Page 66 of 82

Posted on

Getting all Philosophical again

Here are some ideas that have been running through my head over the last few days. A lot of it is along the lines of Plato, who happens to be my favorite Greek philosopher. It’s part philosophy, part theology, and a dash of psychology. I hope it doesn’t come out too confusing….

There is a law in physics which says that everything which happens has a cause, and nothing which is caused to happen can be greater than the cause. Energy is (in a way) lost.

There is also a law which I have observed (a more philosophical/subjective law) which says that nothing created can ever be as good as the creator. For example, a human will never create a robot which is as “good”/perfect (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc.) as the human creator. A poet can only create a poem that is limited by linguistics. The written or spoken words, however, will never be as “good”/perfect as the original ideas within the mind of the poet. The artist can only do so much under the limitations of the physical paint or chisel. The work of art will never be as good/perfect as the original vision of the artist.

Creation can never be as good or better than the creator. The only exception to this is when a father and mother “create” a child. That child has every ability to become as good as or better than his father. He can be smarter, better looking, more successful, have a better marriage. He is the same flesh and blood, yet he has the capacity to become better.

When God created the world, he said “It is good.” It was never perfect. It was never intended to be perfect. It could not be perfect and never will be perfect – because God, who is the only Perfect being (who was, is, and will be), created it, and in doing so could not have created it “perfect.” It could only ever be “good,” but not “perfect.”

Even man, whom God poured His heart and soul into (quite literally) was only ever “very good.” Mankind, the only creation created in the “Imago Dei,” still could not be perfect because mankind was created out of the dust of the earth – an imperfect material.

Mankind has longed to be perfect. Being “good” isn’t good enough. We want perfection. So much so that if we see something imperfect – a misspelled word or a poorly drawn circle – our mind adjusts so that it is comprehended as perfect. But nothing we do, nothing we create will ever be perfect, because we ourselves are not perfect. If a perfect Creator can only make that which is “good,” what becomes of the creation of imperfect creators? Luckily, the perfect Creator stepped in and gave us a little guidance at various times.

Through Abraham, He created a nation we call the Jews. They were the “chosen” people of God to whom He gave the Law (or Torah) by which they were to live. In doing so, he gave them a good Law, but not a perfect one. It couldn’t have been perfect since it was created and put into imperfect words by which imperfect beings were intended to live…perfectly. Only by doing so would they truly, completely, perfectly, be able to enter the presence of the perfect Creator. But the Law, being an imperfect creation, didn’t work. These imperfect people could not keep the imperfect Law perfectly. Seems pretty hopeless at this point in the story.

But remember the exception to the rule about imperfect creation? A man’s offspring is the only “creation” of his that is able to be as good or better than the man himself. This is where Jesus of Nazareth enters the story. He is not just another man “created” by God, but rather inseminated by God. Adam was created out of dust and was therefore unable to rise to the standard of the Creator. Jesus was procreated by God, thus enabling Him to rise to the level of his Father, that is, perfection.

So what about us? We are still his imperfect creation. That is, until we are “born again” into Christ. We have now become “His offspring” to quote Paul quoting a Greek poet. If we have been born again, we have become “sons of God.”

The implications of this I will leave to you.

Posted on

Getting all Philosophical again

Here are some ideas that have been running through my head over the last few days. A lot of it is along the lines of Plato, who happens to be my favorite Greek philosopher. It’s part philosophy, part theology, and a dash of psychology. I hope it doesn’t come out too confusing….

There is a law in physics which says that everything which happens has a cause, and nothing which is caused to happen can be greater than the cause. Energy is (in a way) lost.

There is also a law which I have observed (a more philosophical/subjective law) which says that nothing created can ever be as good as the creator. For example, a human will never create a robot which is as “good”/perfect (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc.) as the human creator. A poet can only create a poem that is limited by linguistics. The written or spoken words, however, will never be as “good”/perfect as the original ideas within the mind of the poet. The artist can only do so much under the limitations of the physical paint or chisel. The work of art will never be as good/perfect as the original vision of the artist.

Creation can never be as good or better than the creator. The only exception to this is when a father and mother “create” a child. That child has every ability to become as good as or better than his father. He can be smarter, better looking, more successful, have a better marriage. He is the same flesh and blood, yet he has the capacity to become better.

When God created the world, he said “It is good.” It was never perfect. It was never intended to be perfect. It could not be perfect and never will be perfect – because God, who is the only Perfect being (who was, is, and will be), created it, and in doing so could not have created it “perfect.” It could only ever be “good,” but not “perfect.”

