Posts
December 15, My Utmost For His Highest, by Oswald Chambers
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15
If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.
Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.
December 15, 2007
December 12, 2007
The Murray Question
This is the background story on Matthew Murray.
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
December 11, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #3
This month we'll comment on two videos: one from the Guided Chaos youtube channel and the other a surveillance video capturing a real life self-defense altercation.
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
November 20, 2007
Behind
The evening news occasionally reports medical break-throughs. They advertise these stories as if they had the edge on what's going on in the medical community. When I was growing up, my mom, who's a nurse, would always say how far behind the media was in reporting these break-throughs. I usually rolled my eyes; sometimes I believed her, sometimes I didn't.
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
November 19, 2007
Questions
Pastor Deb of Family Life Community Church started a blog and it provides different questions for the week. After a few days or so of thinking about it, I finally came up with a decent question: Is it necessary to keep pushing for political/cultural change while also working on affecting individuals for Jesus or should we keep focus on the individual level with the hope that it will then affect the political/cultural arena?
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
November 18, 2007
Useless organs?
I wanted to review the human muscular system and looked into the book Anatomy and Physiology, which my wife borrowed from a friend. When I opened the book, the first chapter had a section devoted to evolution. I thought evolution was dumb before, but after the Creation Seminar this past week, it was laughable to see the "evidence" for evolution. There was a little factoid box on page 11 that talked about vestigial organs,[1] organs that have lost function or just have limited function because of an evolutionary development in the human body. First of all, "the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999."[2] This Anatomy and Physiology book was the second edition from 2001. The editors were either clueless about the recent finds in medicine about those organs, or they were in denial. I noticed that the list of vestigial organs was limited to human body hair and the muscles for ear movement. Neither are vestigial either, just part of the bigger system of the human body. Just because evolutionists don't know its purpose or how it developed, does not mean it has no function or that it is simply a vestige of a previously functioning organ. Right now, I'll get rid of doubts about the most cited "vestigial" organ - the appendix:
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
November 09, 2007
Wiki madness
I love online encyclopedias because they make research a little more convenient. I'm aware they're not always credible and they're not academic journals, no matter how academic they may sound. The biggest and most popular is Wikipedia. Based on the free Media wiki software, this encyclopedia is constantly growing and is a good start in any research endeavor. But because I'm into the truth, I also look for another view to the facts. Wikipedia is good for general usage, but because of the slightly liberal (or blatantly liberal) views on certain topics, I balance it out with Conservapedia, the more conservative view of the facts. I won't even get into the radical and nonsensical wiki sites, like the supposedly "rational" wiki. And if I'm looking for theology or anything related, I use Theopedia, which seems to be dependable. All three combined are useful in leading me to better sources.
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
November 08, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #2
I've decided to do a monthly newsletter instead of a bi-weekly one, since there isn't a big readership for it right now, and I have way too much to do.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
October 22, 2007
Heroes welcome
I finally got to watch the first few episodes of Heroes. My sisters promoted it so much to me that I finally took the time to rent it. It's like a superhero comic book without the cheese. From what I see so far, it's a good combination of X-Files and X-Men, both being top-notch in their respective areas of sci-fi. My sibs and I are big sci-fi fans and we also read comic books growing up. Not only that but we're into good literature and we're quite familiar with world myths. Heroes is now another great addition to our stockpile of addictive stories that color our conversations.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
October 10, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #1
This is the first video newsletter for our advanced class! For the next few weeks, we'll be analyzing Kurae no ken's kurae fighting style video. There's a lot in this and I would love to hear your input. To make this worthwhile for all of us, I prefer that with each video I add, we should make a comment, a critique or a question, and a case-study practice exercise. To give you guys an example of what I'm talking about:
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
July 12, 2007
Oh my heaven
Tori Spelling becomes an ordained minister? Wow. I guess if you have enough time on your hands and you want to deconstruct the very idea of marriage, then I guess you can do that type of thing. She must have gotten her certification from the Church of Secular Humanism because what she did was definitely not Christian. Bad enough that secular organizations pass themselves off as religious, or even Christian, and perform gay marriages. It's worse when people who come from a Christian denomination accept even the idea of gay marriage. Absolutely no thought behind that conclusion. You'd have to eradicate all sense of good reason and knowledge of the Bible and mindlessly go along with the culture to say that gay marriage is acceptable. To say that it is acceptable in the Bible is beyond mindlessness, it's irrational and dangerous.
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
July 09, 2007
Flimsy
Sources are important to lend your argument or assertion some credibility. Blogs don't necessarily need them since most bloggers write opinion pieces rather than academic articles. But for those who write professionally, say in the world of journalism and the more serious bloggers, it is vital they use sources that are reliable and truly credible. I hate it when I read articles in newspapers that use other newspapers as their source. Whatever statement the writer tried to prove was buttressed by twigs.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
July 07, 2007
Live Dearth
"Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' by Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Al Gore is a self-deluded propagandist.
Also, this is one article among many written by scientists who let the evidence speak for itself.One thing is sure about global warming: we are not causing it and we cannot control it, that is, if it's actually happening at all. To understand what is going on depends on a person's worldview and their understanding of science.
