The Cross

Christians around the world are celebrating Easter in a couple weeks.  A lot of people, non-Christians and Christians, might ask: “What’s the big deal?”  Well, aside from being reminder of  the most important event in history, going through the religious traditions serves to remind us of who exactly this God of the Bible is and what He has done.

So, if you really and truly want to know who this God is, then you have to start at The Cross.  If you have ever asked yourself “How could a loving God let all these bad things happen to good people?” or “Why did God kill all those people in the torturous way of the great flood?”  These questions can only be answered in the light of The Cross.  If you want to know who God is, then you have to start at The Cross.  Nothing about Him will make any sense to you apart from The Cross.

Sure, God created everything, you and me included, but if there is no Good Friday and Easter Sunday, then it is all for not.  Suppose God did come down to earth in the person of His Son Jesus with all this great information on how to live and all the spectacular miracles but “the cup pass away from Him”, then it is all for not.

You want to know God, pick a Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) and read the account.  Then ask yourself: “Why did He do that?”  If you go through the line of questions and Biblical answers that will ensue, then you will come to know the God of the Bible.  On the contrary, if you start at the loaded question: “How is it fair that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then punished him for a hard heart?”; then you may be hindered by your own hardness and never get to The Cross.  The light of who God is, as shown at The Cross, illuminates God’s encounter with Pharaoh.  If you don’t understand God at The Cross, then you can’t understand God at the Red Sea.

“It is finished!”  If you want to know what is finished, then you are going have to start at the event that finished it.  I hope you will.  Feel free to contact me or any other born again Christian for encouragement along this journey to know God.

Entitlements: Parental Unit Smith and CEO Jones

Parental Unit Smith lives in the US and works at a department store and makes minimum wage getting an average of 39 hours per week and will continue there in this capacity for the foreseeable future.  This breaks out to less than $15,000 a year.  Parental Unit Smith lives in a single income home where there are two young children.  This money can’t cover the basic requirements of the household (food, shelter, transportation, healthcare).

CEO Jones lives in the US and is the Chief Executive Officer for a large reputable corporation.  CEO Jones has amassed a personal wealth that would last ten people ten lifetimes.  CEO Jones earns $10,000,000 per year.

Question:  Is Parental Unit Smith “entitled” to some of CEO Jones’ money?  We are not talking about CEO Jones giving Parental Unit Smith money out of the goodness of CEO’s heart.  We are not talking about what a good and moral society ought to do.  We are asking, “Does Parental Unit Smith have a “right” to some of CEO Jones’ money regardless of what CEO thinks and regardless of what society ought to do?  If so, how much and why?  Why isn’t CEO Jones entitled to the money?

Is it because a Smith entitlement “promotes the general welfare” of the country and a Jones entitlement does not?  I can see that a Smith entitlement might put the required basics in the hands of Smith’s family.  I can also see that a Jones entitlement might create a better job for Smith and so put the required basics in the hands of Smith’s family.  What can you see?

Darwin's Standard

In Darwin’s book on page 158 he states: “"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Here he sets up the standard to falsify his theory. This is just after he has imagined his way through how the formation of an eagle’s eye over millions and millions of years and countless selected modifications could maybe have happened. If I were to parallel this I would say I get to imagine my God and call it science unless you can show He does not exist. Be that as it may.
I would put forth Behe’s idea that the flagellum is irreducibly complex at least puts the ball back in Darwin’s court. Now I read Miller’s take on it and like Darwin he can imagine how at least a subset of parts could have come into functional existence and latter morphed into the flagellum. But I say again, I can imagine how God spoke the flagellum into existence.
No I think the probabilities introduced by Dembski demand a scientific reckoning superior to imagination alone. I think it is high time a feasible detailed scenario be proposed for the evolution of the flagellum or any complex organ for that matter.
Otherwise, I think we can dismiss the theory based on Darwin’s standard laid out above.

Best Default Position on God

Out of the gate, one must take one of three positions with respect to the existence of God.  1) Non-belief – God does not exist.  2) Ignorance – God may or may not exist.  3) Apathy – God’s existence or lack thereof is irrelevant.  4) Belief – God exists.  The most reasonable/logical default position is number 4.

Terms:

God – the supernatural being or entity (all powerful; all knowing; eternal; everywhere always present) who created, sustains, and cares for the universe.

God Dichotomy – it is either the case that the one God exists or no such God exists.

Preface:

We will examine each of the four possible defaults and their implications under each case in the God Dichotomy.  One may say: “Ignorance is the obvious default as a baby could never have been told of God and therefore must start at (2).”  We would answer: “Who told the baby to breath or be afraid of a load noise?”