Even man, whom God poured His heart and soul into (quite literally) was only ever “very good.” Mankind, the only creation created in the “Imago Dei,” still could not be perfect because mankind was created out of the dust of the earth – an imperfect material.

Mankind has longed to be perfect. Being “good” isn’t good enough. We want perfection. So much so that if we see something imperfect – a misspelled word or a poorly drawn circle – our mind adjusts so that it is comprehended as perfect. But nothing we do, nothing we create will ever be perfect, because we ourselves are not perfect. If a perfect Creator can only make that which is “good,” what becomes of the creation of imperfect creators? Luckily, the perfect Creator stepped in and gave us a little guidance at various times.

Through Abraham, He created a nation we call the Jews. They were the “chosen” people of God to whom He gave the Law (or Torah) by which they were to live. In doing so, he gave them a good Law, but not a perfect one. It couldn’t have been perfect since it was created and put into imperfect words by which imperfect beings were intended to live…perfectly. Only by doing so would they truly, completely, perfectly, be able to enter the presence of the perfect Creator. But the Law, being an imperfect creation, didn’t work. These imperfect people could not keep the imperfect Law perfectly. Seems pretty hopeless at this point in the story.

But remember the exception to the rule about imperfect creation? A man’s offspring is the only “creation” of his that is able to be as good or better than the man himself. This is where Jesus of Nazareth enters the story. He is not just another man “created” by God, but rather inseminated by God. Adam was created out of dust and was therefore unable to rise to the standard of the Creator. Jesus was procreated by God, thus enabling Him to rise to the level of his Father, that is, perfection.

So what about us? We are still his imperfect creation. That is, until we are “born again” into Christ. We have now become “His offspring” to quote Paul quoting a Greek poet. If we have been born again, we have become “sons of God.”

The implications of this I will leave to you.

Posted on

Expelled

So tonight’s movie at Harding was Expelled, a documentary by Ben Stein concerning the issue of intelligent design. He raised many good points in the interviews he conducted with scientists on both sides of the Intelligent Design v. Evolution debate. Much of the movie was concerned with the simple fact that there is no “academic freedom” in the world of science. Those who dare question Darwinian evolution are “black listed” – they have lost their jobs and careers, have received threatening/hateful mail, and have become a laughing stock of the scientific community. All this simply because they are dissatisfied with the blanket “answers” provided by Darwin’s theory.

One main goal of his documentary was to show the devolution of morality and ethics in lieu of Darwinian evolution (natural selection, etc.). The climax (of sorts) of the movie was his discussion about Hitler and the Nazi regime – how they played off of evolutionary principles in order to create a “master race,” which ultimately lead to ethnic cleansing, eugenics, and unprecedented genocide. If there is no god, if there is no overarching, transcendent moral/ethical code, then one would naturally assume that an event such as the holocaust would eventually take place. Who’s to say that what they did was “wrong” if they were simply helping evolution by speeding up the processes.

Towards the closing of the film, Ben Stein holds a one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, acclaimed scientist/evolutionist and author of books like The God Delusion. Dawkins is one who is vehemently opposed to the theory of Intelligent Design and professes to be a non-believer in any type of divine being whatsoever. Yet even he admitted that there are markings throughout nature which point toward some type intelligence behind it. Incredibly, however, he feels that a more plausible theory than a god is the idea that life was, in effect, planted on earth by beings from another planet which (through Darwinian evolution) became so intelligent to the point that they could travel light years through space, plant some sort of life-bringing substance on the earth, and then leave indefinitely. Yes, that’s right – Dawkins is more willing to believe in ALIENS than a god. Yet even that theory doesn’t address the issue of the initial source or (in the words of Plato) the “First Cause.”

The agenda of the film is not necessarily say, “Yes, there is a god, and I.D. should be taught in schools.” Really the point was to show more of a hidden agenda of the evolutionist school. It seems to be a power play mostly. The reasons given by evolutionists he interviewed as to why intelligent design should not be more rigorously pursued as a viable option were along the lines of, “It’s stupid.” They gave no real reasoning for it. No scientific evidece has been found to disprove and discount the theory of intelligent design. In fact, according to Dawkins the evidence in favor of intelligent design in the world is somewhat convincing (not his words exactly).

This is not a closed case by any means. Science is always growing. The comparison between the scientific world of Darwin and the world of today is astronomical. As it was said in the film, if a cell in the time of Darwin were a Buick, the cell as we know it today would be a galaxy. I’m just waiting to see what surprises and, dare I say, revelations the future has in store for us.