Added on October 14, 2007:
Al Gore is my sheperd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies make children sleepless
Though I walk dark in my house, his three are lit like Vegas
Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever
by carmexworks, comment on youtube.com from Gore's holographic opening of live earth 7-7-7 channel by stefanhelder
June 29, 2007
Days of Future Past
Just finished the riveting novel The Ezekiel Option, by Joel Rosenberg. Amazing dramatization of the political upheavals and nuances leading up to the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. I can only agree with Rush Limbaugh's comment that if you're going to read any novel this year, this would be it, regardless of your political background.
Rosenberg is a "Son of Issachar" of our day. He understands the signs of the times and what Israel should do. His first novel, The Last Jihad, practically predicted 9/11: On January 2001, he thought of a scenario of jihadists using planes to attack the U. S. and the 9/11 attacks came the day before his book went to print. His second novel, The Last Days, anticipated the death of Yasser Arafat and the rise of an Iranian dictator, both coming to pass within a year of publication. And now, The Ezekiel Option shows the final showdown between Israel and Russia. It's debatable whether this particular stand-off will happen before the Tribulation or in the middle of it, but it will happen. And if it happens before the Tribulation, that would lend so much credibility to Bible prophecy. Even then, I'm sure not many people will even acknowledge it as God, but merely an "act of God."
To those who don't know, Ezekiel's prophecy mentions Israel being attacked on all sides, mainly from a northern nation. That can be any nation above Syria on up to Russia (Syria won't be part of the attack).1 But archaeological evidence along with the ancient names mentioned in the Bible, suggests that the nation will be Russia. I used to think otherwise, especially when the Wall fell in the early '90s. Now with this possible alliance between Vlad and Dinny-boy, I'm once again beginning to believe Magog is Russia.2
Either way, it's still good to study eschatology and live life accordingly, as in, be prepared. Haven't studied eschatology much recently, so it's always good to get back into it.
Here's Joel explaining a few things about this:
Sources:
1. Zaspel, F. (1985). The nations of Ezekiel 38-39. Biblicalstudies.com. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/ezekiel.htm Not Russia, Syria, or Egypt
2. Gospel.com. (2007). Research on the identity of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Asian Internet Bible Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://aibi.gospelcom.net/articles/Gog_and_Magog.htm Different theories, Russia being valid
Rosenberg is a "Son of Issachar" of our day. He understands the signs of the times and what Israel should do. His first novel, The Last Jihad, practically predicted 9/11: On January 2001, he thought of a scenario of jihadists using planes to attack the U. S. and the 9/11 attacks came the day before his book went to print. His second novel, The Last Days, anticipated the death of Yasser Arafat and the rise of an Iranian dictator, both coming to pass within a year of publication. And now, The Ezekiel Option shows the final showdown between Israel and Russia. It's debatable whether this particular stand-off will happen before the Tribulation or in the middle of it, but it will happen. And if it happens before the Tribulation, that would lend so much credibility to Bible prophecy. Even then, I'm sure not many people will even acknowledge it as God, but merely an "act of God."
To those who don't know, Ezekiel's prophecy mentions Israel being attacked on all sides, mainly from a northern nation. That can be any nation above Syria on up to Russia (Syria won't be part of the attack).1 But archaeological evidence along with the ancient names mentioned in the Bible, suggests that the nation will be Russia. I used to think otherwise, especially when the Wall fell in the early '90s. Now with this possible alliance between Vlad and Dinny-boy, I'm once again beginning to believe Magog is Russia.2
Either way, it's still good to study eschatology and live life accordingly, as in, be prepared. Haven't studied eschatology much recently, so it's always good to get back into it.
Here's Joel explaining a few things about this:
Sources:
1. Zaspel, F. (1985). The nations of Ezekiel 38-39. Biblicalstudies.com. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/ezekiel.htm Not Russia, Syria, or Egypt
2. Gospel.com. (2007). Research on the identity of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Asian Internet Bible Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://aibi.gospelcom.net/articles/Gog_and_Magog.htm Different theories, Russia being valid
April 01, 2007
The Dating Lessons, Part 3
Practical Thoughts
I used to have so many specific definitions for dating and courting and all that's involved. Now, I just have a few ideas to give single people parameters if they want to have a successful dating relationship.
Know your purpose:
You should go into dating with specific ideas of what is expected in the relationship. First and foremost is the given - to see if you're compatible. Not if you like the same kind of food or hobby, but to see if you can communicate well. Ideally, it's to see if your strengths can help the other's weakness and vice versa. Besides compatibility, you should also have an idea of what you want out of life and to see if both of you can blend those ideas in some way.
Know your perimeter:
Your dating relationship should have physical boundaries. This should be acknowledged and set in your mind even before you begin seeking the relationship. Dating is not a permission to be touchy-feely with the opposite sex which of course would lead to petting and inevitably premarital sex. So to help with that, it's best not to find hiding spots to "keep your conversations private." It's good to have privacy, but it's best to be in areas where you know people may accidentally walk in on you. Staying pure is of utmost importance in a dating relationship because it fosters trust in more ways than one.
Know who you're pleasing:
Entering a dating relationship is not about pleasing yourself. It's learning how to please the other person, but in the context of good communication. As previously stated, dating is not license to satisfy physical desires nor is it a place to salve emotional pain. Both lead to false expectations and does not allow for a freedom to leave the relationship if it is not in the best interest of both parties. In effect, the only one you should please in a dating relationship is God Himself. He is supposed to be the tie that binds the relationship, not sex or sexual contact, or even emotional or physical attraction. It is foremost a friendship that helps to develop your communication skills with the opposite sex.
