Mashmouth is

Evidence for the Resurrection of Yeshua (Part 4)

2010-04-13T23:58:00.004-05:00

~This is a continuation in the series forming the case for an actual, historical, literal Resurrection~

Following sightings of the Risen Christ by hundreds of people, the Church began to grow. The earliest members of the Church were, naturally, Jewish; Yeshua was a Jew, being the long awaited Messiah and all...

This next evidence is more circumstantial, but still is powerful evidence that a Man really did come back from the dead.

Abandoned Customs

Now, the Bible is not the only place where we know of Jewish customs, but it is the most comprehensive. Often called "The Law of Moses", the Torah consists of 613 laws (including the Ten Commandments) separating the people of Israel from every other people-group in history. The Torah is found within the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch; for centuries, most if not all, Jewish leaders had them memorized.

There were ceremonial laws and there were moral laws. With the exception of the moral laws, most of the laws themselves were not incredibly critical, or even special, though as we know now, they did help keep microorganisms at bay among other benefits. Essentially, the laws served as a visual reminder of being God's Holy people, set apart from the rest of the World. He had selected them by His good pleasure, and the Law kept them unique and worthy. To this day, it is this fact that gives reason that many believe the Jews to be exceedingly arrogant. Nonetheless, these laws held core social and religious significance to the Jewish people. (Think of the U.S. Constitution for citizens the USA today.)

Moses was given the Law around 1400 B.C. Therefore, these laws were forged into the identity of the Jewish nation for over 1400 years.

Fast-forward. Following the Resurrection, 40 days passed where Jesus Himself taught the disciples about the Scriptures--practically speaking, it was an intense seminary course. Following His Ascension and then Pentacost (Acts 1,2) there was tremendous growth of the Church. The networking power of the Gospel was at full bloom by now.

Jesus Himself had 1) affirmed and subsequently commanded water Baptism for the remission of sins and 2) instituted the Lord's Supper the night before His death. (Now, neither of these ceremonies themselves actually do anything to justify humans before a Holy God; rather, they are powerful symbolic acts for the Christian. Justification was accomplished on the Cross.)

My question is this: if Yeshua (Jesus) was not the promised Messiah--prophesied in the Old Testament that He would die for the sins of all, why would thousands of early converted Jews abandon their core ritualistic traditions and start getting Baptized and taking Communion? What could be so compelling about the Christian message that centuries of social and religious fabric would be ripped up and replaced by this New Garment of faith?

All of the Apostles were Jewish. All of their followers were Jewish. Churches were being planted all over Jewish Judea and the surrounding region. Additionally, the Gospel was spreading like wild-fire throughout the Mediterranean region where many dispersed Jews lived.

Within decades, thousands of miles had been traversed with the Good News of a 'red-neck' Jewish Man that had come back to life; and He offered you the same Deal. To this day, the Message remains the same: believe and receive--or else, remain under wrath.

Evidence for the Resurrection of Yeshua (Part 3)

2010-04-12T18:04:00.002-05:00

(This is a continuation of a series. It may help to read the second post before this one.)

For the third part, I would like to point out one of the first creedal statements, or sayings, of the earliest Church. See, back in the day, the average layperson didn't have pens, pencils, notepads, voice recorders, iphones, etc. to notate significant concepts and histories, so the people would create oral sonnets (of sort) to solidify important, memorable truths. Among these is a saying that describes the appearances of Christ following His resurrection.

Very Early Creeds

Paul's first letter to the church of Corinth was written in 55-57 AD. It was written to practically tackle the sinful problems of the believers there, and has many important concepts useful to the Church as a whole. For our purposes here, I wish to point us towards the end of the letter where Paul reproduces one of the early creeds of the Resurrection, beginning in chapter 15.

1 Corinthians 15 1-8:

Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you--unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received:

that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,

that He was buried,

that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures,

and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time, most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared to me.

Paul quickly points out he didn't make it up--he is just passing it along. What Paul is saying here is that Christians were running around and saying that a Man died and then was raised from the dead. They maintained that they literally and actually saw Him. Indeed, over 500 people saw Him! Paul says, "Go ask them!" (In fact, the text says "500 men"; recall in that culture that women held a lower place so it is likely that over a thousand people saw Jesus at once if you count the women and children. This was at Galilee, out in the woods, where the serious would go--see Matthew 28:16-20.)

Yes--it is a crazy story! Yes--we are talking about something that never happened before we met this Jesus!

They were so confident, so boldly proclaiming this factual experience, that they were willing to be corroborated by other people living at the time. Furthermore, this statement was being passed around within just a few years of the Resurrection--there was no time for 'legend' to 'creep in' and corrupt the witness.

This is powerful Biblical attestation for the Resurrection of Yeshua.

Certainly, modern skeptical scholars bring up objections of 'mass-hypnosis' or that they were all smoking reefer or doing some other drugs. What seems to be the most plausible, considering the whole of the evidence? Jesus was seen at least eight times as reported in the Bible--does mass hysteria account for all of these?

I will end the post with a bit more from 1 Corinthians 15. Paul goes on to point out, logically, that if the Resurrection did not happen, then we are most of all people in the world to be pitied. In fact, we are the worst liars of all, and our faith is worthless. What a bunch of schmucks we are if there is no Resurrection!

But alas, we know that it indeed is the Truth, and that the Bible Story presents it in all elegance and beauty. In prophecy, narrative, and eye-witness testimony, our Hope is firm that Jesus lives today!

(I am not holding well to my 'daily' posting intentions, am I?)

Evidence for the Resurrection of Yeshua (Part 2)

2010-04-09T11:55:00.007-05:00

{Oops--got busy, and it is not tomorrow. But it is part deux.}

From where we left off, the empty tomb is, by any scholarly standard, a historical certainty. The historical Book we call the Bible explains that the Jewish religious leaders tried various ways to avoid, and then account for, the story (Matt. 27:65-66, 28:11-15). The Jewish leaders of the day had a vested interest in quenching any memory of the One who 1) developed a fan base bigger than theirs, 2) ripped them apart in every argument they ever had, 3) called them out on their hypocrisy (which is BIG--any good Jewish boy would honor and respect the authority figures, no matter what they did. Moreover, Jesus came off as one with authority Himself).

Intimate Eye-witness Testimony

It seems that immediately after the discovery of the empty tomb, the Risen Christ began appearing. Luke's account tells of a couple sad followers on the road to Emmaus (24:13ff); Matthew explains that as the women were turning to tell the other disciples, Jesus met them there (28:9-10); Mark reaffirms Matthew's account (within the disputed passage of 16:9-20--that is a topic for another post).

But John the Evangelizer, a Disciple and Apostle himself, describes much greater detail of appearances of the First to have ever been resurrected. Only two ran to the tomb upon believing the women's story--he and Peter.

Beginning at the empty tomb, the final two chapters of John's Gospel (20, 21) are chock-full of situations where Jesus was seen, touched, and heard by mortal men. Sometimes in a locked room, another time outside in the sun where He cooked for them. There are situations that are so intimate that they alone could only be described by an eyewitness (20:19-29). John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved". He, along with Peter and James, was one of the inner-core disciples, a leader among the 12. John's testimony cannot easily be discarded by skeptical hand waving.

Furthermore, this same John wrote four other books in the New Testament. Next to his gospel account, his most famous is probably the most mysterious: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, the final book of the Bible. John wrote this while on the island of Patmos after being exiled in his old age. Historians place the authorship date of Revelation at 95 AD. This is critical to our understanding of the Bible as a whole since, if the Resurrection was a hoax, it is reasonable to assume that there were plenty of people around that would have had to keep it secret. John himself survived an attempt on his life--tradition holds that he was placed in a vat of boiling oil. He never cried 'UNCLE'. He lived all his days emphasizing the truth and reality of a Risen Savior.

[t is critical to understand one thing about the nature of a written 'thing'. When you and I write something, we do it for a purpose. Whether we are writing a story or a letter, a history and diary or a thoughtful, explanatory treatise, we have an audience in mind, even if it is just ourselves. The Gospels (four of them) are no different. In addition, we can usually determine the context, nature, and purpose of a written document just by examining it.]

John himself explains why he wrote his Gospel in his own words (from the HCSB):

20:30-31

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

and in 21:25

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.

Thus, in this post I hope to have shed light on the simple fact that a letter claiming actual, historical, intimate situations with a Risen Man is not easily dismissed. John's Gospel is critical to our understanding of historical actualities. I submit that without it, though, we would still have enough evidence to credibly believe in the Resurrection. But I for one am joyful that we do.

Part 3 will be mass sightings--some call it mass hysteria, but was it?

Evidence for the Resurrection of Yeshua (Part 1)

2010-04-06T23:37:00.002-05:00

According to most historical scholars, the likely reliable date for the crucifixion of Yeshua of Nazareth--more commonly known to us in the Gentile world as Jesus Christ--is 27 AD. I bring this up simply for a frame of reference; the next several posts dealing with this issue of the Resurrection will be in relation to this date.

Women Reporters of an Empty Tomb

The Biblical accounts tell us that the tomb was found to be empty three days later (indeed, even skeptical scholars, i.e. non-believers, agree that the tomb was found empty). That would mean that the Resurrection of Yeshua is also dated 27 AD. What is interesting, and supportive of the authenticity of the Biblical accounts, is that the condition of an empty tomb is first reported by women.

It was Mary Magdelene, the former prostitute, and several other women that went that first Sunday morning at daybreak to anoint the body (they probably were going to do this because of the hasty burial at which they didn't have time to fully do the body properly). When they discovered the stone had already been rolled away, Mary went and told the men. Since women were not equivalent citizens in that culture, the fact that the Bible reports this is fascinating; Luke's account--taken from other eye-witnesses, not Luke's own experience--even mentions that the men didn't even believe her, but that Peter and John, two of the closest insiders to Yeshua did believe and bolted to the tomb to see.

That the Bible reports womens' testimony 1) shows that this is most likely the actual history and 2) Christianity was the first to accept women equally as dignified and prestigious as men.

Part 2 will be about more eye-witness testimony...come back tomorrow!

Violence from the Left

2010-04-05T00:36:00.009-05:00

Violence from the Left
Gary DeMar.
Posted using ShareThis

Further...Cash for Clunkers math:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

Liberal logic would say that is a great program compared to most of them.

Happy Resurrection Day!

2010-04-05T00:34:00.002-05:00

I intend to get started on a series of posts that explain evidence for the Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah, the King of kings, the Lord of all,Yeshua of Nazareth, later this week. I am not sure how many parts it will have, but I have a few ideas rolling around in my noodle. One problem and obstacle will be my schoolwork that is due Tuesday, but I can usually find some time to extemporaneously write a bit.

But first, I wanted to pass on something from smart Christians. I LOVE smart Christians; there is just something about using the tools that the modern world believes it owns and showing that the most plausible explanation for what we actually observe in world is from a loving God. Here is an article from Seed magazine about the theological implications of a multiverse. Essentially, the multiverse--describing exactly what it sounds like--is a philosophical and metaphysical proposition that is more common nowadays, intended to account for, among other things--like obvious design in nature--the beginning of the Universe, (i.e. the Big Bang...since, as Greg Koukl often says, "a Big Bang needs a Big Banger"). A sort-of review of astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink's booklet is included within the post. I thought it was a well written article, engaging and insightful. Enjoy!

An excerpt (Zweerink speaking):

“As my understanding of multiverse models increased, I realized the whole issue provided a tremendous opportunity to engage science-minded people and draw them into discussion of the Gospel.” Zweerink hopes to convince fellow Christians that multiverse only replaces one design problem with another, strengthening the evidence of god. “It seems that any multiverse model which can explain our observable universe requires a beginning and still exhibits design,” he says. Zweerink has also devoted a monthly blog post on reasons.org to the theological advantages of multiverse theory.

Some thoughts on the past

2010-04-02T15:14:00.001-05:00

In the Bible, prophecies in history are nothing to be worried over; when one later came true, it simply confirmed what God had already said would happen. Moreover, it confirms that God is Most High, completely powerful, and mighty to save. It shows that He is Sovereign, able to use any and all good and evil to fulfill His purposes. Therefore, saved or unsaved, you and I are useful to God and His plan to show Mankind His justice, lovingkindness, and faithfulness.

Isaiah, often called the Fifth Gospel because of how often he speaks about the Messiah, presents a most illuminating passage on the pivotal role of the coming King.

Verse 2 mentions His looks and attractiveness; verse 3 says He would be hated by the world; verse 5 speaks about His beatings even before His getting hanged on a tree; verse 6 mentions our sick, selfish condition; verse 9 foretells the tomb He would inhabit upon His death; verse 12 speaks of the Atoning Sacrifice for the future believers.

Today is Good Friday. It is called Good only because we have looked backwards through the lens of prophetic fulfillment.

John 16

²⁰I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy.

²¹A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world.

Isaiah 53

¹ Who has believed our message
       and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
² He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
       and like a root out of dry ground.
       He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
       nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
³ He was despised and rejected by men,
       a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
       Like one from whom men hide their faces
       he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
⁴ Surely he took up our infirmities
       and carried our sorrows,
       yet we considered him stricken by God,
       smitten by him, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.
⁶ We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.
⁷ He was oppressed and afflicted,
       yet he did not open his mouth;
       he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
       and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
       so he did not open his mouth.
⁸ By oppression ^[a] and judgment he was taken away.
       And who can speak of his descendants?
       For he was cut off from the land of the living;
       for the transgression of my people he was stricken. ^[b]
⁹ He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death,
       though he had done no violence,
       nor was any deceit in his mouth.
¹⁰ Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
       and though the LORD makes ^[c] his life a guilt offering,
       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
¹¹ After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life ^[d] and be satisfied ^[e] ;
       by his knowledge ^[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
       and he will bear their iniquities.
¹² Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, ^[g]
       and he will divide the spoils with the strong, ^[h]
       because he poured out his life unto death,
       and was numbered with the transgressors.
       For he bore the sin of many,
       and made intercession for the transgressors.

Some thoughts on the future

2010-04-02T14:24:00.004-05:00

It's too bad that America doesn't see what's really going on here. Let's think about it shall we? An American President wusses out and pulls a planned defense shield in order to placate Russia. Then, America deals with Russia to reduce arms, whilst Russia turns around and sells $2.5 billion worth of arms to China. Russia's Putin visiting (also selling arms, trading, etc.) with Hugo Chavez. Russia and China dealing with Iran.