Posted on

Expelled

So tonight’s movie at Harding was Expelled, a documentary by Ben Stein concerning the issue of intelligent design. He raised many good points in the interviews he conducted with scientists on both sides of the Intelligent Design v. Evolution debate. Much of the movie was concerned with the simple fact that there is no “academic freedom” in the world of science. Those who dare question Darwinian evolution are “black listed” – they have lost their jobs and careers, have received threatening/hateful mail, and have become a laughing stock of the scientific community. All this simply because they are dissatisfied with the blanket “answers” provided by Darwin’s theory.

One main goal of his documentary was to show the devolution of morality and ethics in lieu of Darwinian evolution (natural selection, etc.). The climax (of sorts) of the movie was his discussion about Hitler and the Nazi regime – how they played off of evolutionary principles in order to create a “master race,” which ultimately lead to ethnic cleansing, eugenics, and unprecedented genocide. If there is no god, if there is no overarching, transcendent moral/ethical code, then one would naturally assume that an event such as the holocaust would eventually take place. Who’s to say that what they did was “wrong” if they were simply helping evolution by speeding up the processes.

Towards the closing of the film, Ben Stein holds a one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, acclaimed scientist/evolutionist and author of books like The God Delusion. Dawkins is one who is vehemently opposed to the theory of Intelligent Design and professes to be a non-believer in any type of divine being whatsoever. Yet even he admitted that there are markings throughout nature which point toward some type intelligence behind it. Incredibly, however, he feels that a more plausible theory than a god is the idea that life was, in effect, planted on earth by beings from another planet which (through Darwinian evolution) became so intelligent to the point that they could travel light years through space, plant some sort of life-bringing substance on the earth, and then leave indefinitely. Yes, that’s right – Dawkins is more willing to believe in ALIENS than a god. Yet even that theory doesn’t address the issue of the initial source or (in the words of Plato) the “First Cause.”

The agenda of the film is not necessarily say, “Yes, there is a god, and I.D. should be taught in schools.” Really the point was to show more of a hidden agenda of the evolutionist school. It seems to be a power play mostly. The reasons given by evolutionists he interviewed as to why intelligent design should not be more rigorously pursued as a viable option were along the lines of, “It’s stupid.” They gave no real reasoning for it. No scientific evidece has been found to disprove and discount the theory of intelligent design. In fact, according to Dawkins the evidence in favor of intelligent design in the world is somewhat convincing (not his words exactly).

This is not a closed case by any means. Science is always growing. The comparison between the scientific world of Darwin and the world of today is astronomical. As it was said in the film, if a cell in the time of Darwin were a Buick, the cell as we know it today would be a galaxy. I’m just waiting to see what surprises and, dare I say, revelations the future has in store for us.

Posted on

Thoughts on Faith

In one of my classes, Advanced Intro to the Old Testament, we are assigned to read through the entire Old Testament in one semester. It’s going to be a challenge, but I hope to keep up with it.

In reading through the Pentateuch, Torah, Law, whatever you want to call it, I noticed something. Several things, actually, but I will only touch on one right now:

We live in an age of postmodernism, which is really just a pendulum swing away from modernism. During the age of modernism, the western world became obsessed with proof. Everything we could “know” for sure was that which the sciences could measure, test, observe, reproduce, record, i.e. “prove.” This was troublesome when it came to the existence of God. Since science could not “prove” God, He must not exist. Then we saw a response in the area of “Christian scientists” who pushed for the science of intelligent design to be added to the curriculum in schools across America. The idea is that if we could offer enough evidence for the existence of a Creator, then pagans everywhere would repent of their folly and turn to faith in Yahweh.

I don’t know how many times you, like I, have thought something along the lines of: If I could only have lived during the time of Jesus to see his miracles, then I would have no problem believing. If I could just see, then I would believe.

But is true, genuine belief really a product of sight? Just because something is observable by the senses, does that make it any more believable? Think about it.

Jesus was constantly asked for a “sign” to “prove” that He was who He claimed to be. John records seven of these signs, all of which were observed by multiple witnesses – they saw, smelled, felt, heard, and even tasted of these signs. But was this “proof” enough? Of course not. And it still isn’t.