In dating, you are essentially practicing to be married. Develop the habits now to have a healthy marriage instead of what is common in dating relationships these days: broken people who continue to break each other. By developing those good habits now, you will not only help the other person, but you will know how to deal with the challenges common to marriage relationships.
I used to have so many specific definitions for dating and courting and all that's involved. Now, I just have a few ideas to give single people parameters if they want to have a successful dating relationship.
Know your purpose:
You should go into dating with specific ideas of what is expected in the relationship. First and foremost is the given - to see if you're compatible. Not if you like the same kind of food or hobby, but to see if you can communicate well. Ideally, it's to see if your strengths can help the other's weakness and vice versa. Besides compatibility, you should also have an idea of what you want out of life and to see if both of you can blend those ideas in some way.
Know your perimeter:
Your dating relationship should have physical boundaries. This should be acknowledged and set in your mind even before you begin seeking the relationship. Dating is not a permission to be touchy-feely with the opposite sex which of course would lead to petting and inevitably premarital sex. So to help with that, it's best not to find hiding spots to "keep your conversations private." It's good to have privacy, but it's best to be in areas where you know people may accidentally walk in on you. Staying pure is of utmost importance in a dating relationship because it fosters trust in more ways than one.
Know who you're pleasing:
Entering a dating relationship is not about pleasing yourself. It's learning how to please the other person, but in the context of good communication. As previously stated, dating is not license to satisfy physical desires nor is it a place to salve emotional pain. Both lead to false expectations and does not allow for a freedom to leave the relationship if it is not in the best interest of both parties. In effect, the only one you should please in a dating relationship is God Himself. He is supposed to be the tie that binds the relationship, not sex or sexual contact, or even emotional or physical attraction. It is foremost a friendship that helps to develop your communication skills with the opposite sex.
In dating, you are essentially practicing to be married. Develop the habits now to have a healthy marriage instead of what is common in dating relationships these days: broken people who continue to break each other. By developing those good habits now, you will not only help the other person, but you will know how to deal with the challenges common to marriage relationships.
March 31, 2007
The Dating Lessons, Part 2
Different Views
Matchmaking
This is the ancient way of bringing people together for marriage. It didn't matter whether or not the two even knew each other, what mattered was the agreement of arrangement. There were three main ways:
By their fathers - usually was a business deal.
By the matchmaker - a person, usually an older woman, who arranged the match using their experience and intuition to achieve compatibility.
By pick - the man chooses among eligible women.
Courting
A woman is wooed by one or more men and a man woos one or more women. Their relationship is strictly on a communication basis. There is very limited physical contact, if there is any. When a pick is chosen, there's a familiarity period. If the girl doesn't like the suitor, the family will protect her from him and the suitor must move on. This is not necessarily the "dating" that we understand it.
The whole purpose for the above was to make a match for marriage.
Dating
In the 1930s, with the advent of the car and the telephone, courting and matchmaking began to change drastically. The couple would go out on a date to get to know each other. Then if they begin to date consistently, they are considered "going steady" with the purpose of marriage. That's when the boyfriend/girlfriend terms were commonly used. This definition is still true for older adults these days. But dating changed even more in the 1950s and 1960s, when dating became more of an activity that gave couples opportunities for the physical benefits of marriage while not really being married. From then on, it went downhill. Younger people in this generation generally understand dating as that mutated form, the license to develop a friendship to the level of a sexual relationship with no obligations. The attitude of the 1960s and 70s, with the cultural acceptance of casual sex, brought about this collapse of premarital standards. All is not lost, yet, because we still have the intuitive sense to stay with one person for life. At least there are still boundaries, like "dating" one person at a time, although that's breaking down also.
God created us for relationships, but as fallen people, we corrupt it. We desire the idea of dating because we're made for relationships and dating is the generally accepted way to be married. As people of God, we have to have standards for dating, we have to have premarital behavior that glorifies God. Doing so will please Him and our relationships will be blessed because of it.
Matchmaking
This is the ancient way of bringing people together for marriage. It didn't matter whether or not the two even knew each other, what mattered was the agreement of arrangement. There were three main ways:
By their fathers - usually was a business deal.
By the matchmaker - a person, usually an older woman, who arranged the match using their experience and intuition to achieve compatibility.
By pick - the man chooses among eligible women.
Courting
A woman is wooed by one or more men and a man woos one or more women. Their relationship is strictly on a communication basis. There is very limited physical contact, if there is any. When a pick is chosen, there's a familiarity period. If the girl doesn't like the suitor, the family will protect her from him and the suitor must move on. This is not necessarily the "dating" that we understand it.
The whole purpose for the above was to make a match for marriage.
Dating
In the 1930s, with the advent of the car and the telephone, courting and matchmaking began to change drastically. The couple would go out on a date to get to know each other. Then if they begin to date consistently, they are considered "going steady" with the purpose of marriage. That's when the boyfriend/girlfriend terms were commonly used. This definition is still true for older adults these days. But dating changed even more in the 1950s and 1960s, when dating became more of an activity that gave couples opportunities for the physical benefits of marriage while not really being married. From then on, it went downhill. Younger people in this generation generally understand dating as that mutated form, the license to develop a friendship to the level of a sexual relationship with no obligations. The attitude of the 1960s and 70s, with the cultural acceptance of casual sex, brought about this collapse of premarital standards. All is not lost, yet, because we still have the intuitive sense to stay with one person for life. At least there are still boundaries, like "dating" one person at a time, although that's breaking down also.
