It’s been a dry spell of late; these past few months the words have eked out slowly. Perhaps that has something to do with me having to purchase some new notebooks and writing pads – the ones I have are full. Strange thing though, much of what is written on those pages will never be published. Not every morsel of inspiration needs to see the light of day, or be exposed to another mind’s pair of eyes. Be that as it may, I have been filling other pages, not in the realm of fiction. There’s been a deeper preoccupation, one arising from heart and mind and feet and hands and tongue. When I realize again that I’m the pen and life is the page… it’s the art of relearning some ancient truths. Much has been said and written about pens and swords, and truth … and spirit and mouth and where our real life battlefields actually lie. We are living these stories, travailing against death… and we fool ourselves if we think that the battle is in flesh... 'A Plea from the other side' Poem by Steven Benjamin Eyes of the serpent I saw Curl of the back, weight on my chest Torment me no more further than this there’s no return Gaze turned to the beyond and what came before Look deeper than my blood and my skin standing not under decree nor law Just the blood of another Of a name that quakes your core To strip you from this marrow and bone. It was the light that tore And then still you fought Now to the edge of the abyss you claw The darkness closes Now the torment is no more The absence lay in wait for you It is not my strength that strikes your jaw Nor my foot that presses your head That crushes your teeth and silences your moaning roar. Only the one you turned from. The dying body quivers on the wooden shore As the snake is pulled from the spine The breath blows away the dust I wore The hole in the dark does murmur to me My crippled gaze flickers to the dawn calling the end to the war. The bloody mess of it is naught as the way opens A narrow corridor Into a promise of Evermore But to the creature from which the wail of endless torment bellows, For you, there is no morn, Only the endless dark for you A desperate cry echoing from outside of time, as the son takes you to a place where there is no one not one creature, only you, a shadow in the dark, the long, the last, the lost *** Stories of travail of this sort will seem foolish to some ears, and my mastery of it will always be in the vein of a child… but the truth always seems like folly to a fools deceived ears. Just as it is written:
0 Comments
So by problem, I also mean danger, because we tend to underestimate this issue, and overestimate our capacity or ability in understanding it. This is about mediums, guides, gurus or generally people who say they’ve received ‘word’ or inspiration from some spiritual source – even those who share your beliefs. Many people seek direction this way, from books written by people who’ve had some dramatic spiritual event to guide their lives and provide some help to other people seeking similar direction. In a general sense though, Spiritism, according to one of its chief proponents ‘Allan Kardec’, is “a philosophical doctrine with religious effects. It has its fundamental basis, like any other religion, God, the soul and a future life. But it is not like most established religions as it does not have dogmas, rituals, or temples, and among its followers, nobody takes or receives the title of priest or high-priest.” Now, if you believe in the spiritual realm (as I do), this can become a tricky topic if you’re not looking to offend anyone because it involves people’s beliefs, but I think people should allow their beliefs to be shaken a bit from time to time, to see how deep their roots really are, and to test the strength of their particular belief system. So without complicating things too much, here’s the problem: Trust. If you’ve read a book or heard someone speak about spiritual guidance, whether from a psychic medium, an Imam, a pastor, or simply a friend offering some help via (deeper) self-help books, then the issue will come up; how do you trust the source of the guidance offered. Recently a friend offered/suggested a book written by a woman who wrote because she claimed she was inspired by “a voice”, saying it was like she wasn’t writing the book at all, but rather simply writing whatever the voice told her to write. Later, she claimed (believed) that the voice belonged to Jesus. The problem is that some of what she wrote (the voice said) was simply not Biblical. This is a problem, not just for me (a Christian) but for anyone interested. This brand of Spiritism I find to be common among New Age Religions, along the lines of Eckhart Tolle and even those behind the fairly recent book ‘The Secret’. Another perspective is the all roads lead to Rome idea, ie. the all-encompassing route of embracing all religions and beliefs as being essentially the same thing – all religions lead to God, they’re just different strokes for different folks (via-a-vis pluralism). But that’s an overlapping issue. Spiritism is a bit more specified and direct. Getting back to the book in question; How do we know that the author of the book (A course in Miracles by Helen Schucman, 1948-2013) is on the right path? For a Christian this is simpler because whatever disagrees with the Bible, is false, since the Bible is Truth, the Word of God being the Way, the Truth and the Life… so anything inconsistent with it, is therefore NOT the truth. I'm aware that to some this seems a bit narrow-minded, but you wouldn't call a passenger narrow-minded for insisting that only a qualified pilot should fly the plane. And that's