How many of you are old enough to remember that Russia (former Soviet Union) and China support Communism and are not the good guys (as taught in school)? These country's helped North Viet Nam kill 58,000 Americans and helped to kill almost 40,000 Americans in Korea. What these evil country's could not take by force they are now buying with money made from the loss of American jobs. Does anyone think these business deals are a good thing? If so, I hope you are brushing up on your Chinese.

As if that would help--they might rather just harvest organs...

We are in such hot water that the frog is nearly boiled. Americans are so dumbed down from the left wing nuts that they can't realize what's happening behind our backs. It'll be too late when we do.

Still, none of this means I am a pessimist--realist, yes. Here's a fundamental fact: I have read the last chapter of the last book in the Bible.

I am fully optimistic in the End...

Until then? Meh....

Bible Translation by Tribes

2010-04-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

Scot McKnight recently (Sept. '09) came right out and said it--

We do Bible translations by tribe:

“NRSV for liberals and Shane Claiborne lovers;

ESV for Reformed complementarian Baptists;

HCSB for LifeWay store buying Southern Baptists;

NIV for complementarian evangelicals;

TNIV for egalitarians;

NASB for those who want straight Bible, forget the English;

NLT for generic brand evangelicals;

Amplified for folks who have no idea what translation is but know that if you try enough words one of them will hit pay dirt;

NKJV and KJV for Byzantine manuscript-tree huggers;

The Message for evangelicals looking for a breath of fresh air and seeker sensitive, never-read-a-commentary evangelists who find Peterson’s prose so catchy.”

I think this is funny, insightful, and something that, until I saw it this week, I thought I was among the few that noticed. I don't know if McKnight meant to be funny or serious, but it goes forth working to prove that sheep seek a flock. (Now atheists, don't get so haughty; I see the same thing in the types of authors/books people read, which music bands people follow, which websites/blogs people visit, and which 'kind' of science with which people choose to argue/agree. Humans seek gregarity.)

For the record, I own a copy of each one of these--except the Amplified--and use many at a time seeking to actually get to what the Word is truly saying. Yesterday, I just picked up a 'Catholic' Bible even. I find, however, that my daily reader is the HCSB, which seems to me most precise while still reading as smoothly as the newspaper. My church has landed on the NLT--eh, could be worse.

I quite like people--it's why I am in ministry--but have typically been averse to stereotypes about me or by me (however, I submit that anyone who says they don't stereotype/generalize is a liar). We all wish to be seen as an individual, but then we want to be a part of a group...it's sorta paradoxical, eh?

But I still don't like the Message.

Science Tuesday

2010-03-30T23:42:00.001-05:00

I listen to Dr. Fuz Rana's podcasts and have a couple of his books. He is a top notch scholar, peer-reviewed, and well reasoned. Enjoy a walk through some current understanding of the problems for the Evolutionary Hypothesis. While this may be a bit of a 'high-brow' topic, it is incredibly insightful concerning the so-called Cambrian Explosion of biological diversity.

An Excerpt:

Known in Darwin’s time, the Cambrian explosion refers to the dramatic appearance of complex animal life in the fossil record about 540 million years ago. Within a short period of time—perhaps less than 5 million years—anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of all animal phyla to ever exist on Earth appeared. The animals that came into existence during the Cambrian explosion were marine creatures. Instead of relatively simple organisms originating at the base of the Cambrian and then evolving toward increased intricacy, complex animals appear suddenly. The traditional evolutionary explanation argues that life should transition from simple to complex in a gradual, branching, tree-like fashion. On the other hand, such explosive appearances are exactly what should be expected if a Creator is responsible for orchestrating life’s history.

1/8/2009
by Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana

New Understanding of Precambrian Fossil Tracks Makes Biology’s Big Bang More Explosive

from reasons.org website.

I have three teenage daughters. They are good kids, but—as all teenagers are apt to do—they occasionally try to get by with things they shouldn’t. Usually when my wife or I suspect that something is amiss, my daughters will try to talk their way out of it by coming up with a story to defuse our suspicions. Still, it’s usually pretty easy to figure out that things are not on the up and up when all the facts don’t match their explanation.

This is also the case when it comes to the theory of biological evolution. Evolutionary biologists have constructed reasonably plausible scenarios to account for life’s origin and history through strictly mechanistic natural processes. But the facts don’t always match their explanations. The chief example of this is the Cambrian explosion. (For some articles on the problems that this dramatic event in life history creates for the evolutionary paradigm, go here, here, here, and here.)

Known in Darwin’s time, the Cambrian explosion refers to the dramatic appearance of complex animal life in the fossil record about 540 million years ago. Within a short period of time—perhaps less than 5 million years—anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of all animal phyla to ever exist on Earth appeared. The animals that came into existence during the Cambrian explosion were marine creatures. Instead of relatively simple organisms originating at the base of the Cambrian and then evolving toward increased intricacy, complex animals appear suddenly. The traditional evolutionary explanation argues that life should transition from simple to complex in a gradual, branching, tree-like fashion. On the other hand, such explosive appearances are exactly what should be expected if a Creator is responsible for orchestrating life’s history.

Like guilty teenagers confronted with evidence that exposes their explanation, evolutionary biologists try to change their story. This has surely been the case with regard to the Cambrian explosion, as scientists have tried to come up with alternative scenarios to explain away the devastating implications of the Cambrian event for the evolutionary model.

New work published in the journal Current Biology, however, eliminates one of the best counterexplanations that evolutionary biologists have mustered for the Cambrian explosion, making it even less likely that the facts surrounding “biology’s big bang” can be explained away.

The Cambrian Explosion and Darwin

When Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he was careful to acknowledge problems with his theory. One of those problems centered on the Cambrian explosion. Darwin wrote:

There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.

Darwin was referring to the fact that geologists of his time recognized that no fossils of complex animal forms existed in rock formations older than 545 million years. Yet, rocks from the Cambrian time frame (545-485 million years ago) are replete with such remains.

He sidestepped this problem by arguing that the fossil record was incomplete and poorly studied. He expected that as paleontologists collected and analyzed fossils over time, the missing transitional forms and gradual evolutionary transformations would be uncovered. Over the last 150 years, paleontologists have indeed uncovered a treasure trove of fossils that document a rich history of life on Earth.

A Brief Description of Life’s History

The fossil record indicates that prior to about 570 million years ago life on Earth appears to have been dominated by single-celled organisms. At that point an event known as the Avalon Explosion took place. During this origins event, an enigmatic fauna of complex marine creatures known as the Ediacarans appeared. The Ediacaran fauna consisted of about 270 species that have been recovered as fossils in about thirty localities around the world. The organisms disappeared shortly before the Cambrian explosion. New research indicates that Ediacaran fauna emerged explosively, in the same manner as that of the Cambrian event.* During the Avalon explosion the full range of anatomical characteristics displayed by the Ediacarans was already expressed around 570 million years ago. In other words, no evolutionary buildup of biodiversity.

While some of the Ediacaran organisms persist into the Cambrian and a few may have connections to organisms that appear in the Cambrian explosion, most do not. For the most part, the Ediacaran fauna disappears right before the Cambrian explosion.

After the Ediacaran organisms became extinct, the Cambrian explosion took place and represents the first appearance of animal life as we know it today. The last century-and-a-half of research into the fossil record has failed to uncover the missing fossils that Darwin lamented.

A Possible Loop-Hole

While some paleontologists agree that the Cambrian explosion is a real, but enigmatic event—at least enigmatic from an evolutionary vantage point—others argue along Darwin’s famous line. They maintain that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of an incomplete fossil record. In other words, there is a vast evolutionary history that is invisible because the first, simplest multicellular life-forms weren’t preserved in the fossil record.

To support this appeal to the fossil record’s incompleteness, evolutionary biologists point to trace fossils found in rocks as old as 2.1 billion years in age.

These fossils have been interpreted as tracks produced by complex multicellular animals that were the evolutionary precursors to the organisms that emerged in the Cambrian explosion. These trace fossils are typically characterized as a sinuous groove cut into the ground with a central ridge. The groove is bounded by two lateral ridges. Presumably, these traces were produced by an animal capable of movement that possessed bilateral symmetry

A Surprising New Insight about Trace Fossils

This interpretation, though reasonable, doesn’t appear to be correct based on recent work done by a team of oceanographers and biologists. These scientists were diving near the Little San Salvador Islandof the Bahamas and noticed tracks on the ocean floor that were identical to the trace fossils ascribed to the movements of ancient complex animal life thought to have lived well before the Cambrian explosion.

To their surprise, the tracks looked as if they were produced by a large single-celled creature called Gromia sphaerica. The researchers surmised that the tracks resulted from the rolling movement of this organism.

Implications

This find means that the trace fossils in ancient rock formations older than 540 million years were likely not created by complex, multicellular animals, but instead by single-celled organisms like G. sphaerica. This discovery eliminates one of the most compelling counter-explanations that evolutionary biologists give for the validity of the Cambrian explosion. In spite of evolutionary biologists’ story, it looks like the best way to account for the facts associated with the origin of animal life is through the work of a Creator.

Reminder to share the love within us

2010-03-29T00:41:00.002-05:00

Watch this video and have joy. It's by one of my favorite bands, needtobreathe.

Spread your Light that you have inside! This video is soooo awesome and reminds us that no matter where we are, we can make a difference in this sinking-ship-world.

Besides, it's such a cool song, you'll be blessed by the rock and roll!

More proof of God?

2010-03-27T23:49:00.000-05:00

When reading History--any history--it is wise to remember one specific thing: all history is written for a purpose. Today, I was reading some writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. I checked out volume 15 of 1952's Britannica Great Books series the other weekend and finally got around to opening this one. The reason I checked it out in the first place was to gather secondary source information about history besides the Biblical account.

First, there are some really boring accounts written in this book! However, there are some extremely interesting histories written down, too. Now I don't think I need 'prove' that the Bible is accurately presenting history, 'cause if it was wrong, someone would have done it by now. And truth be told, you'd have heard about it, too! It is a fact that the Bible presents an accurate version of history.

So what is my proof of God? I often relate this simple fact when in conversation (with believers or non-believers): God exists because the Jewish people still exist. He said that He would keep His chosen nation forever, and, well--here they still are. We don't hear about any modern Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Edomites, or any of the other ancient races and ethnic tribes written about in history, do we? Indeed, reading Tacitus' accounts of the Roman conquer of Judea and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem under soon-to-be-Emperor Titus, it is easily gleaned that centuries of people hated the Jews, the "most contemptible of the subject tribes," and sought to absorb them into the surrounding peoples on more than one occasion (Tacitus Histories, Book V). Tacitus has a very difficult time concealing his spite as, "(o)ur indignation was heightened by the circumstance that the Jews alone had not submitted." They hated them for, yep, the exact same reason God tells them in the Bible--they are to be a separate and holy nation, unique out of the surrounding peoples.

Surely, as an unbeliever you may scoff that these histories coincide, saying it proves little more than Jewish arrogance. But what is clearly fascinating is that, when delving deeper and deeper into details of history, the fact that the nations of Jews still exists today owes much to circumstances that often seem miraculous! Tacitus presents many examples of 'coincidental' circumstances in this book; but that is one book of many, all the way through World War II and yes, right up to today. Indeed, the Bible foretells that God will continue to protect Jerusalem until the Day when Jesus roars back into History! What seems like coincidence is exactly how God acts in the world. But don't take my word for it... The Bible as History is written for a reason. (The reason is to tell you that God loves you in this way: that He sent His one and only Son to die as payment for your sins, the sins that you would otherwise pay for yourself! This is the Good News! He made it so simple for us too: simply believe.)

I will be sharing some discoveries in the coming months about further evidence that the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the Universe; evidence that, as the different books of the Bible were being written over 2000+ years, the amazing intelligence and understanding--in comparison to the contemporary people-groups of the time!--were beyond then-current human knowledge. This lends further support to the claim that the Bible is revealed to mankind (besides the prophetic fulfillments, accurate and corroborated history, and the sheer elegance of how the Old and New Testaments mesh together) rather than just written like the rock-worshipers that surrounded them--including the Philistines.

Analog TV

2010-03-26T23:56:00.003-05:00

Here in central Minnesota, there are still analog television signals broadcast. Well, there is at least one of which I know--it is a little station, and my buddy turned me on to it today. I don't get it here at home because I don't have access to an old-style antenna but he seems to when he unplugs his digital box. The cool thing is that my buddy--we'll call him Mark--does not believe in the same Christ that I do; nope, he is not a Christian--Mark likes his well, we'll call them vices, too much.

Now what's peculiar about the television station is that it plays Les Feldick. It broadcasts all "Les", all the time. It plays his sessions in 2 hours time slots--composed of 4 half-hour programs--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For those who've never heard of him, he is a Bible teacher from Oklahoma; he sits on a stool in front of a chalkboard with a room of like-haired people (what I mean is, wise-colored hair). Evidently Les is a retired rancher- turned Gospel minister and self-proclaimed "regular Bible teacher." He'll be the first to tell you he's no theologian. But that's the best part--the man just knows his Bible. "Les", as Mark calls him, has such a high view of Scripture that he will exposit a passage for the full half-hour, traveling through a variety of Biblical passages to support the doctrine. He was in 1 John 5 the whole time I watched today. (I only disagreed with his eschatological viewpoints, but that is secondary, eh? Heck, I disagree with my own pastor about the end-times, so that means little.)

Mark invited me over for the afternoon to watch some "Les". Since I have shared my faith with Mark several times, I coveted the opportunity to go have some Bible study with him--and on his initiation!? We had a great time, too! In my view, this little tv station pumping out Gospel teaching is the Power of God Himself. That Mark, again a guy who is in his early twenties and likes his women, drinking, and smokes--all kinds--is about ready to become a Christian is a testament that Feldick has chosen a method that works. Preach the Good News without ceasing. Do it again, and again, and again. Right away, I was struck by the simple message that Feldick repeatedly emphasized--he brought up 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 many times in the 3 hours I watched. Feldick teaches the Gospel and is passionate about the Gospel (now, there are nearly fifteen years of teachings on his website, and Mark tells me that he has seen a huge variety of discussions. Mark even showed me his Bible with notes! I guess I just came on the day that the Gospel, or Good News, was preached. Coincidence? I think not; between half-hours, the television station puts up a screen that says something like, "You are not here by accident, we believe God brought you here." I agree!).