God created us for relationships, but as fallen people, we corrupt it. We desire the idea of dating because we're made for relationships and dating is the generally accepted way to be married. As people of God, we have to have standards for dating, we have to have premarital behavior that glorifies God. Doing so will please Him and our relationships will be blessed because of it.
March 30, 2007
The Dating Lessons, Part 1
Historical Context
From the very beginning, Satan wanted us to do our own thing apart from God.
In the 1700s, Kant developed his categorical imperative, the first part being "act only on that maxim that you would will to be a universal law." So even though Kant tried to make a universal law to his theory on morals, he unfortunately paved the way for the rationalizing of relativism. He was one of many enlightenment philosophers who attributed moral development to reason alone and not on absolutes by the revelation of God intuitively known by all human beings. Kant, along with others during that time period, thought humans could set the standard.
In the 1850s, Darwin proposed the idea that humans did not come about the way the Bible described. He believed that we are a more developed animal and that some races of the human species are better than others. He allowed for the idea that God's word is not reliable. Not long after that, Neitzche claimed that God is dead and that man is all there is. His philosophies helped to spawn Communism and the brutality that ensued.
By the 1950s, the existentialists, popularized by the Beatniks, believed that you are what you do, think, and believe. This concept influenced the hippies of the 1960s and 70s. They thrived on their relativism and the belief in "free love."
From the very beginning, Satan wanted us to do our own thing apart from God.
In the 1700s, Kant developed his categorical imperative, the first part being "act only on that maxim that you would will to be a universal law." So even though Kant tried to make a universal law to his theory on morals, he unfortunately paved the way for the rationalizing of relativism. He was one of many enlightenment philosophers who attributed moral development to reason alone and not on absolutes by the revelation of God intuitively known by all human beings. Kant, along with others during that time period, thought humans could set the standard.
In the 1850s, Darwin proposed the idea that humans did not come about the way the Bible described. He believed that we are a more developed animal and that some races of the human species are better than others. He allowed for the idea that God's word is not reliable. Not long after that, Neitzche claimed that God is dead and that man is all there is. His philosophies helped to spawn Communism and the brutality that ensued.
By the 1950s, the existentialists, popularized by the Beatniks, believed that you are what you do, think, and believe. This concept influenced the hippies of the 1960s and 70s. They thrived on their relativism and the belief in "free love."
January 29, 2007
Excuses
When unbelievers investigate Jesus Christ and the Truth, they should end up at a decision point: accept or reject. I'm not talking about the point where there is still a lack of information, that's usually the excuse of the agnostic or the ignorant. No, I'm talking about the point where unbelievers realize their need for Jesus, understanding that all that was said in the Bible was in fact true, that Jesus is the Son of God. This becomes an existential and personal fork in the road for unbelievers, whether they have all the information or not. C. S. Lewis, who was an agnostic and became "the most reluctant convert in Great Britain", came to that point and knew that to accept was life and to reject was damnation, and yet hesitated because of his sin nature and used the excuse of lack of information. But he chose Jesus, with the Holy Spirit's prompting, of course, and became one of the greatest Christian writers of his century. The amount of information available now to prove the truths of the Bible is staggering compared to what C. S. Lewis had to work with. A good "quick" look into investigating any of these truths is to read Lee Strobel's entire The Case for... series or even Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I say "quick" because the work was already done and summarized and written as fairly as possible (both men were atheists when they started their study), and it's in quotations because those books take a little time to read. At least it's better than researching for ten years.
Some excuses people use when they come to that point of realization:
1) "I don't think I have all the information yet, so I'll hold off on Jesus."
This is usually the sorry excuse of agnostics and maybe some atheists. Most of the time, it's used by evolutionists who, hope against hope, wait for evidence to prove Darwin's theory. This is assuming that the evolutionist realizes there is absolutely no evidence since Darwin's day that proves evolution. Too bad most evolutionists believe there are facts and evidence to support macroevolution. Or that excuse could be used by the agnostic who is seriously seeking, but is deeply programmed by his intellectual laziness that he won't make the decision out of sheer inveteracy, a la C. S. Lewis.
2) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I'm not good enough."
This is the same as "I'm not worthy" or "I don't deserve it." No, kidding, we ALL don't deserve it! And that's why Jesus Christ did all that work for us because we don't deserve it and we can't do anything about it. We deserve only hell and He rectified our situation. Time to decide.
3) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I don't want to give up my lifestyle."
This person doesn't have an excuse. It is merely a pride and selfishness issue. He doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. It could be that this person really doesn't have all the information; he could have missed the obvious and important point that there is something better after choosing Jesus. To this person, I can only pray that the Holy Spirit speaks to him and for a brother/sister to step out in faith and explain a few more things to answer any lingering questions. Outside of that, it links to the next excuse...
4) "I don't want to decide now because I may make Jesus/God/Christians look bad."