essentially what this is about, qualifying forms of Spiritism. But what about non-Christians? Specifically Non-Christians who also happen to believe in some form of Spirituality and seek guidance through similar books, or a spiritual realm, the afterlife, ancestors, spirit-guides, a higher consciousness, self-help meditation etc.? How would you trust the word of a psychic? [Side note - This by the way is also one of the reasons why I am not a Muslim. I believe Muhammad had a profound spiritual experience in that cave, but how do I trust one man’s word, a man who himself according to tradition, was unsure about the source of the revelation upon receiving it?] People like to compare the Quran to the Bible, but that’s not accurate. It would be more apt to compare the Quran (1 book comprising the teachings/insights of 1 man, Muhammad) to other books/writings other men, like the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the Epistles of Apostle Paul (his writings contained within the Bible). This comparison would be more reasonable. This leads to why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles etc, are joined and included into a singular collection: the Bible. Viewed individually, they can all be bracketed as spiritual books and a form of ‘Spiritism’, the 66 books in the Bible, after generations of deep scrutiny (written over a period of 1500 yrs) are found to be consistent with one another in thought, content and purpose. It simply means it carries divine credentials like no other book - hence it being the most attacked book in human history. But for Non-Christians, I’m curios to learn; what are your criteria for discerning spiritual integrity? If we all believe that there is a spiritual realm, and if that spiritual realm resembles in some small way, the essential dynamics of this world, in terms of the ‘invisible’ qualities like intellect, morality, consciousness etc. – and if we assume that passed souls (ancestors) are now a part of this metaphysical/spiritual realm… then its logical to assume that since good and evil are evident in this natural world, then it's wihtin the spiritual world as well. In fact, it would be quite presumptuous, or even naive to think good and evil are not prevalent in the spiritual realm. This is especially true if you acknowledge that these elements, the natural world and the spiritual, interact with one another. Then from there, that people in this life will pass on to the next life in some form or other. Are we willing to gamble and assume that good and evil do not exist in the spiritual realm? And with that knowledge, when one attempts to interact with the spiritual, how do you then discern if whatever you’re interacting with, is good or evil? The truth is divisive, simply because it is exclusive – there is one narrow way, the right way… and many people find themselves on the wrong side or outside of it, this is why doing the good or the right thing, is often so difficult. For this reason it can be said that truth is sometimes offensive because, by its nature, it says that certain positions are wrong/false. Hence, (capital T) Truth excludes some people, and can be offensive. So, taking up the position of Truth may also at times come across as arrogant, with further potential for division. Having faced my own crisis of faith and been in a position of deep doubt, I can at least attest to it not being a very good place to be; but still, I had to go even deeper to a place where I was willing to accept and deal with the consequences if I found there to be an error in my beliefs. It was a commitment to put the truth to the test, or whatever test I could come up with, and then to be willing to deal with those consequences, whatever it was, whether I liked the answers I found or not. [This is also why New Age pluralism is so popular, because then there is no wrong answer, so it fits many people's desires - to each is his own, or simply another branch of relativism]. All this is naturally related to the quandary: 'Is there a God? and if there is, then who is he and how do we get to know him/it... and did this creator reveal himself to the human race in some way?' So often in this world, which we’ve made so very complicated, we seek guidance and sometimes that ‘guidance’ comes in forms that seem welcoming at first. However, scratch at the surface and it may reveal some inconveniences that many are simply not willing to confront. To use a common saying which also happens to be from the Bible, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13) I understand the desire for spiritual guidance, but what are our criteria for deciphering this thing (spirituality) which by its very nature is alien to us? It is something we are unqualified to deal with, hence our methods for interacting with it cannot come from us. So, do we not need some sort of barometer to judge all spiritual matters… if not, then what? We are quick though to create our own way when wading into spiritual waters, all to fit our own spiritual desires and perspectives. How do you discern or judge Spiritism? My advice is to earnestly seek the Truth . . . As to "what is truth?" as a friend asked me recently, well that's firmly entering epistemology. But since it is such a tricky subject to define, perhaps the best starting point is to clarify what it is NOT. And its at this foundation where we find the issue of relativism and absolutism. Is Truth Absolute/fixed/objective, or is it relative? "What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are..." But, if "truths are illusions" then nothing is absolute, then it means that that claim is self-defeating... because then nothing is certain/the truth/to be trusted, including that very sentence "truths are illusions". You see if Nietzsche's claim is true (which by the way, would make it absolute) then by his own claim everything he said is an illusion, and why bother listening to/reading it in the first place. The following quote though explains it better IMO: "The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do, is follow his advice." Some handy links:
"What is Truth? | Explain Truth | Define Truth" - carm.org "What is Truth?" - Paul Pardi article on philosophynews.com 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. 295 - Terrorist attacks worldwide thus far for 2015, averaging 27 per month… however November alone currently stands at 33 so far, and with the Paris attacks inspiring the trending hashtag “#PrayforParis”, I take it many people are wondering (yet again, as it is with most atrocities or disasters throughout history) where was God during this time, or why did it happen, or the greater question of ‘why is there evil in the world’? It sets off another flurry of questions: If God created everything, then did he create evil, and thus, doesn’t that make God evil…? A political satire show jokingly presented an overlapping issue by belittling a politician’s belief in God, along the lines of “he believing that the world is around 6000 years old, and he believing in a God that is powerful enough to create the universe in 6 days but not powerful enough to NOT make paedophiles”. Many sceptics hearing these sorts of comments on an otherwise mainstream news show would gleefully laugh at said man with his seemingly, by modern standards, conservative beliefs, the insinuation being: how can we (citizens) allow such a man with such (ridiculous) beliefs to govern a state or country. The bigotry here is pretty palpable and intentional. What so often frustrates me, is when intelligent people fail to really think. This ultimately comes down to choice, and what we choose to believe based on the evidence at hand. As we know, good lawyers are very capable of getting guilty men off the hook, and it happens more often than we care to admit. The evidence for or against God’s existence is the same for all. To myself, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing (For), but I acknowledge that there is just enough of an element of doubt to fuel the ‘un-believer’. As to why this doubt exists, well I encourage you to read another article I wrote exploring this very issue. [Why do you need faith to believe in God?] I must also add that much of the bias against God is fueled by man’s own ignorance and pride, and that other thing listed among the notorious 7 deadly sins, that of ‘Sloth’ (or laziness/apathy/indifference). Many are content to live without truly knowing, because to know or to seek to know would mean disturbing their status quo. It means (via their misguided perception) perhaps living a devout life of celibacy and going to church every Sunday and helping thy neighbor, and generally being accountable, and gasp, reading the Bible - that outdated and thick book of many tiny words written in some ancient languages that’s mostly confusing and filled with parables… and who knows what to take literally and what not, and how is something that apparently contravenes modern scientific theory going to help me today? Not to mention all the “fairytales” with talking animals and bushes… So, instead of going through all that hullabaloo, why not skip it and just go on with my life, “as you were” minding my own business, and being generally (by the world’s standards) a good and law abiding citizen, because if being a good person isn’t good enough for whatever god may or may not exist, then maybe he/she isn’t a god worth knowing. The issue arises: Are you earnestly seeking the truth? If not, then don’t bother continuing with this read. *** If you are, then you must face a very real truth: that if God exists, then he most likely does not conform to our rules or the standards you or I set – we, being the creation, and God, the Creator. So when we say that being a good person should be good enough for God for us to get into heaven or paradise or whatever, we are doing 2 things here:
So that means that we have to relinquish power or concede that we do not (and will never) know everything. At the heart of this, is submission… to submit to a greater power than ourselves, an entity that knows better than we do and that has the ability to, and has, outlined a particular way in which we should live our lives… But we don’t want to be told how to live our lives. This is essentially crux of the matter, like a rebellious teenager not wanting a parent to interfere and tell them what to do… so we choose our own way, and in a world where we’re free to exercise our own free will, evil will exist.
There are many more issues and questions that this raises, but essentially, we need to confront or entertain the issue of ourselves and our relation toward (a potential) God. Once we accept the simple dynamics of this relationship, then the state of play is made more apparent, and the consequences we live with are put into a little more context… this is also when the answers become more complicated and even messy, and we must first be prepared for answers we don't like, or are uncomfortable, before we even earnestly ask the hard questions. “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” [Image credits: unless otherwise stated - tumblr.com, warphotographer.org, Facebook.] ******* 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’. |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|