Mark says he is "almost there" and it is the Power of God by His Holy Spirit. We are told in Scripture that no one believes on the Messiah without the Holy Spirit. Mark believes that God sent His Son. I am still able to help out in my small part and I left Mark with an admonition that we are not guaranteed tomorrow. If you would, can you pray for Mark with me? Pray that God will grant him the strength to be weak, turning it over to God.

Romans 10:10

With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. (HCSB)

1 Corinthians 15

¹ Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters,of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it. ² It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place. ³ I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. ⁴ He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. ⁵ He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. ⁷ Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. (NLT)

Contingency Plans

2010-03-25T16:09:00.003-05:00

When things don't go as planned, human nature, intelligence, and being itself requires that we adapt and react with optimism and hope. Otherwise, we can quickly find ourselves in a nihilistic spiral (indeed, just look at nations/regions of the world where Secular Humanism has taken firm roots and the correlation of suicide).

In the spirit of this optimism--particularly for those who have seen that for the first time in American history one will be forced to purchase something just for the privilege of being a citizen--I post a contingency plan from yesteryear.

When the first men walked on the moon, they didn't know if they would return. We know that it works out in the end, but this memo
shows that, in the midst of the excursion, leaders weren't so sure. (Sure, other countries have passed the sort of laws as the US did this week; I submit that America was not founded on this mentality. I would say that America was founded with a free-spirit and libertarian sentiment--coincidentally, this is where I tend to think. Others honestly support the interpretation of 'the general welfare' of the country differently. Moving forward, we can continue to have that disagreement and discussion.)

From July,1969:

"Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.

These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one;
in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the
constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are
epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not
be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost
in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will
know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind."

-- Speech drafted for U.S. President Nixon for use "in the event of
moon disaster" during the first lunar landing. The text was found
in a memo to H.R. ("Bob") Haldeman from speech-writer William
("Bill") Safire, dated July 18, 1969, recently unearthed in the U.S.
National Archives.

Competing Worldviews; Dog vs. Cat

2010-03-24T02:34:00.003-05:00

The Dog’s Diary:
8:00 am – Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30 am – A car ride! My favorite thing!
9:40 am – A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
10:30 am – Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
12:00 pm – Milk bones! My favorite thing!
1:00 pm – Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00 pm – Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
5:00 pm – Dinner! My favorite thing!
7:00 pm – Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
8:00 pm – Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!
11:00 pm – Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!
——————————————
The Cat’s Diary:
Day 983 of my captivity.
My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength. The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet. Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates my capabilities. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a “good little hunter” I am. Jerks!
There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of “allergies.” I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage. Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow, but at the top of the stairs.
I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released, and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded. The bird must be an informant. I observe him communicate with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe. For now.

Where do our rights come from?

2010-03-22T13:56:00.001-05:00

Congressman Paul Ryan on the steep climb to reclaim American idea

Freedom of Choice

2010-03-21T18:21:00.000-05:00

“To esteem “freedom of choice” as an expression of individual autonomy and the basis of human dignity and responsibility is to miss the point. The so-called freedom to be the “master of my fate, the captain of my soul” is at bottom joyless and cheerless. For this is a freedom which denies dependence on the other as the source of one’s own personhood. This “freedom of choice,” Barth rightly reminds us, is what lies behind the fall of humanity, not its emergence into true personhood. We are not only determined by the other, and ultimately and originally by God, but we are made to respond in such a way that we do this “gladly,” in joyful recognition of our own being. This is the image and likeness of God.”

~ Ray S. Anderson, On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology

Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism | Christianpost.com

2010-03-20T11:45:00.000-05:00

Well, I suppose I found the next book for my shelves...;)

Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism | Christianpost.com

Excerpt:

God has made His existence plain from creation – from the unimaginable vastness of the universe to the complex micro-universe of individual cells, Spiegel notes. Human consciousness, moral truths, miraculous occurrences and fulfilled biblical prophecies are also evidence of the reality of God.
But atheists reject that, or as Spiegel put it, "miss the divine import of any one of these aspects of God's creation" and to do so is "to flout reason itself."
This suggests that other factors give rise to the denial of God, he notes. In other words, something other than the quest for truth drives the atheist.

America’s Dictators

2010-03-19T18:07:00.000-05:00

A timely warning with which I agree (though his grammar could use some improvements...).

America’s Dictators:

An excerpt:

However, the most hideous and dangerous aspect of their current agenda is to completely subvert all of the founding documents that this country was established upon: The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
These documents clearly establish that all of our rights are inalienable rights, which means that they are given by God and not by man or government. William Penn, the founder of the Pennsylvania Colony said, “Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” Yet, Senator Schumer was recorded as stating that they intend to determine what our inalienable rights will be. In other words, they fully intend to take over the roll of God in determining what rights Americans will have. That clearly falls under the definition of tyranny and a dictatorship.

My health-care plan

2010-03-18T03:36:00.001-05:00

If one can get passed the partisan, pro-Republican candor, her plea for sanity is a good one.

(By the way, the original meaning of the term Republican, properly understood, means to be Constitutional and pass rights to the states and to the most local level. This centralized, leftist/Statist, Washington D.C.-centric situation that we endure is not what the Framers had in mind when they struggled over the Constitution. I submit that, if Leftist's true intentions were known--that of power at the Federal level and incremental growth in government, re: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, et al--they would have been voted out long ago. It didn't just start since the 'Free-love' days; it was long before that. *sigh* But alas, it was meant to be, I suppose.)

My health-care plan

by Ann Coulter

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country – apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms – would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics – you know, things like cancer.
(cont.)

Wayward wolf not welcomed home | StarTribune.com

2010-03-17T23:56:00.001-05:00

Wayward wolf not welcomed home | StarTribune.com

Upon her return to the cage this wolf was attacked by her two sisters. Scientists say it was because they wanted to 'increase their rank' among the pack. When this wolf left, she was a female leader, but when she was brought back home, exhausted and worn-down, she was attacked.

This reminds me of humans today. Bathed in a consistent world-view of materialism and Darwinian evolution, our culture is gradually becoming more animal-like. Morality is just an annoyance when acknowledged, or it is simply irrelevant. Television shows are formed on the premise of stabbing your once-loved ones and former friends in the back just to 'increase your rank' in the pack. More and more, the secular-humanist world-view that ignores the inherent dignity in other humans increases.

Of course morality and love of others is not gone--I suggest that it is less useful, and so it is commonly brushed away. People are tools now and steps to use to get somewhere else. 'Since there is no God, there can be no justice against my apathy towards you' seems to be a statement of truth. When morality is not a real thing but something that culture makes up, you get wolves attacking each other.

Science Tuesday

2010-03-16T23:57:00.001-05:00

Hundreds of years ago, tax money was used to fund churches in this country. Churches, properly termed, preach the Good News that redemption awaits those among humankind that humble themselves to God in Christ's Name. Tax money stopped going to churches because not everybody agrees with the above Good News. Therefore, why should they pay for it. I concur with this argument. Indeed, the Bible says that not everybody will agree that Jesus is the King of Kings. So in America, this was the most equitable situation for all citizens.

I know of another situation that is equal and we do not need to delve back into history to see it; it is happening before our very eyes. Today, yours and my tax dollars go to a modern church.
This entity preaches a different gospel, but invariably, it is passed off as fact. This gospel is the Evolutionary Hypothesis. The churches are government schools.

I absolutely disagree with the Evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of life on the planet. Again, science does not give us truth. As any theory is then 'proved' by gathering facts that supports it, the Darwinists of today avoid certain evidence that has the potential to destroy their beloved hypothesis. Yet, we still have educational textbooks that push an assertion that since real and observed micro-evolution is a fact, then macro-evolution is simply an extension of that. This assertion is fallacious by the very methods of science itself. Nonetheless, we are still told that 'descent with modification' is how we got here. And monies taken from people like me, who see through the smoke and mirrors, pay people to profess this.

How is this situation different than when the Congregational Church's Yale College was receiving grants by the state of Connecticut?

If I were the Devil

2010-03-15T03:11:00.001-05:00

If I were the Devil. . .

I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;

I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man's

effort, instead of God's blessings;

I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of

the other way around;

I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;

I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to

leadership;

I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;

I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and invent

machines to make it convenient;

I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life of animals

are valued more than human beings;

I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was

grounds for a law suit;

I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I

would get sports heroes to advertise them;

I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the

mind of every family member for my agenda;

I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.

I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family

crumbles, so does the nation;

I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and

movie screens, and I would call it art;

I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that there

lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;

I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who

call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as politically

correct;

I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, and

the Bible is for the naive;

I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is

not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are good enough to get by;

Hmmm...I guess I would leave things pretty much the way they are.
(Paul Harvey)

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

2010-03-12T00:07:00.000-06:00

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

As much as I dislike polls, I find the way this question is posed to be enlightening. Unique insight into the AGW picture.

My Response to the Census 2010

2010-03-10T22:50:00.003-06:00

The following is from Lew Rockwell's website (in courier font--get it?):

I pass this along letter on the census for your information, only. I do not counsel anyone to break the law. Of course, I’m not real sure of what the law is. A direct and literal reading of the U.S. Constitution it seems to me, a non lawyer, is clear as to what the law is: people are legally obligated, only, to cooperate in a head count for political representation purposes. But, my fear, my expectation, even, is that present courts will not interpret the law in that way, and may instead punish census rebels who refuse to furnish additional required (requested?) information. In any case, the following will undoubtedly be of interest to all people concerned with liberty; I offer it exactly as it was sent to me:

From: ronpaul-200@meetup.com on behalf of DarkLaw
Sent: Tue 3/9/2010 9:02 PM
To: ronpaul-200@meetup.com
Subject: Re: [ronpaul-200] Ron Paul CNN on Cafferty Files 2/27/10

My response to the Census

I compiled this letter and inserted it into the Census envelope, along with my 2010 census form.
I marked off that ‘02′ people reside at this address….and, well… read the rest!

Use this as a template! This is just another small step in which we can show the Feds we won’t take this nonsense lying down!
______________________

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America

–
Please Note: If you hit “REPLY”, your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-200@meetup.com)
This message was sent by DarkLaw from New Orleans Campaign for Liberty.

Science Tuesday

2010-03-10T01:40:00.002-06:00

Late--early Wednesday morning. Oh well.

The DNA structure! Amazing! Its information bearing properties and the bonding relationships of its chemical constituents are not actually chemically bonded in the longitudinal message-bearing axis! The nucleotide bases are able to equally and with identical probability attach at ANY site!

In other words, that only four(4) nucleotides can give the enormous amount of specified information we see in all of the Life on Earth is beyond chance.

"DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."--Bill Gates

Even Oxford University geneticist Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like."

Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. Science gives inference, not truth.

Truth is deduced.

Death in the Family, tears for some

2010-03-08T20:30:00.004-06:00

After some seriously difficult 'transactions' with a brother of mine, I have been seriously reconsidering my own tactics and understanding of how to be a family member. A day later--today--my best friend's father died. These two unrelated situations sort of taste the same in my mouth. Let me explain a bit.

Robert Gohl was a business owner and community member here in Central Minnesota. I met him a few times and really enjoyed his company. I was the best man in his son's wedding, and his son stood in mine. When I got the phone call today, I could only say that my thoughts and prayers are with the rest of his family. I cannot imagine what Ryan is feeling today.

I am mixed up in my mind today. My family is so screwed up--case in point, my brother and I don't really like each other and he ridicules my Savior as the "Zombie-Jesus who is coming again!!!!" while calling me stupid for my principled political positions; while on the other hand, I don't particularly think his punk-nihilistic lifestyle is an upstanding and helpful position for society and culture and is fundamentally bathed in an apathy that screams lovelessness--and our relationships within the family are so tattered that I pondered my feelings for any family members that might meet their Maker before me. In light of Ryan's recent experience, my thoughts naturally fell on my own father.

I can honestly say that I am unsure if I would cry if he died today.
As heartless as this sounds, I have a reasoning behind it.

My father instilled courtesies and politeness in us as kids this is sure. We were very well-behaved boys, the three of us, but I think it had more to do with fear than with respect. No, I am sure it did. We always got great compliments, well my parents did, for being great kids. I remember thinking that, "you don't know a thing about us and our lives" whenever I heard those encouragements. I recall thinking how I couldn't wait until I was of legal age; indeed, when I turned 18 I left, to the destruction of my 'traditional' path onward to college.

So, if my father passed-on in this stage of our lives, I can't say I am able to predict any certain feeling. Of course, for all I know, I am blind to the realities of the situation and many conflicting feelings would surface. I know that I would certainly be remorseful that my pleading for his eternal salvation fell on 'atheist-tinged' ears that claimed, "that is what YOU believe." Funny, this postmodern truth-claim coming from a modernist. I would be sad that his prideful position of, "I am always correct and no one can convince me otherwise"--a position with which I am intimately familiar--was impossible to break through. I will not, for example, say as he did about his father, "I will piss on his grave." I am not like that. I am blessed to agree when I am wrong.

I think that for my mother I will most certainly shed tears. I mean, as much as he beat and tyrannized her, she is sweetly and loyally his wife to this day. She never let him down for all the years they have been together. I will grieve with her and be there for her. I will probably change the life of my family so that I could be available to take care of her. Even though I harbor deep-seated resentment coupled with feelings of abandonment towards her even to this day, I don't fully blame her because the situation is not simple; being a man, I still haven't sorted through those feelings completely and likely never will.

But I don't know if I will cry for him. This is sad.

I am so convinced that the Gospel is Reality and Truth; if you read this, you need to hear it again. Death has been swallowed up by Life--Jesus died so humankind could return to the Father with no worries. You too have offended God and need to be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb Who will return bodily. Plus, rest assured: Science has proven God if you just look with clear eyes. Don't let former cult-system teachings sway your thinking anymore.