This excuse is similar to #2, except this time, it's based on something outside the unbeliever. It can be tied in with #3 because his bad habits are so deeply ingrained, he doesn't think he can ever be free of them. To this person, I must say that some Christians make Jesus/God/Christians look bad. Well, at least some unbelievers acknowledge the purity of Jesus when they say "I don't think Jesus would have done that". As with the previous excuse, it only shows he doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. Those who use this excuse prevent their own change.
Some excuses people use when they come to that point of realization:
1) "I don't think I have all the information yet, so I'll hold off on Jesus."
This is usually the sorry excuse of agnostics and maybe some atheists. Most of the time, it's used by evolutionists who, hope against hope, wait for evidence to prove Darwin's theory. This is assuming that the evolutionist realizes there is absolutely no evidence since Darwin's day that proves evolution. Too bad most evolutionists believe there are facts and evidence to support macroevolution. Or that excuse could be used by the agnostic who is seriously seeking, but is deeply programmed by his intellectual laziness that he won't make the decision out of sheer inveteracy, a la C. S. Lewis.
2) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I'm not good enough."
This is the same as "I'm not worthy" or "I don't deserve it." No, kidding, we ALL don't deserve it! And that's why Jesus Christ did all that work for us because we don't deserve it and we can't do anything about it. We deserve only hell and He rectified our situation. Time to decide.
3) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I don't want to give up my lifestyle."
This person doesn't have an excuse. It is merely a pride and selfishness issue. He doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. It could be that this person really doesn't have all the information; he could have missed the obvious and important point that there is something better after choosing Jesus. To this person, I can only pray that the Holy Spirit speaks to him and for a brother/sister to step out in faith and explain a few more things to answer any lingering questions. Outside of that, it links to the next excuse...
4) "I don't want to decide now because I may make Jesus/God/Christians look bad."
This excuse is similar to #2, except this time, it's based on something outside the unbeliever. It can be tied in with #3 because his bad habits are so deeply ingrained, he doesn't think he can ever be free of them. To this person, I must say that some Christians make Jesus/God/Christians look bad. Well, at least some unbelievers acknowledge the purity of Jesus when they say "I don't think Jesus would have done that". As with the previous excuse, it only shows he doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. Those who use this excuse prevent their own change.
January 28, 2007
Under-fire controversy
At the HUB a few weeks ago, I had a talk with Dave, the new volunteer worker. He found out I taught martial arts and we started to talk about the UFC. He asked me, "What do you think about the UFC and how do you reconcile that to your Christian walk?"
"Great question!" I said to him and proceeded to meander my way through this quagmire of a topic. I thought I had a prepared answer, but I was only prepared for the "How do you reconcile martial arts with Christianity?" question, which I've answered dozens of times before. This was a little bit of a twist. How does a Christian reconcile his walk with the Lord to this brutal looking sport?
For those who know me, I'm very much into watching and following MMA tournaments because of my martial arts background. I don't have cable so I do more following-up than watching. The UFC and MMA is as controversial in the Christian world as any popular secular entertainment.
Here are some of the more popular contentions to MMA and my response:
It's a gladiatorial spectacle.
The sad truth in life is that the only way to grab people's attention is through sex and violence. Splash the front page of the newspaper with a bloody story or strip a model of her modesty, and you've got people lined up to dole out their hard-earned dollars. Pay-per-view does a great job of marketing an honorable sport as a gladiatorial blood-fest, when really it is not a blood-fest at all. There are many rules in a highly controlled environment and several contingencies on hand to keep the fighters from severely injuring each other. In the level of violence, MMA is not too different from a boxing match, except this time the fighters have more options. Boxing, in both amateur and professional, has an incredibly high rate of deaths per million fighters, most in training.[1] MMA has had only three deaths since 1981.[2] And it's obvious why that is - in boxing, the target half of the time is the head. Also, boxing gloves, while they provide protection for the hands, actually dish out more damage to the target. So instead of a fist and 4 oz. (weight of a typical MMA glove) hitting you, there's a fist and 16 oz. with a greater surface area hitting you. And because of the rules imposed on the fighters, MMA is definitely not going back to ancient Rome like some fear. MMA of today is actually quite tame compared to the brutal matches of the 19th century and is even more tame compared to other forms of violent entertainment since Rome's decline. The way MMA is marketed as a bloodsport is misleading.
MMA engenders violent and unruly behavior.
Nearly all MMA fighters respect each other or at least each other's skill. Only a few fighters bad-mouth their opponents. Compare this to the accepted fake wrestling shows like WWE and such where bad attitude is the norm. Now THAT engenders violent and unruly behavior. Or certain types of music, movies, and TV shows can influence people to violent behavior, but that is another controversial topic that I won't get into now. MMA is a sport and the players are trained fighters who normally don't commit assault in their daily lives. MMA is actually one of the few sports where its players don't commit assault against any other person outside of the arena. MMA does not engender violent and unruly behavior.
How can you call something a sport when you win by assaulting your opponent?
