archery baby angels of valentines fame derive their name) Angels are described with flaming swords guarding the gate of Eden, inspiring fear and even dread. It was they, the Cherubim who brought down judgement on Jerusalem’s fallen people in Eze 10. These creatures are complex and strange (to our minds eye) creatures bearing no resemblance to the angelic figures conjured by by the majority of contemporary media. “… from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him.” – Ezekiel 1:27 (NIV) Of course applying this to our adult minds, well… as children we were always more adept and receptive to these otherworldly concepts, because as we grow older we seem to cauterize the capacity of our imaginations, seeing certain ideas as immature or irrational. Many are prompted to simply dismiss the supernatural – we are after all talking of things which are not human. If there is one thing we can say about all these visions, is that they are NOT tame. When people talk of being “God fearing”, it is in reference to the literal power and might of God. Here is a being who spoke the world into being… And yet, he loves you. He wants to spend time with you. He wants you to make the choice to love him, because within the DNA of creation, is a story of love and romance, adventure, beauty and purity. * And so, having touched on what heaven could be, we've also glimpsed the other side. So what of it… What is hell? Hell; there are many versions of it, judging by what we’ve seen here on earth, but in eternity, I feel that it is simply abandonment. Being alone in eternity. Cut off from anything and everyone. God loves us, and has offered his love to us freely, but many of us have shunned it. So when it comes to eternity, those who chose to, will be shunned by God. Spending eternity in solitude, deserted. Hell is the Abyss… it is nothing, it is the torment of abandonment, solitary confinement, but the opposite of that – infinite solitude, like being lost in space but without the reference of stars or planets. It is infinite darkness… “What is hell? Hell is oneself. But not to leave you on that note; Considering Lucifer, if we look at all of creation, we see the context. One must look at the greater picture, the whole story. Central to that story, is the fracture in heaven. Just think, the majority of Jesus’ miracles were to do with healing, and to be saved is to be “born again” in spirit… and God said in Rev 22 that effectively Eden, will be restored. Overcoming death (which was never a part of creation), healing and restoration are keynotes (to say the least). When God started the human story (our side) it was a new beginning of hope for what had transpired before, of restoring what was lost in heaven. But to do that, he needs souls who choose him, souls who will love him truly, deeply. Hence reclaiming the intimacy with God, lost in the Garden of Eden (yes this story haunts us), but made available again, afforded to us anew by the sacrifice Jesus made by allowing himself to be nailed to a cross and suffering our fate: death... Dying for someone, taking their place and giving everything for that person, no matter what their attitude or resolve, in all our sin and shame - this is the ultimate expression of his love for us. * “It is as hard to explain how this sunlit land was different from the old Narnia as it would be to tell you how the fruits of that country taste. Perhaps you will get some idea of it if you think like this. You may have been in a room in which there was a window that looked out on a lovely bay of the sea or a green valley that wound away among mountains. And in the wall of that room opposite to the window there may have been a looking-glass. And as you turned away from the window you suddenly caught sight of that sea or that valley, all over again, in the looking glass. And the sea in the mirror, or the valley in the mirror, were in one sense just the same as the real ones: yet at the same time they were somehow different - deeper, more wonderful, more like places in a story: in a story you have never heard but very much want to know. The difference between the old Narnia and the new Narnia was like that. The new one was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more.” Here you have the creator of the entire universe, whose splendour is for all to see… so ask yourself: what’s Heaven really like? Merry Christmas! {Image credits: Pinterest.com, scout.cheatsheet.me, yooperpage.blogspot.com, iliketowastemytime.com, helpyourselfimages.com, www.beautyscenery.com, intothesunrise.blogspot.com, www.tripadvisor.com, celebritiesinview.com, www.theguardian.com, www.freewallsource.com, commons.wikimedia.org, wallroro.com, imgarcade.com, pixgood.com, creative-universes.wikia.com, thefaithpal.blogspot.com, vulgaire.com} Related Reading: |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|