When No One is Looking--Thoughts on Family

2010-03-07T23:54:00.002-06:00

Every single one of us has opinion on family, because every one of us came from one. I know my family was one that many would not be able to relate to 'cause people just didn't get beat up and verbally assaulted on a regular basis like we did in our family. And now, we live scattered around the countryside, far outside of a quick drive for mom's cooking. One generation before ours was equally scattered and equally, if not more, abused. But the family hasn't always been like this.
I have seen warm and healthy families. Indeed, my wife's family on her mother's side is a great example of a modern family that can get together and enjoy each other for the sake of just loving to be around each other. I have been blessed immensely by them, and am eager to hang out with them whenever possible. But even so, they are victim of the main point that I would like to write on with this post. They don't all live within a short call away--it takes a plan to get together, and they are just scattered around the state of Minnesota.

My daughter is from her own broken family. Her mother and I are long since split up--in fact, she has only known bouncing between her mom's and her dad's homes. Many of her friends are from similar situations, and 'dad's house' is common vernacular. This coming generation is as used to doing it on their own as any, because that is exactly what they must do. While not always scattered by mileage, they are certainly scattered in heart and mind.

The family in America is injured. I have seen that, in general, the family in America has moved so far away from each other--in mind and in body--that there really is no such thing as 'family' any more. Generations ago, folks stayed close mainly because of technological limitations. Regardless of why, they learned to cope with each other because they had to. They would do it because they shared a last name. Today the family seems to find any reason to roam and 'discover' themselves. Identity has shifted away from a surname and to the individual. We have a Facebook, not a photo album.

Neither bad or good, I am not drawing any conclusions either way. For example, many people in past times had to move for economic reasons. However, the vast majority of families in bygone days had a home location and children didn't move away. The members of the family stayed local where they could routinely interact with their loved ones. Here in Central Minnesota, this is still a commonplace situation. These families are as jolly as ever, too. Now of course, there are the typical politics in play, and factions, and dissensions, but that is part of being human. But at the end of the day, if one is in trouble, the family comes together--like, right now!

My thoughts on the family also move to the country as a whole. If individuals are the smaller 'part' to the greater whole--family-- then families are the smaller parts to a greater country. When we see that families are as dysfunctional as they are, this trend is not unexpected to be seen at the country-wide scale. Surely, the problems transcend the local and move to the regional and national.

The country is breaking up, and it is because of the individuals trying to do it for themselves. I am not for sure on this, but I suspect as much. When family members are long gone from each other and they don't have an accountability from people who actually 'care' beyond their own selfish needs, they are more likely to stray away from the generational truths and roots from which they originally flourished. When people are not watched by people that regularly watch them because of love, then they don't have to act like they are being watched either. What we do when no one is looking is just the thing that gets us into trouble.

Lessons from Football

2010-03-06T12:56:00.001-06:00

In life, we have a lot of downtime. We all know this--in some form--in the back of our minds. Our lives are so full of stuff, but at the end of the day, most of it doesn't really matter. But we know that some of it does matter.

A while back during the NFL playoff season, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal that broke down the broadcast by, well, the minute and found that during the course of the television broadcast of the game, very little football is actually being played. Indeed, in the whole of a 3+ hour broadcast, the ball is in play for an average of 11 minutes. I thought this was interesting, but not really surprising.
Our lives are also the products of, really, very few choices that we have made. For me, many of these choices were a result of my poor reactions to certain circumstances. But all of us are in some ways living out lives that only a handful of choices have created.

Some lessons from football:

Fundamentally, I have always thought of football as a modern war game. Indeed, there are battle plans drawn up, and every player on the field is getting drilled. In life, we are better off when we decide proactively and plan out the future we will live. We are going to get beat down, and knowing that, we can better prepare ourselves.

Football is essentially a chess match. There is back and forth, and one can't always be proactive. Our choices in life must be made wisely when we are having to react. Can we think on our feet and end up in a place of safety when the opportunities arise? (Here, I also specifically think of the few times we are offered the Gospel life-line...)

Football is a strenuous activity. Players need to literally catch their breath. In life, we need to review. Our choices and reactions cause a great deal of stress that maybe we aren't fully aware of. We really need down time and if we don't get it, we wear out (and look like it).

Each game is a story in itself. There is more than just the play of the ball, and there is more than the battle plan. Life is also much richer than the things we have done. Can we spot patterns and adjust our thinking? Also, we are people that love, that prefer, that feel. We have unique situations that no one can ever really know, so when we judge others, isn't this sort of hypocritical?

Sometimes, the play just gets lucky. Something happens to go right because the other team was ill-prepared or lined up for a different play option. Other times, one player is all it takes for good or bad. Well, in life, I believe that there are times and circumstances that provide better outcomes than they 'ought' to have, simply because of timing. This is a mysterious aspect to me; I have wondered about this for a long time. Some call it coincidence, but sometime around a decade ago I stopped believing in coincidences.

Holy Subversion by Crossway Pubs.

2010-03-05T01:26:00.001-06:00

Holy Subversion from Crossway

For my fellow believers, I am intrigued by the idea of this book so I wanted to share.
Happy Friday!

Digging post holes

2010-03-04T23:58:00.003-06:00

As I notice the culture around me and it's incessant quest to explain the world around us, I am at once encouraged and frustrated.

I am encouraged since this is what we humans do--we ask. We wonder. We try and fail and try again. We fall down, we lift ourselves up and brush off our knees, and then do it harder and faster. It is a beautiful and awesome thing to see this in us homo sapiens sapiens, to use the vernacular of science (the pinnacle of today's human ideal of questioning things). We are truly the superior living creature on Earth and it's because we ask questions.

Lately, I am frustrated more than I am encouraged. I am frustrated because we have become so enamored by the details--since we are so rational and modern--that we have lost the pattern itself. We are so intensely focused on the how and why that we forget to rest and ponder what it all means. I am not trying to say that we never do this; I just think that we as a culture have allowed little time left to do it. I am frustrated because I know the question and the answer. I will share it by the end of this post, but I am afraid that if you are like most people today, you only know the question; that question is: why?

I believe that we think too much. So much, in fact, that we all intend to find rest and take some deep breaths on those vacations that we covet each and every summer. We really are going to try to find some peace on our one, two, or if lucky, three weeks. But then I hear of the dad who brings the computer, the Blackberry, and the work right along with him. I hear of the mother who is so fixated on the details of the kids' behavior that she doesn't notice that it's their hearts that need nourishing. And the kids have just said what they need to say until the age of 18 so that they can just get out and really try it all themselves--they think they know better!

The culture has become like the family.

I also believe that America has a wounded soul. We think we need evidence because we assume that this is how we will learn the why. So we lean on science because it is what gives us the how. We eagerly raise the volume on the radio or television when the announcer begins with, "Studies show that..." In our blind spot, however, is the very target of our inquiry--it is the same why that we long to know.

In our striving to learn how everything works, we have forgotten makes humans unique. I mentioned earlier that we think too much, and this is true. But, I believe that in America today we have forgotten how to think properly. If we knew how to think in the right way, we would be quick to understand our predicament. More education is not the key. More knowledge will only take up more room. If we really knew how to stop, rest, and think plainly, I am convinced that we could examine our situation and know what our biggest problem is. We are so good at trying really hard, even when we are doing the wrong things.

Our biggest problem is that we want to know the why. But we don't even ask the right questions. We are studying the wrong areas of Reality. This is not to say that science doesn't give us useful information. We are asking why but using science. It's like trying to dig a post hole with a spoon.

I have news for you: science is not the ultimate answer for that question we ask. Science done properly will never give a why. This is not what science can give us, and yet this is what we so dearly want to know.

Unless we realize this, at the end of the day we will stand back and pat our brother on the back, unaware that we have put ourselves behind our own fence.

What are Universals?

2010-03-04T00:18:00.014-06:00

I now write on what I believe to be the most defective point to the philosophical position of the Biblical skeptic. This is certainly not original with me; yea, it has been consistently promoted throughout the 20th Century where those putting forth the idea pointed rearwards to centuries prior and claimed to have read others, like Blaise Pascal, promote the very concept. Well, Pascal himself wrote in regards to the idea, "In what I am writing, let no one think I am saying anything new." That this point has not been disproven to this day--the same line of reasoning, the same clear idea, the same consistent thought--speaks to the power and simplicity to the argument itself.

This is why I continue to believe that the Christian world-view is Reality: science; reason; logic (i.e. the science of necessary inference); the existence of mathematics; that there is a consistent morality among cultures throughout Time; the mind/body distinction and consciousness; language; identity and dignity; that laws of physics found in the Universe are constant and the same in all places.

In large part, I believe because of Universality. (*Note: this is strictly in scientific and objective, non-spiritual terms. Many weird spiritual movements claim 'Universals' like karma, manifestation, etc. The New Age movement has made up a list of 20 universals, which lean heavily on the Universals I just mentioned above, but these are not the kind I am talking about today.)

And without faith it impossible to please him [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6

To begin, we all agree that facts exist; indeed, that I have to point this out is somewhat silly. The reason I start here is because there is a point to be made. All facts are interpreted. Everything we take in as 'fact' needs to hit a filter that each of us has constructed. The facts hit our presuppositions. We see this point quite clearly in scientific processes, i.e. the scientific method.

For every scientific experiment, there are certain presuppositions upon which any conclusions must rest. Without these foundational assumptions, we could not trust anything that Science tells us. For example, mathematics is an abstract concept; there is, in fact, nothing tangible or finite about mathematics. Yet, mathematics works the same no matter where it is applied (provided that you didn't miscalculate). So when a scientific experimentation accesses this Universal, the presupposition is that mathematics itself hasn't changed. You with me so far?

A major question for for the Materialist/atheist, non-believer, etc. is this: if order and predictability are observed, how can it be abstracted or concluded that this material Universe is the only thing that exists? Why is this a justified conclusion and how do you know?

When Materialists do this, it seems sort of arbitrary to me. It seems dogmatic and authoritarian.

Well, what I seek to point out is this: you, the scientist, and I agree that some-'thing' never comes from no-'thing'. Yet, without an appeal to a Creator--and here I mean a Personal God with a Mind--we are simply left with a Universe that is an impersonal, finite (closed) system that has no order or purpose. It just sorta is. Within this type of system without purpose, how is there order or reason, or any of the other Universals? If it's all just...particles, how can we end up with abstracts like logic?

Without God, we have no absracts.

You might say, 'But you are using circular reasoning!' and I would wholeheartedly agree. See, we both interpret the facts with our own presuppositions. By doing so, we start with what we believe is a particular truth. This starting-point 'truth' has no prior proof, but it is where we begin. For the non-believer, this beginning is Man and reason, logic, etc. For the Biblical Theist, or Christian, the beginning is God Himself.

See, each of us argues from an axiom, a prior and unproven beginning point. Our belief-system progresses through our World-view (i.e. our Theory of Reality) and our filters, or presuppositions, until we get to the 'truth' we wish to argue. Therefore, we both use circular reasoning.

For the non-believer--the lost, in the Christian view--his circular reasoning comes right back to himself. Well, that is just like everyone else and they all have their own story too, and they can't ALL be right.

For the Christian--and only the Christian-- the reasoning has a justification outside of himself that, I assert, better corresponds to what we actually observe in the world around us. Universality is outside of us all, and it is just as real as anything we can taste, see, feel, or break.

The problem for the Materialist is that if any explanation can be given for any observable phenomenon, his dogmatism has already presupposed that it must be naturally explained. He has set up intellectual limitations from the outset. There can be no allowance for anything else. It seems to me that this is totally 'un'-scientific at the core.

Albert Einstein made the point this way when he said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible."

He only needed 12 words. He was not a Christian, as far as I know. But he saw what I am talking about.

I should admit that my clarity of thought will not even approach that of the previously noted thinkers. I do not claim to possess the amazing intellect or superb insight that they have shown. All I would claim as similar to those before me is this: that we are not ever really alive until we have truly met the Creator, the God of Order. I claim to be a believer in God, Creator, and Savior Jesus Christ. Indeed, like Lazarus in the tomb had no choice in the matter but was released from the dank tomb, a mind can only be freed when released from the grasp of Sin. The Light will only fully penetrate this kind of heart, AND, that the convictions we Biblical Theists hold make more sense and are justified. We talk about them because to remain silent would bring dishonor to the Creator.

Now, don't for a minute believe that the above is the ONLY reason I am a Christian. I have simply brought up the most fundamental difference between the Christian world-view and the contemporary one. I have many different and mutually exclusive reasons for my belief that, for example, the Bible is True; Jesus was a dude from a hick-town in the Near Middle East and made many friends and a small group of enemies; there is a real, actual, objective Truth in Reality, etc. etc.
None of us are willingly blind unless we are willingly blind.
Stay tuned.

Are There Secular Reasons? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

2010-03-02T12:16:00.002-06:00

To continue on the Darwin strain from an earlier link today:

Are There Secular Reasons? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

In other words, prior metaphysical commitments--so as long as they don't come from the Bible!!--are the source of secular argumentation. This is logically unsound since secular argumentation cannot ever justify metaphysical commitments due to the nature of their understanding and world-view. Randomness doesn't create order and matter does not create Universal abstracts.

Depression’s Upside - NYTimes.com

2010-03-02T12:07:00.001-06:00

Depression’s Upside - NYTimes.com

Wait.

Darwin is now the model for more than a Theory of Human's origins? There are so many problems with this...

Politics and Heated Topics (Part 2)

2010-03-01T01:40:00.012-06:00

New York! He was found in New York!
Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com
Following the recent news that global warming has not been accurately presented to the public (i.e. the outcomes were predetermined and the data was skewed to show likewise), Al Gore has been located. He is fine. In fact, he even had time to write a piece for the N.Y. Times. Moreover, 'What's a few mistakes?' seems to be the motivation for his Op-Ed. He assures us that, "the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged." Read: plan on increased, expensive abridgments to your liberties even though the globe has not warmed in 15 years. We still assert that mankind is ~~responsible~~ guilty. This, in spite of world-class experts who can be found to disagree with me--experts who are actual scientists.

Mr. Gore: surely you are aware that Truth and Facts are two distinct things. Facts can be presented as untruth (like, say, the DaVinci Code), and truth can be presented without facts (e.g. Dickens' A Christmas Carol).