Suppose that God does not exist.  In this case, (1) would be the correct position.  They would have spent their lives on earth free from all the oppressive demands of an imaginary deity.  If some pool of lesser gods exists, they may or may not have had a better chance of communing with them, but, I think not, as their default seems more inclined to ignore such a pool.  As for group (2), again, individuals may have found a ‘better’ path, but, the group as a whole is clueless to any supernatural goings on and therefore no better or worse off than (1).  Group (3) also turns out to have been just as well off as (1).  God was irrelevant and the group was free to do as they saw fit all along, as expected.  As for group (4), what a bunch of saps, right?  They wasted so much of their time praying to, talking to, and living for their imaginary friend.  They could have been having much more fun having it their way and, in this case, are to be most pitied.  However, you can’t really make a claim that they are any worse prepared for whatever may or may not follow death.  After all, in the end, their karma or mojo or whatever you call it will be based on what they decided was right here on earth just like the members of the other groups.  So it was based on what was written in some book; that can’t be said of the other groups?  No, in this case, whatever happens after death will be unaffected by which of the four defaults you took.

Suppose that God does exist.  In this case, (1) is problematic.  If God wants you to find Him, then you will not because you won’t even look.  If God wants to reveal Himself, the standard of proof will be set by you, the one who does not believe.  This is not the best set up for success.  If you are in this situation, then you better hope God forces His standard of proof on your hard heart.  Otherwise, if he has consequences for your disbelief, then you will be sorry.  Group (2) is slightly better off.  If God exists as defined, then it is most likely you will be informed of it at some point.  At this point, having no predisposition against, you will be more inclined to accept the truth of God.  Group (3) is likely the worst off in this case.  These hardy souls are entrenched in their own self-sufficiency.  The cost that God’s existence exacts on their paradigm is enormous; catastrophic to their ego.  It is surly easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to move a soul from (3).  Group (4) is in the zone.  They are to God as kids are to their parents when the parent arrives home.  They are not a shoe-in however.  Believing God exists and knowing the one true living God are two different things.  The demons also believe and tremble.  But, of the four defaults, in this case, (4) is far superior because there must be advantage to knowing this God.  And, you can’t know Him without believing that He exists.  And if you believe by default he exists, then you have already cleared the three difficult hurdles of stubbornness, stupidity, and self-righteousness.  The only one left is submission to the one true living God – Jesus Christ – as your LORD and savior.

Therefore, number (4) is the most reasonable/logical default position.  If you are wrong the penalty is small.  If you are right the reward is close at hand.  None of the other three can make this claim.

Pay More Get Less

Here is the concept.  Since the US has a 16+ trillion dollar debt and it would take 80+ years to pay it off running a record surplus of 200 million dollars each of those 80+ years, I propose the following.

Everyone must pay more to the government in taxes.  I mean everyone with income and on all income.  This would include but not be limited to wages, tips, capital gains, education benefits, and even unemployment and welfare payments.  Also, every will get less.  This would include but not be limited to national defense, subsidies, roads/bridges, and of course, all entitlements.

It is that simple.  You can’t cut your way out of this.  You can’t tax your way out of this.  We are going to, at some point, realize that we are going to have to pay more and expect less from it.  If we do it now, we could spend the next 100 years on a disciplined fiscal diet and come out on the other end debt free.  If we continue the gridlock of debate, name calling, and blaming the other side, then we will crash and crash hard.

These are the simple truths.  But don’t let me interrupt your sports contests and your internet games.  Continue to watch grown men act like children in the name of entertainment.  Please continue to split fruit or watch virtual angry birds or whatever the latest fad.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Obama, Reed, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor; what do we expect will happen?  They will raise taxes a bit, increase spending a lot and do nothing to pay down the debt.  It is up to us.  #PayMoreGetLess

Unpack of Humanist Manifesto III

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

Humanist Manifesto III (HM3): WARNING #1 – The opening statement could not be any more offensive to the God of the Bible than it is already.  The phrase “without supernaturalism” clearly defines any god as, worse than non-existent, completely irrelevant (see Romans 1 for Biblical consequences).  What is more, it is incongruent with the empirical data.  No human has ever accomplished the set of feats described.
 

“The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience— encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”

HM3: WARNING #2 – The water is starting to get deep here.  For example, suppose, being subject to change, the present value of reason is greatly diminished and the ideal of compassion is severely eroded.  The lifestance of Humanism is then washed away by its own decree.  In other words, you can’t have it both ways.  If you want relativism, then you can’t have any secure place to hang your hat.  You can’t take a stance at all, and as the adage goes .. you will fall for anything.

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.”

HM3: WARNING #3 – I point out here that:  “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” – Proverbs 1: 7
 

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.”