And consider the post-exodus nation of Israel in the wilderness. Yahweh, the Creator, revealed His presence to the entire nation in the “grand theophany” at Sinai. But was that enough for them? No. Nothing was ever enough “proof,” at least not enough to convince them that they should follow Him completely. We see the constant pattern of God creating (the world, the nation of Israel, etc.), His creation falling away, His presence being taken away, then reconciling His creation to Himself. It’s an endless cycle. It happened in the beginning, it happened in the Exodus, during the Judges and prophets, during the time of Jesus, and it happens today.

So my question is, does sight really produce belief? My answer, and the answer found thorughout scriptures, is a resounding “NO!” There are some exceptions, of course, found in these stories. For “Doubting Thomas”, seeing and feeling were enough proof for Him. But the fact remains that no matter how much evidence, or “proof”, we offer for the existence and/or power of God, there are going to be some who simply do not, cannot, or will not believe.

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” -John 20:29

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” -Hebrews 11:1

Posted on

Thoughts on Faith

In one of my classes, Advanced Intro to the Old Testament, we are assigned to read through the entire Old Testament in one semester. It’s going to be a challenge, but I hope to keep up with it.

In reading through the Pentateuch, Torah, Law, whatever you want to call it, I noticed something. Several things, actually, but I will only touch on one right now:

We live in an age of postmodernism, which is really just a pendulum swing away from modernism. During the age of modernism, the western world became obsessed with proof. Everything we could “know” for sure was that which the sciences could measure, test, observe, reproduce, record, i.e. “prove.” This was troublesome when it came to the existence of God. Since science could not “prove” God, He must not exist. Then we saw a response in the area of “Christian scientists” who pushed for the science of intelligent design to be added to the curriculum in schools across America. The idea is that if we could offer enough evidence for the existence of a Creator, then pagans everywhere would repent of their folly and turn to faith in Yahweh.

I don’t know how many times you, like I, have thought something along the lines of: If I could only have lived during the time of Jesus to see his miracles, then I would have no problem believing. If I could just see, then I would believe.

But is true, genuine belief really a product of sight? Just because something is observable by the senses, does that make it any more believable? Think about it.

Jesus was constantly asked for a “sign” to “prove” that He was who He claimed to be. John records seven of these signs, all of which were observed by multiple witnesses – they saw, smelled, felt, heard, and even tasted of these signs. But was this “proof” enough? Of course not. And it still isn’t.

And consider the post-exodus nation of Israel in the wilderness. Yahweh, the Creator, revealed His presence to the entire nation in the “grand theophany” at Sinai. But was that enough for them? No. Nothing was ever enough “proof,” at least not enough to convince them that they should follow Him completely. We see the constant pattern of God creating (the world, the nation of Israel, etc.), His creation falling away, His presence being taken away, then reconciling His creation to Himself. It’s an endless cycle. It happened in the beginning, it happened in the Exodus, during the Judges and prophets, during the time of Jesus, and it happens today.

So my question is, does sight really produce belief? My answer, and the answer found thorughout scriptures, is a resounding “NO!” There are some exceptions, of course, found in these stories. For “Doubting Thomas”, seeing and feeling were enough proof for Him. But the fact remains that no matter how much evidence, or “proof”, we offer for the existence and/or power of God, there are going to be some who simply do not, cannot, or will not believe.

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” -John 20:29

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” -Hebrews 11:1

Posted on

My first speed-dating experience…will hopefully get me a job.

So today at school, we had what Harding likes to call “C-Harmony”, a spin-off of eHarmony, where churches from all over the country send ministers, elders, and whomever else they want to in order to interview a flood of Harding students wanting youth ministry internships.

There were about 37 churches represented and over 200 interviewees from Harding. Each interview lasted 30 minutes – 2 rounds per hour from 1 to 5 pm. I interviewed with 4 congregations and have mixed feelings about all the interviews. A 30 minute interview is not nearly enough time in my opinion, but hopefully I made a good enough impression on the ministers in order to get some offers.

Pray for me that God will guide me to the congregation where he wants me and that my own will and desires don’t stand in the way of his.

PS: If any of you reading this know of any place that is looking for interns this summer, put in a good word for me…

Posted on

My first speed-dating experience…will hopefully get me a job.

So today at school, we had what Harding likes to call “C-Harmony”, a spin-off of eHarmony, where churches from all over the country send ministers, elders, and whomever else they want to in order to interview a flood of Harding students wanting youth ministry internships.

There were about 37 churches represented and over 200 interviewees from Harding. Each interview lasted 30 minutes – 2 rounds per hour from 1 to 5 pm. I interviewed with 4 congregations and have mixed feelings about all the interviews. A 30 minute interview is not nearly enough time in my opinion, but hopefully I made a good enough impression on the ministers in order to get some offers.