Some questions: 1) If Humankind is guilty, to what Justice do you wish to appeal? 2) When has there ever been a 'consensus' in the history of objective science, particularly on an issue with this much variability (since a 'scientific consensus' is a contradiction of terms)? 3) When there have been consensii, haven't they occurred when those in authority dishonestly colluded to bring the masses under tyrannical control? 4) Have there ever been scandals in the Scientific Community where, for example, they find results because they need money?

***In my view, there is a natural cycle to the Earth. The climate changes. This is normal. Scientists have observed evidence, gathered data, and documented trends supporting this history. This is an equally plausible explanation (I argue a more plausible one) as the theory of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Further, some scientific explanations point to the probability that CO2 levels are a trailing indicator to temperature changes. So, it seems suspect that mankind is having that significant of an impact, according to an objective reading of the evidence. In spite of this, I am reading Al Gore's book to have a balanced perspective (a little late to the party, I know; many of the 'facts' have been disputed to cause what is asserted in his thesis, but I want to understand what he is saying anyhow.)***

Archaeologist Sees Proof for Bible in Ancient Wall - ABC News

2010-02-28T01:32:00.001-06:00

Archaeologist Sees Proof for Bible in Ancient Wall - ABC News

Another story where, depending on the presuppositions of the individual Jerusalem scientists, the facts are just...well, facts.

Mine would say that the Bible has been archaeologically affirmed once again--just as it has been. every. single. time.

If the Bible is God's Word and message to the World, why wouldn't He maintain it for us today?

Review: Brian McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christianity' | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

2010-02-28T01:13:00.001-06:00

Review: Brian McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christianity' | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Wow...the left-leaning though Gospel-centered-ish Christianity Today skewers Brian McLaren, the true liberal, man-centered author.

For the lay-reader without the time to be current in seminary-level discussions, take some time for an interesting, enlightening review. Scot McKnight, author of The Jesus Creed, provides a healthy and balanced critique of this new book by the Huffington Post's favorite 'evangelical' (which, in my view, means that the average American will be hearing much more of Brian McLaren).

The jist:

Unfortunately, this book lacks the "generosity" of genuine orthodoxy and, frankly, I find little space in it for orthodoxy itself. Orthodoxy for too many today means little more than the absence of denying what's in the creeds. But a robust orthodoxy means that orthodoxy itself is the lens through which we see theology. One thing about this book is clear: Orthodoxy is not central.

Scot McKnight is professor of Religion at North Park University in Chicago, Il. and the author of several books.

Anatomy of a Recession

2010-02-27T22:31:00.004-06:00

Have you noticed in your area what this evidence shows?

You are not alone.

Economics are not the same as politics, no matter what we are told.
Sometimes, we suffer even when we don't understand why.
Don't give up until its really over.
We will see and hear and know when it's over.

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6.

Exponential Functions On A Finite Planet � Erstwhile Urban Wanderer

2010-02-26T04:02:00.006-06:00

Exponential Functions On A Finite Planet � Erstwhile Urban Wanderer

I found this person's work while trying to get an answer to a mathematical problem I was working.

His evidences caused me pause and I read the research a while.

Insightful and sort of alarming, it does indicate that this complacence of our time is waning. I wouldn't say I agree with everything there, but on the symptomatic nature of the observations? I surely agree. Things can't keep going like this.

Now, I am not saying that our time is short...just that empirically, evidences like this give me reason to wonder. The world works with mechanisms and sciences that we can observe. The Creator uses people, nations, and nature to mysteriously and sovereignly bring about His purposes.

I should explain what I mean here: God made the world and everything in it. This includes the laws of science that we discover and measure. These laws came from the mind of God, and of course He can have sovereignty over those things. The interesting thing is that He also makes people--human beings--with spontaneous and responsible choices. These choices, i.e. free will/liberty, are a part of our humanity, a created thing, and the how (the mystery of the mechanism) God uses our choices is not the issue to me. The fact that our liberty is a created thing is the point; God is sovereign over ALL created things. His purposes will be fulfilled. We can see this in Scripture and we can see this, with a Biblical World-view, in History.

For all I know, Jesus could wait a long time before His return--maybe the World will come together under a more peaceful attitude and find new ways of cooperation and progress.

Oh wait, it is that prophetic situation that precedes His return.

Have a great weekend and God Bless you and yours!

"Therefore, be alert, since you don't know what day your Lord is coming. But know this: If the homeowner had known what time the thief was coming, he would have stayed alert and not let his house be broken into. This is why you also must be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." Matthew 24:42-44

Richard Dawkins reading the KJV

2010-02-25T12:39:00.004-06:00

Like everyone, I have a list of resources I utilize online. One of these recently pointed to an ironic situation in which Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion and world-class geneticist), for the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, will be reading a chapter from The Song of Solomon.

A couple of things struck me at Dawkins' remarks.

1) The British have such a lovely accent, and very nearly anything they say sounds beautifully elegant. I much prefer it over other accents!
2) Concerning the nature of his remarks is when I push back. What Dawkins is seeking to do is equate the Bible with any other important literature in the history of English culture. His premise is that our culture is inexplicable outside of the context of a Biblical World-view, and that we use a lot of the phrases found in the King James. Like Shakespeare, the Bible is just good writing and demands attention.

Here is where Mr. Dawkins is mistaken. His understanding of the Biblical World-view is atrophied as he fails to notice that his very occupation owes to the foundations that the Biblical World-view creates.

The Biblical understanding of Science does not fear questions, evidence, or answers. These answers, firmly rooted in the methods of Science--and this is key, sorted with an eye of objectivity--point directly to a Creator/Creation distinction. In other words, science done correctly points straight to God. (e.g. the Big Bang; Teleology; Dawkins' own field, genetics and the 'message' in the cell, etc, etc.)

It is when Science done subjectively is not really Science at all. When scientists, without conducting a single experiment, have already ruled out certain parameters, they have failed to remain scientists and has become foolish experimenters out to get people to agree with them. Mr. Dawkins and others have brought certain presuppositions to their field of study (i.e. there is no God, materialism is the only way to find truth, etc.) and this clouds the very beginnings of any sort of discovery of, well, anything. These people are claiming metaphysical answers while using physical methods.

Besides, Mr. Dawkins is making some claims of English Literature that are far outside of his field of study. He is no C.S. Lewis (known for his Christian apologetics, Lewis actually claims that his very best book--his Magnum Opus, was English Literature in the 16th Century, available in hardback).

Sir Isaac Newton, another Englishman, put this perspective this way: "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth."
Where ever Truth leads.

Free eBook Download/Read

2010-02-24T02:55:00.007-06:00

For the Institute of Christian Economics, the review is written by David Chilton. Excellent, footnoted and cited.
The Socialist Phenomenon
by Igor Shafarevich

This is a 1983 review of the above book that outlines the origins of Socialism, from before the Christian Socialism of Reformation-era Anabaptists to the present-day Theophobic manifestation. Utilizing a variety of sources, the author places insightful proportions on the roots of Socialist thought within historical anti-Christianity; from so-called Christian Pacifist thieves and thugs--who also perpetuated orgies but murdered virtuous wives as all "property" was common--to the former Soviet Union and their ideas of freedom, from Egyptians to the Incans, just the information in these 4 pages are as timely as ever, let alone the entire book. The Atheist, e.g. God-hater, is firmly held in the grips of the evil world-view that Shafarevich describes from inside the Iron Curtain. Only the Good News can save him; but for him, it may be too late.
Furthermore, Shafarevich is a world-class mathematician; the preface to this work is by Solshenitsyn, who explains the reason a mathematician had to write it was that the Soviet's "maximum leaders" had killed all the sociologists and humanists who might otherwise have written it. The only copies I was able to find are selling for $90 online. Hopefully, Chilton's review will suffice for now.

The Art of Persuasion: How to get no one to agree with you

2010-02-23T10:51:00.014-06:00

When talking with others and discussing any issue of merit and/or importance, there is usually a back and forth that goes on between people. For centuries these discourses have usually been peaceful and respectful, following certain unspoken rules of civility (of course, not all the time, but then those would often end in murder).

These days, there seems to be quite a bit of emotion--intense emotion--involved. Of course, it is not impossible to find some good discussion, and sometimes this falls more along the lines of a debate.

Now, a debate presumes a prescribed list of certain rules to follow: the laws of logic, kind but solid refutation, and deftness in your thinking. We engage others because we believe we are right and the other person is not right and needs to understand their need of correction. If we did not believe this, we would just, well...eat stuff and watch youtube or Survivor or something.

So, the following is what you should always do when you want no one to believe you are informed. Do these things so that others know, for a fact, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) Don't really try to figure anything out or learn anything new. You just want to spout because you will feel better in a few minutes.
2) Use words that have a variety of different meanings. It is best to be as vague as possible--this gives you a reason to be mad later when they don't understand what exactly it is that you are saying.
3) Have no real ideas that you have thought through. You indeed have brought presuppositions, but you have never traced their logical originations with any objectivity. And you really can't explain how you came to your conclusions with any rationality, justification, or meaning.
4) Your reasons for saying anything do not even have a purpose. You really just are saying things because you think you believe them; there is no sound goal to your concepts. You just want 'peace.'
5) What you talk about should contain as few ideas, concepts, and examples as possible. Just tell what you believe, and then repeat it.
6) You have some facts and figures, but your reasoning does not connect the evidence, data, or information in any rational way. This is usually done with an emotional delivery.
7) Your point of view is indiscernible to whoever you're talking to (nor to the poor souls in the room who are observing this scene).
8) Never use the ideas either of us brought up so far to draw any inferences. In fact, forget what both of us have said and again, just repeat yourself--but do it louder this time.
9) Your speech should be peppered with lots of swearing. This is the most obvious way to get people to stop listening and walk away from you; plus you're simultaneously proving that you, indeed, are an idiot.
Bonus--10) Follow all of these rules in front of children.

Mona Lisa Eyes

2010-02-22T21:35:00.007-06:00

Lately, I have been compelled to engage Atheism more than usual. Either I am reading up on the latest 'findings' by prominent purveyors of pessimism or I am arguing for basic blocks of Reality with folks/friends/foes on Facebook. I find that this actually serves two functions for the Christian:

1) It sharpens our understanding and awareness of the problems that come up, either directly or in the course of discussion, so that we can learn more about the truth of our convictions. If Christianity is true--and I am convinced that it is--then what is, is, for God's glory and pleasure. Sometimes whatever it is has been perverted and made wicked, but ultimately it serves the Purpose of Everything; so we can glean knowledge. This knowledge is that which will help us better a) serve and love others in society and/or b) win souls to Christ.

2) It seems to help with the skills needed for the discussion. When in a discussion with someone who vehemently disagrees with you at a level this fundamental, it is often easy to become emotional. We cannot allow ourselves to feel anger or animosity towards the other person--they share the Image of God. Though they might challenge us intellectually, we cannot let ourselves get discouraged if we don't quite know how to respond. Sometimes, we just need to stop right there. Just make sure we promise to return to the point. Nothing out there is off limits for the Christian to defend or refute.

On this second point, I offer a little tip: sometimes, it is a good tactic to follow into their line of questioning. Say they say something like, "If pandas are designed, their thumbs are not that well thought out! If God makes imperfect creatures, He must not be Perfect." We might initially consider saying something like, "You know, but it takes Intelligence to observe that." Now, to follow into their line of questioning, we would instead say this, "You're right. That is not the ideal way to make a thumb on a panda. But that is ignoring the vast amount of Design that we observe throughout the Universe. You are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Major points for the line from Jesus!) Sometimes just agreeing with their thrust will allow their point to fall harmlessly to the floor.

This way we are not on the defensive. We 'offend in love'. I believe this is a good rudder for the Christian thinker as it is not offensive or personal, but it is putting us back on the offense. This tactic is especially helpful when dealing with a Scriptural reference. Usually, the skeptic believes himself to be the first person ever to see some (apparent) 'contradiction' in the Text.

I am reminded of Paul's words to the Corinthians:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14 (ESV)

The Natural Man who reads the Bible is like a near-sighted person who wants to enjoy the Mona Lisa. His problem is that he must move up ever soooooo closely just to see a part of her in clear focus. He does not realize that the Whole must be taken in at the same time for True Understanding.

Further, we must remember that it is not we who ultimately save anyone. God Himself must come between them and us and arouse their hearts to understanding. We have a wonderful privilege to be in the middle of the harvest, so let us not slow down--we can press on and 'contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.' (Jude).

Politics and Heated Topics (Part 1)

2010-02-21T23:44:00.009-06:00

I desire to keep this blog site politics-light. I ran another blog that leaned too far towards the political side of things, and it's not going to do anything amidst the thousands of blogs devoted to politics. Therefore, this blog will be devoted to one man's 'honest threshing' of capital T-ruth.

With that said, there is a lot of talk on the healthcare legislation that is coming down the pipe here in the U.S. Now, the President is
urging the movement of an actual, universal bill, and Congress seems to be agreeing to pass it by a process of budget reconciliation. Policy-wise, we may witness a tangible change of monumental proportions in the USA.2010.

One of the changes that I have been reading about includes a certain wild-card that no one wants to touch; that is abortion. Right away emotions are aroused when discussing this topic and I do not pretend to ignore this. I will not speak emotionally in this post. Since this is such a heated topic, I would like to acknowledge the fact right away. I am not going to be arguing anything from the Right or the Left. Rather, I wish to touch on some areas that would, I believe, enjoy large support from people on both sides of the discussion. This, I believe, is achievable and not impossible. Don't laugh...it's true!

My goal here will be in putting together a syllogism; I am not trying to bludgeon anyone with religious rhetoric, in spite of the fact that this is Sunday's post.

I begin by using the statement--of three--that would gather the highest amount of agreement. This is: 1) The taking of innocent life is wrong. Nearly everyone, except maybe the F-14's of Fresno, would agree with this. I submit that is self-evident, even if one believes that morals are social conventions. A society is just not healthy when people are going around killing other people without merit and good reason.

The second statement is/will be the least agreed upon of the three. That is because it broaches a discussion that has been around for decades, but I will include my reasoning for why I support a certain view. The statement is this: 2) If a pregnant woman is carrying a human being... Well, I guess it is just part of a sentence, and does not make any argument, per se. My position, however, is that this sentence has reasonable support for the affirmative, i.e. that she does carry a human-being.