 

HM3: WARNING #4 – Most manifestos come to a place where logic breaks down completely.  It must be part of the curriculum in Manifesto Writing 101.  We have come to that place in HM3.  Does the humanist know everything?  By their own manifesto; the answer is NO.  Does the humanist know half of everything?  I would guess they would say NO.  Let’s assume the humanist knows half of everything.  Is it possible that God is in the half of everything that the humanist does not know?  The answer is YES.  So, when the humanist deliberately and repeatedly ignores things like billions of individual experiences of supernatural influence, empirical evidences of guided or designed processes, and probabilistic analysis of intelligent first cause; yet, claims they are “distinguishing things as they are from things as they might wish or imagine them to be” and claims they “are drawn to and are undaunted by the yet to be known”  it is hard to take them seriously.

“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.”

HM3: WARNING #5 – Might just as well have said; Humanists ground values in shifting sand.  Let’s be clear.  The humanist is now saying that since the dawn of the first human, who was brought about through an unguided process from nothing, each and every one of them had the permanent characteristic attributes of ‘worth’ and ‘dignity’ and this is pronounced by the authority of the Humanists a small sect of homo sapien sapiens (wise wise man) or humans themselves.  The only trouble is, some of the humans disagree.  In fact, most of the 10 to 15 billion humans throughout history would probably disagree.  At the very least they would demand that the humans had varying degrees of ‘worth’ and ‘dignity’.  Why should we believe the humanists?  Oh yea, they found it out by the gods of Science and Reason which may prove to be bogus once our future understanding is refined.

"Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty."

HM3: WARNING #6 – “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” – Psalm 14: 6  But what kind of fool says it does not matter?  “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’   This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”” – Matthew 22:37-40

“Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.”

HM3: WARNING #7 – This sounds great and I agree 100%.  Just remember:  Jesus said, ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” – John 15:5.

“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”

HM3: WARNING #8 - “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.” – Romans 12:3

“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.”

HM3: WARNING #9 – Ok, I wonder how the following would play out if the humanist was in charge.  We have a six year old boy misbehaving in Walmart.  His parents verbally correct the youth to no effect.  The boy’s father comes over gives the boy three quick sharp smacks on the back end.  The boy cries convincingly for two whole minutes and discontinues the bad behavior.  The father is swiftly reported to the humanist authorities.  What happens next?

“Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”

HM3: WARNING #10 – Man had some high ideals at the Tower of Babel.  Our ways are not His ways.  I would recommend the humanist read Romans 3.  And yes we are responsible for our actions.  That is why each and every one of us needs a savior.  JESUS saves!

 

Christians Caviler on Creation?

According to Mary Fairchild, the purpose of the Creation story “is for moral and spiritual revelation.”  She points to three main revelations of the narrative: 1) God created you He is pleased by you and you are of great worth to Him; 2) God first references the Trinity; 3) We should not feel guilty when we take time each week to rest.

Seriously, those are, claims Mary Fairchild, the main reasons God saw fit to include the account of Creation in His Word.  It was certainly not, according to Fairchild, to tell us how long it took or how it happened, exactly.

Mary Fairchild is the Christianity Guide on About.com.  She seems legitimate and all the other posts on the site also seem on the mark.  So, I ask myself, why the fade to gray when it comes to the Creation account in Genesis Chapter 1?  If this were an isolated case, I would not be too concerned.  Unfortunately this caviler attitude toward the Creation is the norm with those calling themselves Christian.

A lot, and I mean most, Christians I have talked to don’t have the stomach to take on evolution.  They don’t really understand the claim but for some reason they buy the premise and so, they are forced to water down the Creation account.  I suspect that Fairchild’s summary of the Creation story is at least an attempt to avoid butting heads with evolution.

I am wondering, how do you process Genesis 1: 1 – 2: 3?  Do you dismiss the secular evolutionary tail altogether and accept a young earth?  Do you contort your beliefs in an attempt to reconcile evolution with the Biblical account of Creation?  Do you release Genesis 1 from any historical responsibility as does Mary Fairchild?  Or, do you have some other take on the subject?

This is important because many of the lost do take Genesis 1 very seriously from a historical perspective.  What is more, they become very confused when Christians don’t but do take other sections of the Bible very seriously historically.  They look at Genesis 1 at face value and say to themselves:  “Sounds like a historical account to me.  It does not jive at all with what I have been told about evolution and the history of the universe.  So, it can’t be a historical account.  So, anything else in the Bible that sounds like a historical account is not necessarily so.  Jesus could just be a literary figure used to show how much God cares for us and not an actual person, who lived and breathed, suffered and died for sin.  He just represents the lengths God is willing to go for us.”  This is a logical progression and reasonable given the number of Christians who will not defend Genesis 1 as historical.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is.  I believe He did it in seven literal days.  I believe He did it less than 10,000 years ago.  I believe He accomplished it by super natural power.  I know that nobody has shown me any discovery of man that contradicts these beliefs and stand, as Elijah did before the prophets of Baal, to mock their efforts to do so.  The efforts of science thus far have only worked to bolster my beliefs in the historical accuracy of Genesis 1.  I look forward to the next scientific discovery with respect to origins and how it will further confirm the account.