First of all, many sports are violent. Some may say that football and MMA are different in that football's main avenue to gain points is by scoring touchdowns or kicking field goals, while MMA points are gained by nothing other than brutal striking or submission. Just because the avenues to gain points are different, the simple fact remains - both sports are violent. Football even more so. Points are awarded in touchdowns and field goals but to prevent those things from happening against you, it is necessary in football to violently restrain your opponent. Football's protective gear doesn't always prevent injury, either. Most MMA injuries are minor. Refs know when to stop fights and even then, ringside doctors are used as a second measure to stop fights. Fighters too know when to stop because they know it will affect their careers. They'll live to fight another day. Any permanent injury will only keep them from playing their sport. Sports, as defined by wikipedia and most dictionaries, are activities governed by a set of rules and engaged competitively, where the physical capabilities, mental acuity, or equipment quality of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)." I think MMA fits that definition very well. And the players are sportsmen who, ideally, play fairly and accept the win or the loss.
How can this be edifying?
This is one of those guilt-trip, oh-so holy comments. Most games, from board games to organized sports will have a winner or a loser. The loser is not always edified. Games can be a platform for the winner to encourage the loser to keep playing and learn to win. Pridefulness comes through in many ways, whether in playing a game or merely talking to another person. It is not the game, then, but the players. It is the attitude of the players that make it edifying or not. If we're talking about games that do not necessarily edify, a good example is Monopoly. It is an innocent game, but the way it is played is definitely not edifying. The goal in Monopoly is to take as much as possible from other players, short of stealing it. If the players have good attitudes, then Monopoly is a nice little game to play with family and friends. But, going into the way it is played, Monopoly is a good way to practice materialism, selfishness, and self-glorification. Not very edifying, is it? So how can a person be edified with MMA? Just like with any sport or game, as a spectator, it is entertainment, it is neutral. I don't expect to be edified when I'm watching a golf tournament anymore than I expect to be edified when I watch a chess match. As a Christian MMA player, or any sportsman, the issue isn't primarily edification but in glorification. It is not who wins or loses or even the type of game, but who is glorified. There are a few Christians I know of in MMA who give glory to God whether they win or lose. The same goes with other sports with Christian players - do they give glory to God for whatever endeavor they are in or not? This is true for every Christian, not just those in the spotlight. Then, when God is glorified, that is when Christians are edified. And, not to get too theologically deep here, I'll simply say that if a fellow Christian is weak and may stumble because of MMA, then I will not watch it in front of him or mention it around him.
How do you reconcile the violence of MMA with Paul's statement to live peaceably with all men?
Living peaceably with all men means to live a life without causing strife and unnecessary conflict. MMA is a sport where the fighters respect each other. Most of them come from a martial arts background where part of training is to have a healthy respect for another individual. A person can easily create conflict apart from MMA. I and my brothers and sisters in Christ who watch MMA (mostly my brothers) do our best to live peaceably with all men.
And talking about men, the reason why MMA is the most popular sport among men between 18-34 years old[3] is because this type of sport goes to the heart of a man's nature. Men have a battle to fight, as Jonathan Eldredge states in his book Wild At Heart. Men are wired to fight and to compete, there's no doubt about that. And since men are visual creatures, we don't mind watching fights either. Women won't necessarily understand this. Some do and that's great, but for the most part, this is alien to them. As Dr. Eggerich says, this trait in men isn't wrong, it's just different. I hope that Dave's wife and my wife will at least accept this difference.
Sources:
1. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Death under the spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez boxing fatality collection. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm
2. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Boxing Injury Bibliography. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm
3. Mohapatra, P. (2007, January 22). One-on-one with UFC President Dana White. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-whiteqa122,0,6561424.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines
"Great question!" I said to him and proceeded to meander my way through this quagmire of a topic. I thought I had a prepared answer, but I was only prepared for the "How do you reconcile martial arts with Christianity?" question, which I've answered dozens of times before. This was a little bit of a twist. How does a Christian reconcile his walk with the Lord to this brutal looking sport?
For those who know me, I'm very much into watching and following MMA tournaments because of my martial arts background. I don't have cable so I do more following-up than watching. The UFC and MMA is as controversial in the Christian world as any popular secular entertainment.
Here are some of the more popular contentions to MMA and my response:
It's a gladiatorial spectacle.
The sad truth in life is that the only way to grab people's attention is through sex and violence. Splash the front page of the newspaper with a bloody story or strip a model of her modesty, and you've got people lined up to dole out their hard-earned dollars. Pay-per-view does a great job of marketing an honorable sport as a gladiatorial blood-fest, when really it is not a blood-fest at all. There are many rules in a highly controlled environment and several contingencies on hand to keep the fighters from severely injuring each other. In the level of violence, MMA is not too different from a boxing match, except this time the fighters have more options. Boxing, in both amateur and professional, has an incredibly high rate of deaths per million fighters, most in training.[1] MMA has had only three deaths since 1981.[2] And it's obvious why that is - in boxing, the target half of the time is the head. Also, boxing gloves, while they provide protection for the hands, actually dish out more damage to the target. So instead of a fist and 4 oz. (weight of a typical MMA glove) hitting you, there's a fist and 16 oz. with a greater surface area hitting you. And because of the rules imposed on the fighters, MMA is definitely not going back to ancient Rome like some fear. MMA of today is actually quite tame compared to the brutal matches of the 19th century and is even more tame compared to other forms of violent entertainment since Rome's decline. The way MMA is marketed as a bloodsport is misleading.
MMA engenders violent and unruly behavior.