Let me explain: as far as I understand Biology 101, there are 23 chromosomes in the female egg and 23 chromosomes in the male sperm. These are two human cells that, when they meet, fuse and become one distinctly different cell from the previous two. This new cell has 46 chromosomes, establishing a brand-new fully-complete set of DNA different from all other DNA that ever existed in time and history. We know that DNA is the 'map' which every cell in living beings reads to continue. We also presuppose that this new cell is living, as the egg and sperm minutes before were also living.

From this single, newly created cell, divisions occur and by day three, it has divided 4 times to total 16 cells--each with the same DNA as the first. What this means is, given time and proper environment, this group of 16 cells has every tool necessary to keep going like it has since it was one cell (e.g. it could become a 70 year old human-being, provided there are 70 years + ~40 weeks). The DNA does not need anything more since that initial conception, i.e. 46 chromosomes. The rest is simply 'future'.

The common argument against the embryo being 'human' is that it is dependent on someone else, thus it is not able to be self-sustaining. This is very true. But I would think that same thing could be said about a 2 year old toddler, or sometimes a 92 year old great-grandmother. Another argument is that we don't know when life begins. Remember, this was addressed several sentences ago and it is pretty obvious that these cells are alive. In addition, the mother's egg was specifically human; the father's sperm was specifically human. Thus, we can deduce that the new cell is human. A living human being.

This establishes that the pregnant mother is carrying a human-being. The only difference between that human-being and a newborn (delivered) human-being is time and location. The fact that it is inside mom to be delivered outside mom doesn't change the fact that it is still the same 46 chromosomes.

Third: 3) ...then abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. This is the logical conclusion from the previous two statements. I have not really provided any ground-breaking science here. I have not argued from the Bible at all. I did not batter anyone over the head with my opinion, either. This is simply a reasonable discussion that establishes something that reasonable people can agree upon.

In review:

1) Major premise=The taking of innocent human life is wrong.
2) Minor premise=A pregnant woman is carrying a human-being.
3) Deduction/Conclusion=Therefore, abortion is wrong.

The situation concerning the healthcare bill, however, has not ruled out the possibility of abortions to be paid for by tax-paying citizens, i.e. so-called "Abortion-on-Demand". As far as I understand it, and judging by the President's past record, I don't foresee the abortion aspect of the bill to be removed as there is a large contingency of voters that choose to disagree with the above syllogism, regardless of how rational the evidence is.

In conclusion:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I vehemently disagree with including abortion-on-demand in any form of a healthcare bill. I do not wish to pay for the taking of innocent life, or, known by a another term, murder. I will come right out: I do not wish to pay for murder. And, I suspect, neither do you.

mashmouth
Feb. 21, 2010

Further consideration for the Christian World-view:
A 'Pro-politics' View
http://www.visiontoamerica.org/exclusives/read/8/Why-Politics-is-Necessary

A 'Pro-Gospel' View
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A124_Christians-and-Politics-Part-1

The Best Bible (you never heard of)

2010-02-20T12:56:00.036-06:00

Many Saints don't really have a firm opinion about which English Bible translation is their best. I would even guess that most are confused on why there is a huge variety of versions. When it is the goal to know what God says to us today--no single English translation gets it completely--we will be more likely to understand the truest meaning of the text by checking several readings and renderings. I am often found with several open Bibles on my desk, scattered about an open laptop with a few more versions tabbed in esword (Windows) or xiphos (Linux). (I presently own around 30 bound Bibles along with many more on the computer; of these there are over two dozen different translations. This is not an addiction problem for me...well, OK, it may be a slight addiction trafficking in $100-plus Bibles--they really hold their value though and some are amazingly enjoyable!)

I realize that most people are not collecting Bible versions. So when I ask folks their preference, from my experience, people tend to gravitate to the NIV; it is the most common, readable version around for the last two or three decades. If people are really cutting edge, they might carry an ESV or the NASB--these are thought of as the most literal (and are). There are many people at my church that use what our Pastor prefers--the NLT--and I see a lot of the very-literal NKJV too. In Mainline Protestant churches, the NRSV (a somewhat-liberal and 'gender-neutral' version) is common.

Today, I would like to introduce a version that, for the average reader, far surpasses any of these for use as a General Purpose Bible, in my humble opinion.

Released in 2004, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB, or from here, the hCSB) is a brand new translation from the original languages. The scholar who started on it, the late Art Farstad, wanted to name it Tyndale21 or Logos21, in allusion to the modernity of the scholarship in the 21st Century (if you want to read about this, here is a great interview with the General Editor of the hCSB). Published and owned by Broadman and Holman Publishers, this translation is gaining popularity in spite of it being (mis-)labeled as a Southern Baptist denominational edition.

Surprisingly, most Christians have never heard about this version, though it has never really enjoyed the sheer marketing power that two other recent translations, the ESV and NLT, receive. The first thing about this Bible to understand is that it is not rooted in any past tradition, i.e. the Tyndale-King James line; it is a fresh new version with no limits. This is not to say the translators took translation risks--it is a conservative, gender-accurate, highly reverent gift to the English speaking world. *Note: for a free download of this book on the 'gender-neutral' controversy, click here.* To me, however, the most important aspect of this Bible is that it is actually MORE accurate than the most literal versions mentioned above, while reading smooth and easy like the NIV.

Now, I suppose I need to explain that last sentence. While the hCSB is not translated word-for-word like the NASB, ESV, or NKJV Bibles (i.e. Formal Equivalence), it is also not translated thought-for-thought like the NLT or NIV/TNIV (i.e. Functional, or Dynamic Equivalence) either. Rather, the editors coined the term 'Optimal Equivalence' that, for our purposes here, simply means that it is word-for-word except when the original languages are deemed to need clarity in English. I have found that this Bible reads as precisely as any other but is easier to understand. It is among the few that truly communicates John 3:16 as perfectly as English allows. It also chooses the word 'slave' rather than 'bondservant' or 'servant', e.g. Romans 1:1 which really presents the idea better; a slave doesn't literally get paid like a servant. Another feature of accuracy is that where the KJV, NKJV, and NASB (properly I think) include italics when translators added clarifying words to the text, the hCSB uses half brackets. The ESV doesn't note which words are not in the original languages; neither do the Dynamic Equivalent translations.

As alluded to prior, the hCSB doesn't come from the King James Version line of Bibles which, in order, includes: KJV (1611, 1750), RV (1885), ASV (1901), RSV (1952), NASB (1977), NKJV (1982), NASB-updated (1995), ESV (2001) These essentially retain similar word order and choice of phraseology and, though not necessarily bad, is usually the Bible language that people associate with Holy Scripture. But I might suggest that the shackles of traditions unnecessarily create difficulties when just trying to read the Bible as Story. This alone is why I think the NIV has been so popular and why the NLT is gaining popularity today. However, Where the hCSB surpasses the more literal versions is at this point: while the word order and idea structure to the King James-line is essentially unchanged for 400 years, scholarship has. I have repeatedly been refreshed reading the hCSB and received keener insight to the Holy Word that I never got from old favorites like the NKJV and ESV (though the later enjoys modern scholarship, too). I can even find these to be somewhat torturing to read now; they are just too stylized and archaic for my liking (though I am a purist and originally chose them for their Formal Equivalence). I still, however, really enjoy the uber-literal NASB, though. Weird, huh?

I will say, however, there are some rather odd readings and word choices when translators are seeking to create a fresh, honest, and accurate English Bible. For example, 'Deluge' is chosen in the story of Noah instead of flood. Psalm 23 is going to sound a little foreign to those who prefer the King James tradition (though it more accurately renders the text). The most, well, annoying reading I have found is in Ephesians 2:2 where the hCSB chooses "ruler of the atmospheric domain" where the ESV picks "prince of the power of the air." To the ESV's credit, I prefer it when reading the Psalms, though this may be a function of the familiarity of the King James line. Additionally, one problem of sorts is that the hCSB uses capitalizations when referring to Persons of the Trinity; this is not necessarily flawed but it does stray ever close to my problems with Dynamic Equivalence as I am concerned that philosophy is inherently interpretive and theologically subjective.

Now, I am guessing that for readers of the NLT, a switch to the hCSB would be going from something really, really readable to something structured (less so for the NLTse) and these folks may not be comfortable with some renderings. (Here I will repeat that any thought-for-thought Bible--by definition--makes commentary within the translation; I feel that for this reason alone the hCSB is to be preferred over the NLT). Sitting in church, though, I find it encouraging when the Pastor, reading from the NLT and having studied the text for the last week, quotes where the NLT is mistaken and when I look down, the hCSB renders it precisely as he explained.

For those who read the NIV/TNIV, the hCSB will often seem similar though it has an advantage of two decades of scholarship (besides the gender-neutral thing, from which the NLT suffers as well). I note that education is sometimes a good thing--our Lord spent 40 days training the disciples following a certain Empty Tomb. Suffice it to say that all English versions are not the original Oracles of God. Overall, with very few exceptions, I submit that the hCSB gets the Bible right.

Also of note, the hCSB includes some of the most helpful and extensive footnotes in English Bibles. They include places where, for instance, the text poses problems and lists alternate readings at the bottom of the page--this will help clarity as well as credibility. Footnotes will also give the alternate literal text as Lit. when it has been radically modified for clarity. Further, the hCSB includes Bullet Notes that points the reader to a section in the back with a large list of defined words. Included in these Bullet Notes are words like Hosanna, atonement, Sheol, cherubim, denarius, ephod, Pharisees, Sadduccees, as well as some important characters like Mary Magdelene, Herod (all three of them), Agrippa I & II, Rahab. Bullet Notes is a helpful feature included in nearly all of the hCSB editions. Propitiation and Redemption are to be added to the list in coming editions; I find this encouraging that they seek to expand helps.

Moreover, I have noticed that the construction of the editions released by Broadman and Holman are better than most. For anyone who actually opens and studies the Bible, the typical bound copies on the market today are glued and they will fall apart within a year or two. Most of the hCSB editions come with a sewn binding that is designed to be opened and used. For most readers who don't wish to spend upwards of $50 for a well-made Bible, I recently picked up a large print hCSB with a bonded leather cover and sewn binding for 14 bucks. I gave it to my Uncle and Aunt the other day; they were blessed by it.

I am not seeking to be a hCSB evangelist (though if BHPubs see this, I would love a 'review' edition of the new 2009 Minister's Bible, *wink-wink*). I don't really care which Bible people use, as long as they are reading it on a regular basis (OK--I do care and would council against you who pick up a New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Joseph Smith Jr's. Inspired Version (Mormons)). I have, however, seen my whole family move to this version. I have seen my dear wife choose an hCSB I leave around over her beloved NIV Study Bible, and with her experience I am again assured that it is a fine Bible translation. I realize that most are not like me in their zeal for Bible versions and probably don't have a Bible handy in every room of the house and in the car, truck, and coat pocket (Why not? you may need one!), but when I find something that is quality, I want to tell people about it.

God Bless your journey!!!

Some links:
http://betterbibles.com/2005/04/11/hcsb-holman-christian-standard-bible/
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible.html
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=13580
http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/hcsb-hand-size-giant-print-bible-classic-edition/

*note: the reason that the 'h' in hCSB is small is from copyright issue that the publishers encountered. There is already a CSB, though not a Bible but a publishing group, and they didn't wish the name to be used. In this interview, the Gen. Ed. believes that one day it will be simply known as the CSB.

Friday Up North

2010-02-19T10:00:00.010-06:00

I am sitting in a coffee shop this morning in a town hours away from my family. I have my headphones in, and a really, really good cup of coffee next to me. I was able, fortunately, to be free to travel on the spur of the moment and visit my grandmother who broke her hip last month. My head is swimming from what I have heard in the last 20 hours.

She turned 89 last week--what a way to spend a birthday, huh? She can't walk right now and is in some pretty bad pain. Her mind is quite sharp, though her cataracts interfere with her sight. She is remarkably healthy for her age. At one point she says, "I am the last one left of both of our families. All my siblings are gone, and I wonder why I am still around. I just tell myself that it must be 'cause I am a stubborn old German!"

When I walked in yesterday afternoon, she was watching Animal Planet. She adjusted her bed searching for a bit of comfort and perhaps to look at me better. I asked her how she was feeling and we made some small talk. Did she have many visitors? "Just family." she said. "It's nice to have someone here. Otherwise, I pass the time alone. I am here either way." For the first few minutes she was unsure who I was. I told her I am David's son. Then she recognized me and quickly recalled the last time we saw each other, on our wedding day a few years ago. Before that, it was 1998, the weekend I became a Christian.

And so, this is my extended family. On the spectrum of dysfunction among the American family, we are on the extreme end. The bad end. From a history of lake-piracy (which I found out about only yesterday) to severe physical abuse, my family is messed up! The Bible? Maybe it was in a few of the homes of my family tree--far from my grandma's ancestors who, so she told me yesterday, came over on the Mayflower. (If this is verifiable, and she says the records are there, THAT is cool!) I was beat up a lot as a kid, physically and emotionally--'You little insignificant welp!'--but that was nothing compared to stories from the previous generation. My grandma witnessed some really bad things.

So as I drove up, I pondered how to conduct myself. I have several relatives up here: Aunts and Uncles and cousins...and then here is my grandmother. She is the last one on my father's or my mother's sides. So I think I am simply seeking some connection to my roots; and I want to ask many, many questions. The trouble is that I also want to avoid dredging up skeletons in the recesses of others' minds. I don't want people to visit memories they don't want to visit. I seek to avoid a clumsiness that these kind people would choose to avoid.

I was blessed to have my father's brother and his wife's house to stay at last night. They are Christians. What an awesome God we serve! He provides our needs when we are obedient--and even when we fall--and last night gave many warm moments of conversation. Amidst the warm moments, however, were many cold drafts when my wondering about my family caused my uncle to relate some horrible stories from his upbringing. Wow. I can only say this is a broken world. "Boys! Stand here. ." Over a misplaced hammer (which was, "ha ha ha," found a day later in the trunk of the car)? No apology. That was one story.