Pray for me that God will guide me to the congregation where he wants me and that my own will and desires don’t stand in the way of his.

PS: If any of you reading this know of any place that is looking for interns this summer, put in a good word for me…

Posted on

Back in the Swing of It

A few weeks have passed since my last update. Sorry about that. It’s been busy to say the least. Katelyn and I had an awesome Christmas with her family in Indiana. When we got back to Columbia we had much to do before our big move. Then the day finally came – we moved into our apartment here in Searcy last Monday and have spent the last week unpacking, setting things up, reassembling, rearranging, customizing, improving, etc. All the fun of moving. The two greatest things about this move are 1) we’re finally able to call somewhere “home” and 2) we finally get to use all the cool wedding presents we got 8 months ago.

A new semester of school started today, and I am stretching myself to the limit…just to see what that limit is. I am taking 17 credit hours (which translates into 21 hours of class time) and working about 20 hours per week. So if you don’t here from me for a while, I’m most likely either studying my Greek or reading for Advanced Intro to Old Testament.

I also wanted to briefly tell about a short book I just read: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This book is written by an atheist, discussing why he feels that Christianity, and religion in general, is a thing of the past, illogical, unreasonable, and a hindrance to the progression of society and the human race. It was a very challenging read, and much of what he wrote made me squirm in my seat or shake my head in shock. But he also raised many complaints against Christians in general with which I am inclined to agree. He really made me think about the way I think about the world around me and how Christians have been and continue to be responsible for some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity, e.g. the Inquisition, the Crusades, antisemitism which ultimately lead to the holocaust, and so on. He complains about Christians, as Jesus complained about the Pharisees, that we tend to strain the gnat and leave the camel. We look for the speck and ignore the plank. We raise such a fuss about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual rights, and we turn a blind eye to poverty, suffering, genocide, and horrific diseases which ravage entire nations. We are more concerned about the potential life of an embryo than we are about the actual, miserable life of a fellow human suffering from a disorder which could be remedied by that embryo. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m not saying we’re right. He raised many key points which, right or wrong, founded or not, we as Christians must take to heart and think long and hard about. This book is not for those who are weak or young in the faith. I would only recommend it to those who would consider themselves ready to face head-on the atheistic world-view which is ever-growing in Western society.

Posted on

Back in the Swing of It

A few weeks have passed since my last update. Sorry about that. It’s been busy to say the least. Katelyn and I had an awesome Christmas with her family in Indiana. When we got back to Columbia we had much to do before our big move. Then the day finally came – we moved into our apartment here in Searcy last Monday and have spent the last week unpacking, setting things up, reassembling, rearranging, customizing, improving, etc. All the fun of moving. The two greatest things about this move are 1) we’re finally able to call somewhere “home” and 2) we finally get to use all the cool wedding presents we got 8 months ago.

A new semester of school started today, and I am stretching myself to the limit…just to see what that limit is. I am taking 17 credit hours (which translates into 21 hours of class time) and working about 20 hours per week. So if you don’t here from me for a while, I’m most likely either studying my Greek or reading for Advanced Intro to Old Testament.

I also wanted to briefly tell about a short book I just read: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This book is written by an atheist, discussing why he feels that Christianity, and religion in general, is a thing of the past, illogical, unreasonable, and a hindrance to the progression of society and the human race. It was a very challenging read, and much of what he wrote made me squirm in my seat or shake my head in shock. But he also raised many complaints against Christians in general with which I am inclined to agree. He really made me think about the way I think about the world around me and how Christians have been and continue to be responsible for some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity, e.g. the Inquisition, the Crusades, antisemitism which ultimately lead to the holocaust, and so on. He complains about Christians, as Jesus complained about the Pharisees, that we tend to strain the gnat and leave the camel. We look for the speck and ignore the plank. We raise such a fuss about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual rights, and we turn a blind eye to poverty, suffering, genocide, and horrific diseases which ravage entire nations. We are more concerned about the potential life of an embryo than we are about the actual, miserable life of a fellow human suffering from a disorder which could be remedied by that embryo. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m not saying we’re right. He raised many key points which, right or wrong, founded or not, we as Christians must take to heart and think long and hard about. This book is not for those who are weak or young in the faith. I would only recommend it to those who would consider themselves ready to face head-on the atheistic world-view which is ever-growing in Western society.