Nearly all MMA fighters respect each other or at least each other's skill. Only a few fighters bad-mouth their opponents. Compare this to the accepted fake wrestling shows like WWE and such where bad attitude is the norm. Now THAT engenders violent and unruly behavior. Or certain types of music, movies, and TV shows can influence people to violent behavior, but that is another controversial topic that I won't get into now. MMA is a sport and the players are trained fighters who normally don't commit assault in their daily lives. MMA is actually one of the few sports where its players don't commit assault against any other person outside of the arena. MMA does not engender violent and unruly behavior.
How can you call something a sport when you win by assaulting your opponent?
First of all, many sports are violent. Some may say that football and MMA are different in that football's main avenue to gain points is by scoring touchdowns or kicking field goals, while MMA points are gained by nothing other than brutal striking or submission. Just because the avenues to gain points are different, the simple fact remains - both sports are violent. Football even more so. Points are awarded in touchdowns and field goals but to prevent those things from happening against you, it is necessary in football to violently restrain your opponent. Football's protective gear doesn't always prevent injury, either. Most MMA injuries are minor. Refs know when to stop fights and even then, ringside doctors are used as a second measure to stop fights. Fighters too know when to stop because they know it will affect their careers. They'll live to fight another day. Any permanent injury will only keep them from playing their sport. Sports, as defined by wikipedia and most dictionaries, are activities governed by a set of rules and engaged competitively, where the physical capabilities, mental acuity, or equipment quality of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)." I think MMA fits that definition very well. And the players are sportsmen who, ideally, play fairly and accept the win or the loss.
How can this be edifying?
This is one of those guilt-trip, oh-so holy comments. Most games, from board games to organized sports will have a winner or a loser. The loser is not always edified. Games can be a platform for the winner to encourage the loser to keep playing and learn to win. Pridefulness comes through in many ways, whether in playing a game or merely talking to another person. It is not the game, then, but the players. It is the attitude of the players that make it edifying or not. If we're talking about games that do not necessarily edify, a good example is Monopoly. It is an innocent game, but the way it is played is definitely not edifying. The goal in Monopoly is to take as much as possible from other players, short of stealing it. If the players have good attitudes, then Monopoly is a nice little game to play with family and friends. But, going into the way it is played, Monopoly is a good way to practice materialism, selfishness, and self-glorification. Not very edifying, is it? So how can a person be edified with MMA? Just like with any sport or game, as a spectator, it is entertainment, it is neutral. I don't expect to be edified when I'm watching a golf tournament anymore than I expect to be edified when I watch a chess match. As a Christian MMA player, or any sportsman, the issue isn't primarily edification but in glorification. It is not who wins or loses or even the type of game, but who is glorified. There are a few Christians I know of in MMA who give glory to God whether they win or lose. The same goes with other sports with Christian players - do they give glory to God for whatever endeavor they are in or not? This is true for every Christian, not just those in the spotlight. Then, when God is glorified, that is when Christians are edified. And, not to get too theologically deep here, I'll simply say that if a fellow Christian is weak and may stumble because of MMA, then I will not watch it in front of him or mention it around him.
How do you reconcile the violence of MMA with Paul's statement to live peaceably with all men?
Living peaceably with all men means to live a life without causing strife and unnecessary conflict. MMA is a sport where the fighters respect each other. Most of them come from a martial arts background where part of training is to have a healthy respect for another individual. A person can easily create conflict apart from MMA. I and my brothers and sisters in Christ who watch MMA (mostly my brothers) do our best to live peaceably with all men.
And talking about men, the reason why MMA is the most popular sport among men between 18-34 years old[3] is because this type of sport goes to the heart of a man's nature. Men have a battle to fight, as Jonathan Eldredge states in his book Wild At Heart. Men are wired to fight and to compete, there's no doubt about that. And since men are visual creatures, we don't mind watching fights either. Women won't necessarily understand this. Some do and that's great, but for the most part, this is alien to them. As Dr. Eggerich says, this trait in men isn't wrong, it's just different. I hope that Dave's wife and my wife will at least accept this difference.
Sources:
1. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Death under the spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez boxing fatality collection. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm
2. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Boxing Injury Bibliography. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm
3. Mohapatra, P. (2007, January 22). One-on-one with UFC President Dana White. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-whiteqa122,0,6561424.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines
January 27, 2007
IMHO forums stink!
Web forums are the bane of my existence. Political forums were my first foray into this weird and ridiculous virtual world. Yes, politics is weird already and the opinions thrown back and forth might as well be wet cow manure. I've only attempted a few times to get into discussions, especially when Bush was elected the second time. Wasn't worth it. Way too much crap tossed about that the truth was muddled. And Christian/religious debate forums can be just as much a nuisance. Oh my word, I've never seen so many people try their best to outsmart each other, it wasn't even funny. And if they weren't trying to outsmart each other, they were trying to outmature or outwisdom each other!
Forums are like that anyway, people laying out their writing "savvy" to be heard. I admit, I always did my best to sound knowledgeable whenever I was pulled into a commenting tete-a-tete. Thing is, whenever the person I was debating with started to give worthless opinions based on anecdotal evidence just to prove his point, I would stop talking to him. I don't want to deal with simple-minded and unsubstantial arguments. But even with the correct arguments, if I followed through with the conversation to the bitter end, what good would that have done? A man convinced against his will...