That type of stuff shed some light where I was searching. I got a peak into why I don't have a great connection to, or awareness of, my past. I know why I was never told some things; I also see why I struggle in some of the areas that I do. Finally, it gives me a greater empathy for my father even though I still don't really like him much. Why do we still tend to let the negative overshadow the goodness all around?

From this week forward, I will be way more joyful for others who have some great stories to share of their families. It is in times of great pain that we truly know joy; it is in times of great joy that pain cannot harm us. Again, the Bible gives Light in this aspect of humanity.

mashmouth
Feb. 19, 2010
Bemidji, MN

Thursdays post--out of town

2010-02-19T09:49:00.005-06:00

Culture, World-view, and the 'Old Way'

Like many around the world with televisions, my wife and I have been really enjoying the Olympics. And like many, the joyful endings to some of the featured stories are inspiring. I have a Facebook friend who has been frequently posting things like, “soft lighting and voiced-over narratives=tears.” There is just something about the effort, time, and energy that goes into the strict focus of training that most of the athletes on the world stage display. It is truly awesome.

We especially cheer on the Americans. When the Americans win something, we dance. When the Americans stumble, we sag. It is comical, actually—dozens of people we will never meet seem as close as family. When an American raises up the US flag, I feel a pride that I can't compare to any other thing in the world. Even though this a post-Christian nation, I am still proud of her. What is also interesting, to me at least, is that in the proximity of so many athletes and our ability as spectators to observe different cultures in a tight and rarified area, there is a difference in conduct. I mean, there are thousands of people from various countries—the Summer Olympics are even bigger—and every one of the people carries different cultural assumptions about behavior, social statuses, presentation of self, etc. etc.

It might just be me, but is there a difference in the way that certain people celebrate when they are from different countries? I might just be looking too far into it, but is there a spectrum of conduct from one gold medal winner from, say Korea, and another from Austria? From China to Canada? The American snowboarder to the Norwegian cross country skier? (this last one is not fair—a joke: what does the snowboarder say to the skier when they meet? “sorry, dude.” hehe, get it?)

Naturally there are going to be differences in cultural expectations. Now, one may further observe that there are major similarities in training for sports and training within a belief system. But I don't speak to this exact idea. Rather, I am thinking more about the 'openness' of simply talking about spirituality and the variety of this discussion amongst differing countries. For example, in India, most people are bathed in spirituality and are ready to talk about those ideas at any time, day or night—it wouldn't matter if you are in line at the grocery store, the airport, or the port-a-potty (do they have these in India?). However, in most of America, or much of Europe, they would seriously look at you like you just spray painted their forehead. Where a spiritual conversation may be easy and natural to begin in Pakistan, the Caribbean, or Africa, it is likely unsustainable in the current American paradigm (unless, as I do, one considers global warming a religion).

What is it about Spirituality that turns off the West? Do they believe it to be antique and archaic? Does it remind them of long-oppressed memories of the past? Are they afraid? I know that most of the West, we are told, believes that Secular Humanism is the answer to mankind's problems and that IF we just allowed Science (or “The Consensus of Science,” which is self-contradictory if you ask me, but I digress) to educate us, then we could shake off the Old Way once and for all.

Meanwhile, in the East, Spirituality is easy to engage in conversation. It seems that people are almost eager to talk about it, for hours! Now I have not been there, but I have met with many people that have immigrated to the States and have spoken with them quite easily about Christianity. They, of course, are happy to share their experiences, if different, with their religion of choice. I have engaged in conversation with Hindus, Buddhists, and Creoles. Now we in America, as much as is possible, are held to a peaceful set of behavioral rules to follow. But consider the stories we read or news clips that show the conduct of some followers of 'other' religions. In America, I use the weapons that I have at my disposal—that is reason, logic, and rational persuasion. But in India, for example, the Sikhs and Hindus will grab hoes, pitchforks, swords, and sometimes firearms and chase after those with whom they disagree! There is a passion that they bring to their spirituality that, for lack of a better term, is life-changing—is this for the better? Where my passion is to Change Lives for the better, their passion may be to change life for their better.

With all this said, it is clear that World-view differences are clear when spirituality transparent. There is a huge disparity between the Muslim and the Christian in Nigeria. I hear of martyrs, in fact, from both sides in history, though it is typically the Christians who end up on the long end of the sword (this is verifiable). If, like our Declaration of Independence says in the US, that all men are created equal, how does this translate for the future of our Post-Christian Western culture.

When giving the Great Commission on one of his last days on Earth, the resurrected Jesus told a crowd of over 500 that the goal is to 'make disciples in all nations' before He returned (Matt. 28:18-20). We know for sure that this goal is nearly accomplished; the Bible is almost translated into every single language around the globe. But the question is: what is a disciple?

I would submit that a disciple is different than one who is just saved. We don't want people to stay in that condition of newborn Christian. We desire—Jesus desires—them to become like Christ. The goal is to reflect Christ in all things. Paul said it this way: living is Christ and dying is gain (Phil. 1:21). We win either way! So if, Lord willing, our world turns upside down and we no longer enjoy the liberty to preach the Good News in America without fear—which it may come one day—let us not waver for political correctness. We are called to Biblical correctness.

mashmouth
Blackduck, MN
February 18, 2010

What is Christianity?

2010-02-17T01:51:00.007-06:00

-OR- World-views: We each have one.

When someone asks the above question to a 'church-goer', many different answers will be offered: "It's a religion." "It's a good place to meet girls!" "It's a set of rules that I follow." "It's a relationship." I might agree that each of these statements has some truth in them. But I don't think that these really give the whole picture.

If someone were to ask me what Christianity is, I would have no problem telling them: it is Reality itself.

Let me back up a bit. See, humans are all the same in this way: each of us holds to a certain set of beliefs and assumptions about the world we live in whether we know it or not. Really, most don't realize they have 'em. In philosophical circles, these 'things' are called our World-view. This set of beliefs can vary widely amongst people all over the world. They cannot all be the same since they are different. Very often, too, world-views people hold are internally contradictory.

A way of looking at World-views is that we all look at a picture of Reality, but it really comes in the form of pieces of a picture that are thrown in a box. We all think our jigsaw puzzle is what fits Reality. Many of us will get a few pieces put together, or many might get the frame done (resting back on their elbows and thinking they are so smart). But often, many of us don't even possess the right pieces that correspond to the picture on the Box. Thus, we have all sorts of people running around and wondering why they are dealing with confusion, despair, loneliness, pain, apathy, etc. as they look at the improper pieces in the pile in front of them.

For some, it may be easy to think of it in this way: we all carry our own map of what we believe reality is. Every world 'system' holds a different map (and often inside each system they have their own assortment of maps, too). We each walk through life looking at our maps. But here is the rub: Reality has it's own terrain. There are all sorts of people running around reading their maps and they find themselves in a ditch (I know this first hand). There is really only one terrain; not all of the different maps can be accurate. It is possible for them all to be wrong, but they can't all be right.

Here's a third way of thinking of it: everyone thinks of Reality as a Story. Now a good story properly told has four parts. First, there is a beginning, or Creation. For the Darwinist, Atheist, Materialist (all the same basically), their story goes, "In the beginning, particles..." The Creation of a story is where we meet the actors and where we get the setting for the rest of the action.

The second part of any story is when something bad happens. We see this in just about every movie we watch--the Fall. The actor comes across the problem that the Story needs to fix. According to the materialist, the problem is: Education--we just need to know more! (Subsequently, for him the holy vow is, "Studies show...")

The third part of a well told story is the Redemption. This is often the climactic, soaring point in the story that owns every bit of the story prior-to and following. Again, the materialist will put forth...more education, more research, more studies...Science will discover it eventually (apparently the follower of Yeshua is not the only one who lives by faith).

Finally, a good story will end with the Re-Creation, or Re-Generation. This is the happy ending! This is where all things get a new Beginning, where old mistakes are forgotten in a new cleansing of Reality. For Karl Marx, the most philosophically consistent materialist, this will be the point where we cast of private property in the name of Community, forever eschewing the Old Way.

Then again, Marx was a polylogic. There is a head scratcher!

Actually, when one studies the Great Religions of the World, every single World-view contains these exact four parts to their Story. Again, while they could all be wrong, they cannot all be True. Even though the Baha'is will claim that all roads lead to Paradise, we know that logically this can't be true. For the Buddhist, one will be Recreated when one finds Nirvana (though we know that smells like teen spirit). Remember, the cyclical nature of Buddhism, too, has been inductively shown to be flawed by the discovery of the Big Bang.

My friends, I will tell you now about a better Way.
In the Beginning...This is different than "Once upon a Time..." This is not how fables start. This type of phrase seems to be making an actual statement on Reality. Besides, it is very precise; it is not 5 seconds after the Beginning. It's not centuries following the Beginning. It says a priori, or 'of first importance.'

In the Beginning, God made... Let's remind ourselves that Science--the good science of physics, to be exact--has determined that this phrase probably very well is True. We understand that the Universe began at a certain point in the past. All that we measure--Space, Energy, Time--began at a certain point in the Past. (BTW--this alone disproves every world religion that needs some sort of Infinity, or cycle, to exist. Moreover, it is impossible to cross an Infinity--we would never get to Today if an Infinity really existed. Eastern religions and the New Age fall under this category.) Aristotle said, 'A first Cause needs a First Causer.' One of my favorite thinkers says it like this: a Big Bang needs a Big Banger.

In the Beginning, God made the Heavens and the Earth. We have just started at the first verse on the first page, and yet the abundance of Truth that we can observe scientifically and objectively, 'out there,' shows an amazing element of design. Now, I am no scientist, but from what I have studied, the laws of Physics confirm a Big Bang that was so infinitesimally fine-tuned (at the level of a millionth-of-a-second) from the Beginning simply so that we could exist--and know that we exist. On top of it all, this planet displays such amazing an variety of flora and fauna. And yet, within the trillions of cells in our bodies there exists thousands and thousands of volumes of books' worth of information within our DNA. Information, they have assigned the chemicals four letters, that is so precisely ordered that it causes jaws to drop.

In the Beginning, God created Order out of Disorder. The Bible tells us many different things about the world and it is not at all inaccurate (as often as people try to find otherwise). Isn't this amazing?! Whenever the Bible--66 books and letters written by over 40 men--spoke on something, it was speaking what is, what exists, what is Real. It is utterly consistent. The Bible speaks of human emotions. It speaks of war and battle. The Bible tells us of God's love. It reminds us that we are broken and fail to be able to repair ourselves. It reflects what actually exists in Reality, written on paper over time spanning centuries. And, while it is not a scientific Book, when it speaks on Science, it is not wrong though it was written even before the 'great' discoveries that came along.

The Fall happened. Every one of us rebels/has rebelled in our own way against God. But then we get the Redemption: God sent His Son to come into History. God loves us in this way--Yeshua came to Mankind to show the Way Reality works. The Fact of His life is another indisputable and amazing Rock on which we can stand. He really walked the Earth and He really lived among us. He really died on a Roman cross and then His tomb was really found empty three days later. This is beyond a reasonable doubt, even if some choose to disagree with it. Jesus said there would be a Day when He comes back--we would all know the Day because it would be unmistakable. That Day will be a Day of Wrath (Romans 2:1-5, John 3:36) and no more chances will be available to the one reading this. That Day will bring the Re-Creation, or the fourth part of our Story.

There is only One World-view that comports with the Truth of Reality.

If you have any problems with what I have written, or any questions, please make a comment below. I will answer it to the best of my ability, and if I don't know it, I will probably know where to send you. May God's Light shine on your soul today. 1 John 1:5-10

My Birthday Present

2010-02-16T13:33:00.000-06:00

Last week, I had a birthday (which coincided with the day I started this blog). Now, the older I get, the less I really wish to commemorate anything having to do with 'my' day. However, when I get cherished cards from my loved ones, I am more than satisfied. (BTW, thanks mom--your card came the requisite few days late...I love you! *wink*)

Well, this year I received what may be my favorite card--ever. This card came from my daughter--she is 12 going on 21--and it literally brought me to tears. The card itself, while poignant, was not the impetus for the emotion--it was the little hand written note tucked inside.

First off, I want to say THANK YOU...for everything you have done for me. For love, guidance, wisdom, and of course life! You have been with me through it all, the bad, the happy, and even the funny times. I love how you support me and ask me my opinions and how I think. You make me a better person. I also thank you for all the time you put into my life to make me the best that I can be. You influence my life in so many ways, I'm BLESSED to have you! Happy Birthday Daddy! I love you !!!--Maddie

They sure learn how to give the older they get.
*grinning* I got a Daddy!

The Only Possible Defense for Private Property

2010-02-15T13:01:00.000-06:00

The following is a sort of second part to an article which may be summed up in his first paragraph below; one may find it profitable to read that one before this one (make sure you hit the 'back' button to return!).

Enjoy some thinking about where Communism logically ends; his thoughts are cogent and precise.
(*note: I do not argue for a American Theocracy by posting this! Nor does he. Rather, America is the land of Freedom for religion. I am merely proclaiming the Truth of Scripture and the conclusions that follow if a people dismiss the Creator/Creation distinction and replace it with Creation/Creation World-view. Word.)

Prov. 14:34--"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."

The Only Possible Defense for Private Property
by Bojidar Marinov, Feb 11, 2010

In my previous article I showed that Classical Liberalism and Objectivism can’t defend private property on ethical grounds. They defend it on historical, pragmatic, linguistic grounds, etc., but they don’t give a defense of he private property as ethical in itself. In all their views private property appeared long after man appeared, and is a later development. Therefore, it is not “natural” to man, that is, it is not part of his “natural state.” It is not sacred, Ludwig von Mises said, and thus he declared the impossibility of defending it on ethical grounds.

Unfortunately, there were others who started from the same philosophical presuppositions: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[1] And unlike Dietze, Mises, or Rand, Marx and Engels were logical and consistent with their presuppositions: If private property was external to human nature, then it was alien to human nature. If mankind is to return to its “natural state,” it must abolish the source of all alienation and suffering: private property. Marx and Engels took the philosophical separation of property from human nature that the defenders of natural law upheld and developed practical ideology consistent with it. That ideology looked monstrous, unnatural, ugly, and it was monstrous, unnatural, and ugly. But it was logically and intellectually consistent, and it won the day, and it is still winning the day. What Dietze, Mises, and Rand lamented—the decline of property rights—was nothing but the predictable result of the superior logical consistency of Marxism.

There is only one ideology that defends private property on ethical grounds: Christianity, with its Biblical worldview, its doctrine of the creation of man in the image of God, and its doctrine of the moral superiority of the Law of God to any man-made laws.

Dietze got it right at the start: Property is an ethical institution, and first and foremost an ethical institution. It can’t be anything else, it can’t be defended on any other ground, any other ground is sand, and it will eventually collapse under the assault of the opponents of private property.

Then Dietze went in a completely wrong direction, philosophically. So did Mises. So did Rand. In order to defend property, we must declare its sacredness. We must declare its intrinsic goodness. And we must declare its naturalness. If it is not sacred, if it is not intrinsically good, and if it is not part of human nature—as opposed to external to human nature—property is only an expedient tool to be disposed of at will. If it is so, we have no recourse against those that want to confiscate our property in the name of expediency or of “return to nature.”

And the only way to declare its sacredness, goodness, and naturalness is to accept the Bible’s claim that man was created an owner, and that he owned private property from the very beginning of his created existence. Humans did not develop the concept of property, nor did it evolve in result of man’s praxis or interaction. Property was inextricably part of man’s existence in the Garden, and there is no way to define man as a being without property.

That view of property as being inextricably part of the very nature of man is reflected in the Ten Commandments. The same law code that protects man’s life protects his property too—in the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments. We can’t define man without his life; in the same way, we cannot define man without his property. His life is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred, in the same way, his property is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred.

This definition of man as a being that naturally has life and property is not a mere philosophical assumption; it flows from the very nature of objective reality because God Himself is a Proprietor. In the Third Commandment—which corresponds to the Eighth in the first five Commandments—God declares limits to man’s use of His name. God is not a remote being. He owns everything, including the breath from our mouth, and we are not allowed to use that breath in a way that violates God’s name. Using God’s name in an inappropriate way was as heavy a crime as worshipping other gods, and violating His property was a crime against the Person of God. In the same way, Biblically, violating a man’s property was a crime against the person of man.

It is no wonder, then, that the idea of sacred property rights originated with Christianity, and it developed as Christianity developed doctrinally and worked out its doctrines in practice. Even as early as the 4th century Bishop Ambrose declared to Emperor Theodosius the theological connection between God’s property and a private man’s property. When he was commanded by the Emperor, “Surrender the Basilica,” Ambrose replied:

It is not lawful for me to surrender it nor good for you, Emperor, to receive it. By no right can you violate the house of a private person. Do you think that a house of God can be taken away from Him? . . . If you hope for a long reign, submit yourself to God.

Notice the argument: The house of a private person is just as inviolable as is the House of God. In a remarkable early defense of property rights, Ambrose didn’t hesitate to declare: “By no right!,” and he made a connection that the Bible made from the very beginning. Had Ambrose wanted to defend property rights on the basis of natural law, he would have been as helpless as Dietze, Mises, or Rand. But his firm stand on the theological foundation of property made Theodosius yield and repent.

The “evolution” of property rights was only observable in the Christian West in the last 1500 years. Moreover, it was not an independent event: It followed the “evolution” of the doctrines of Christianity, as Christian thinkers studied the Bible and applied it to their theory and practice. The “Renaissance” in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scholastic revolution, contributed to the development of private property rights more than anything before.

And of course, the Protestant Reformation, in its return to the pure teachings of the Bible, exalted property rights to the level of a “divine right” for the individual. Contrary to what Mises and Rand believed, capitalism did not create property rights. It was the perfection of the legal concept of property rights by Protestant theologians that created capitalism, and therefore created the modern world. Capitalism did not create property; property created capitalism; and the Bible established property and built a defense perimeter around it, and sanctioned its ethical and economic advance.

Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations.

Christianity as the only philosophical foundation to property is also the explanation for the decline of property rights in the 20th century. The more Christ is banned from the public discourse, the less His Law—the only foundation for property—has influence over the public actions of men and their political representatives. Modern society still has some notion of property because of its Christian past; in fact, Classical Liberals themselves wouldn’t be able to produce their great works if it wasn’t for the Christian roots of our civilization. They intuitively accept the logical conclusions of the Law of God – the importance of the private property rights—while intellectually rejecting its premises. But the removal of Christianity from society has taken its toll; and the decline of all rights, including property rights, is part of that toll. There is only one possible defense of property—ethical defense—and there is only one ideology that supplies both the epistemological foundations and the legal corpus for that defense. That ideology is based on the Biblical worldview. Remove that foundation, and property rights will follow.

Therefore the restoration of property rights can and will start only with the restoration of Christianity to its place of a dominant religion in the West. Only when our law codes, our cultural practices, our economic, political, scientific, scholarly and other fields of society submit to the revelation and the requirements of the Law of God, we will see the property rights truly upheld and defended. Like all other rights, property rights come from God, and they stand or fall with our obedience to God, as a nation under Him.

My Marriage Proposal

2010-02-14T16:29:00.000-06:00

It was Saturday morning, Oct. 1, 2005. My not-yet wife and I decided to go for a run out at St. Johns University, a nearby private men's college--her alma mater is the women's college St. Ben's, under the same leadership. There is a nearly-perfect forest trail that meanders around Lake Sagatagan to get to Stella Maris Chapel, built nearly a century ago; fall was in the air. The trail from St. Johns Abbey (on campus, world famous architecture) to the chapel is about a mile and a half. Whenever I run the trail, I envision the monks, or whoever built it, pushing wheel-barrow loads of brick, cement, roof shingles, and what-not along this root-and-stone pocked trail to get to the building site--it is a lovely, serene place. It is one of my favorite runs to do with her since there is a break half way--a pause at the chapel is mando before turning back to the car--and three miles is all I want to do. On this day, however, I had a special treat planned for the rest at Stella Maris--tied into my shoelace was a solitaire ring. I tied it well 'cause I did not plan on losing it!

So as we run along the trail, my thoughts accelerate the closer we get to the chapel: "What would I say? How should I make this special and memorable? Should I just make it simple...? Nah! She deserves more!" Although I had purchased this ring months before, I am literally freaking out, trying to plan what to do--I had only come up with this idea this morning!

You see, I wanted to make the Proposal a special thing for her (well, us, I suppose). We were both in youth ministry at the time, and I had come up with a variety of ideas: from asking the kids to file out one-by-one each holding a rose and hand them to her with me following as the last with the Proposal, to doing it in a sweet dinner date that I had prepared, to hanging the ring from a kite and taking her out to a ball-field where the ring would slide down the string and hit her in the hand! I wanted to be unique. The fact is, my wife is NOT an extrovert; she would not thrive under the social pressure of my preferred idea. So when this morning she suggested we go for a run, the idea popped into my head to do it at the chapel on Lake Sagatagan...but I had no words to say!

When we got to the chapel, I had come up with some lines that, frankly, I don't remember today. They had something to do with 'a lifetime,' and how 'events work together for good even though we can't understand how become such a beautiful picture' or maybe how 'two lives meet in God's timing'...something along those lines. I am on one knee untying my shoe and I am lovingly speaking these things to her. I look up, and she is not even paying attention!! She is completely distracted by the bark on the tree we are standing next to, picking at the layers: "wow...look at the layers! Aren't they beautiful?" Meanwhile, I am pouring out my heart to this awesome woman!

When I finally get the ring out I look up, reach out, and take her left hand from the tree. I am still on one knee; I look up into her eyes when she then looks down and it hits her! Her right hand smacks her open mouth while she says, "Oh my! This is it!" I have the requisite question on my lips as I slide the ring onto her finger and she begins to weep. I stand up and we tightly embrace.

The jog back, interrupted by several spontaneous hugs along the way, was like running on air. I really do not remember much of it except that we both wept tears of joy at several points. Life from that day forward had a new shine. The most important part of that day for me was when she shared the letter her mother wrote for her--she wrote one for each of the three siblings--before she passed away from cancer in 1991.

The ring that she now wears contains the same diamond her mother wore. It was, and still is, a special day.

On Upbringing

2010-02-13T12:32:00.001-06:00

If anyone has ever watched the show on A&E called Intervention, they would know that in each episode, at about 12 minutes in, there is a feature of the person's childhood. I have always noticed that, to a person, they use their upbringing as the core of their addictions. Whether the person is an alcoholic ('my parents drank') or an abuser of 'hard'/illegal substances ('I was beaten') they lean on, and blame, their childhood every single episode. Those with addictions can be young, i.e. in their twenties, or older, but it is always the same story. It is always the same excuse.

We each have an upbringing. We can't escape it. It has to have formed us to a large degree and we each know that. Our habits were formed during that time. Our personality traits were tested and polished during those years. Our characters developed amidst the unique circumstances in which we found ourselves. Often, it was even unique times among siblings, as some were either much older or younger. So it is natural to carry the baggage of our upbringings. However, I don't see why we can get away with using our upbringings as an excuse.

"What?! But you just finished saying we are a product of our growing up!" Yes, I did. But if we are adults, there is no excusable rationale for the blame that we lay at our parents feet. If we are adults, there is no one making the choices we make but ourselves. Our choices are what affect our relationships; how we developed does not affect them. What we say or do to others around us are what they see. They don't see that our parents drank themselves into an angry rant and proceeded to kick our rumps up and down the hallway. They don't know that our homes were filled with yelling, slamming doors, and silent evenings alone. Our relationships we have today cannot experience what we have long suppressed in the depths of our souls.

What we decide to do today is what our family members, friends, and neighbors see. How we conduct ourselves in a minute-by-minute basis reflects on the importance we place on those individuals around us. I am always amazed at the types of relationships people end up with, either because they hate themselves or they respect themselves. It is clear as the nose on our faces. Those people are dealing with their own personal demons, too.

Of course, not everyone has endured the same struggles, memories, or tendencies. Some of the people we know had great, loving, and healthy families. (I personally have been quite jealous of those people in the past.) In America, the possibility of the 'Cleaver' family still exists. Unfortunately, I fear this ideal situation is in a slender minority today.

I am reminded of something that struck me like a iron skillet across the face while sitting in a court-mandated class many years ago: "You own your actions."
Simple isn't it?

My Story

2010-02-13T05:56:00.001-06:00

I wrote this for a project some friends have at St. Cloud State University. It felt good to get it down; it describes, in summary form, some high and low points from my life. Enjoy!

I was born at an early age in California; I had already traveled across the Western US in the womb. Between my first and second birthdays my parents opened the door to some proselytizers from the Jehovah's Witness organization. Swallowing hook, line, and sinker the sale, the cake my mom had made that was shown in those photographs of my first birthday party was sadly my last; JW's don't choose to remember or honor Christmas, the Pledge of Allegiance, or birthdays (while at the same time claiming that the Son of God had a birthday not just on Earth, but in Heaven—but I digress). I was five the first time my father hit my face; my mother scolded him and for the first time, he hit her face, too. Two brothers later and eight years old, my family moved up to Oregon where I finished out my childhood amidst a family no longer 'tainted' by religiosity, but bathed in a practical atheism. We had no rule of law in the home save for my father's tyranny. The television was always on and Sundays were for sleeping in. It was normal for me.

I was a good student in high school. I ran with a group of Mormon's (they have a higher population out West). In addition, a girl I met in 9th grade went to a different school and was a Mormon too; she became my girlfriend. At 17, I had decided she was to be my daily nourishment and wished to be baptized into the Latter Day Saints church (see, they have another testament of Jesus Christ, and are happy to tell you all about it in a lesson of 6 sessions, with flash cards, presented by two young men in ties and bicycle helmets). My father did not approve, demanding that I stop seeing her immediately—that was the last night he punched me. I got baptized into the LDS organization at 18; she broke up with me a month later.

I had moved into my best friend's house to finish my senior year, and my father told me I would have to take care of school on my own. Though I was going to attend the University of Oregon the next fall, I never made it. That summer after high school, I found myself in Northern Minnesota working at a resort that my (step-)grandmother owned. I found chemicals that summer. Within a few years, having lived in a couple states along the way, I had found more chemicals than I needed, but as many as I liked. I should have died the night I had a gun in my face.

I hated God, even though I claimed He didn't exist. Meanwhile, I was singing in a rock band, reading Existentialists, dabbling in Eastern mysticism, and I had moved to St. Cloud, Minnesota. I met a nice girl there, but I wanted to live in Oregon and so we moved to Portland. We conceived a year or two later, and so I married her; she wished to have the baby at 'home'. I said, “We are home.” She disagreed and I lost. When Madeline was a year old, her mother decided to party more than come home at night. We were separated that summer and divorced a year later. I still live in the St. Cloud area because I am 'Dad.' I love being Dad.

Being the studious type and nightly home alone with a toddler, I begun to study why the Bible was wrong. Within months, I had discovered that the Old Testament was actually quite historically reliable, but I surmised that the God it revealed was the same One that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all claimed to be 'only theirs'; I thought I had insight that no one ever had before.

I met some members of my family that I never knew the summer I was separated; they were Christians. They showed me that the reliable Old Testament proved the New Testament was reliable too! There were fore-tellings, or prophecies, written centuries before that literally came true in the Man, Jesus of Nazareth. That night they showed me these things was the night of my Second Birth. I can only describe it as a sensation where I felt Love come down into my being like I had never known. What's more, I had Love for others that I had never known before. I was not a nice person, actually, so this was foreign to me. It was a remarkable night I will never forget.

That was Sept. 13, 1998. I drove the 2 ½ hours back to St. Cloud, opening the phone book at one point because I needed to find a non-denominational church. After trying a couple churches over the course of a few months, the chemicals that I still preferred won a few more battles. It was two years of living like oil and water, with ten of those days sentenced to a county jail cell.

Today, by the Grace of God, I am remarried to a wonderful Christian woman who loves Madeline as her own. I am seeking my bachelor's degree (at Bethel) along the way while working full time. I still battle demons every day; I suppose that will never stop. I am also on staff at a church in town teaching students about the amazing love of God. I am so grateful that I can share my story with people; even though it's depressing, I am not depressed or angry anymore. I don't think I am any more unique than any one else. In fact, my story is similar to millions, probably billions, like it in History where my weakness became a place for His strength.
Sola Fide