Yes, I'm sure there are people who excel at this forum thing - strong, brilliant Christians who do their best to represent Christ well, who have their heads on straight. They do exist; I'm still following the writings of a few of them. There were some great points made on the political forums and I've read incredible discussions on theology in the Christian debate sites where I'm always learning new things.
But what really captures my capra aegagrus are martial arts forums. A few of them in particular.
I trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts for some time and it helped me to be a more open-minded martial artist. I also came from a traditional karate background so I understand the "my style is superior" mindset as well. Once I understood the martial arts, that it's the scientific analysis and practice of self-defense with the progressive development of an individual, I became even more appreciative of the different martial arts of the world. I even thought I could learn a few things from some martial arts forums and talk to like-minded people. Some martial arts forums are decent. Then there are a few that allow for the most obnoxious people to puff out their chests. Those are intolerable. Three sites are black-listed, and I won't honor them by even mentioning their names. They have some childish punks running their comments off. Yes, they may sound intelligent, but in the end, they don't have the openness and courtesy for me to afford them any respect. In fact, because of their lack of credibility, I have no use for their opinion.
In my martial arts development, I'm at the point where the principles of Guided Chaos/Ki Chuan Do is my source of greatest learning. I don't see any other approach to self-defense teaching and practice that is going the direction I'm going - in GC/KCD I found something like the unified field theory of martial arts. There are others I learn from, like TFT and Fast Defense, but Guided Chaos is my bread and butter. There are those in the self-defense community who bad-mouth GC/KCD. Apparently, they've never practiced it and I don't think they ever took the time to even try to understand it. Then I realized, in the self-defense community, there are those who have the "my style is superior" mindset like in the traditional martial arts community. I've learned to leave those people alone. I've also learned to leave those forums alone. If they choose to be close-minded, then I can't do anything about it. I on the other hand will continue to train and keep my eyes peeled so I can learn different approaches. Doing so will only help to develop me beyond the narrow confines of elitist and isolationist thinking.
Forums are like that anyway, people laying out their writing "savvy" to be heard. I admit, I always did my best to sound knowledgeable whenever I was pulled into a commenting tete-a-tete. Thing is, whenever the person I was debating with started to give worthless opinions based on anecdotal evidence just to prove his point, I would stop talking to him. I don't want to deal with simple-minded and unsubstantial arguments. But even with the correct arguments, if I followed through with the conversation to the bitter end, what good would that have done? A man convinced against his will...
Yes, I'm sure there are people who excel at this forum thing - strong, brilliant Christians who do their best to represent Christ well, who have their heads on straight. They do exist; I'm still following the writings of a few of them. There were some great points made on the political forums and I've read incredible discussions on theology in the Christian debate sites where I'm always learning new things.
But what really captures my capra aegagrus are martial arts forums. A few of them in particular.
I trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts for some time and it helped me to be a more open-minded martial artist. I also came from a traditional karate background so I understand the "my style is superior" mindset as well. Once I understood the martial arts, that it's the scientific analysis and practice of self-defense with the progressive development of an individual, I became even more appreciative of the different martial arts of the world. I even thought I could learn a few things from some martial arts forums and talk to like-minded people. Some martial arts forums are decent. Then there are a few that allow for the most obnoxious people to puff out their chests. Those are intolerable. Three sites are black-listed, and I won't honor them by even mentioning their names. They have some childish punks running their comments off. Yes, they may sound intelligent, but in the end, they don't have the openness and courtesy for me to afford them any respect. In fact, because of their lack of credibility, I have no use for their opinion.
In my martial arts development, I'm at the point where the principles of Guided Chaos/Ki Chuan Do is my source of greatest learning. I don't see any other approach to self-defense teaching and practice that is going the direction I'm going - in GC/KCD I found something like the unified field theory of martial arts. There are others I learn from, like TFT and Fast Defense, but Guided Chaos is my bread and butter. There are those in the self-defense community who bad-mouth GC/KCD. Apparently, they've never practiced it and I don't think they ever took the time to even try to understand it. Then I realized, in the self-defense community, there are those who have the "my style is superior" mindset like in the traditional martial arts community. I've learned to leave those people alone. I've also learned to leave those forums alone. If they choose to be close-minded, then I can't do anything about it. I on the other hand will continue to train and keep my eyes peeled so I can learn different approaches. Doing so will only help to develop me beyond the narrow confines of elitist and isolationist thinking.
January 25, 2007
The main difference between Creation and Evolution
We had our capstone lesson on Creationism by having each person answer questions posed to them using this list of facts. I wanted it to be more like I was playing the evolutionist and they had to respond, but it ended up being more like an open book verbal test.
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
January 17, 2007
Rethinking Jimmy
What in the world? First, I thought Jimmy Carter was simply a Christian who didn't know how to do his job well, if he is a Christian at all. I spoke with some people, mature Christians who lived through his presidency, and they said Carter lied to them back then to gain their vote. I also read articles saying that he is a Christian and not a liar, but just didn't do what he was supposed to, that he was too weak. Now I'm more sure that he's just a nominal Christian and that he didn't think about the consequences of his decisions, mainly because of lack of knowledge.
January 11, 2007
What we've learned so far
In youth group, we discussed some of the notes I wrote down from the DVDs we watched these last few months. These were not all the notes I took and I didn't even get to finish, there is just so much information.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)