Saturday, December 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
George H. Smith quote
Freddie's Dead and I have been having a rather interesting discussion over at another blog. He left me with the following quote which I thought was rather interesting. I dis-agree with it, but I thought it would still be a good one to share on this blog:
----Freddie said:
George H. Smith says it nicely in his book Atheism: The Case Against God
"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)"
i.e. the design hypothesis is self defeating - if everything is designed you cannot discern design. You must first prove God and you can't use design as part of that proof.----
He might say it nicely, and I must say, it is a well thought out conclusion to give him a complement, but conclusively he is in error.
1stly, I do not infer the presence of design simply because it is different to the rest of nature. I see probable design when I conclude that a happening is unlikely to be produced by un-thought out methods. If there are too many hand in hand links to a puzzle then it is unlikely to be a happenstance. I will not assume a naturalism of the gaps simply because I cannot see the designer.
2ndly, I also see that design can be like a gardener with his garden. The gardener can create a garden and let it run according to how he set it but within that it can formulate its own way (i.e. nature). So even though the garden made by the gardener is designed, it still has an element of chaos to it (i.e. mindless self-will).
Like the snowflakes... God set them in place and designed them but it does not mean that He controls every snowflake in its formation.
I also like Lewis’s quote here that I have used many a time. It is along a similar line of thought as Smith’s but from a different angle, and I think it makes more sense :D
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
To claim that creation has no meaning and then to assume we can comprehend that it has no meaning would be a contradiction.
It would be assuming that comprehension of meaning comes out of non-meaning - or even a similar angle: rationality out of irrationality.
For example, a computer game has several characters on the screen and they can only do what they were programmed to do. They don’t think for themselves and wonder how they got in the game. It wasn’t their purpose of design to do so. However, humanity can grasp purpose, and therefore we logically assume there is purpose behind our universe.
Even more unlikely would be a hashed up computer programme formulating itself into a character that can comprehend its own meaning and purpose... which is in the end no meaning (being hashed up).
Yes, these are my assumptions - and I believe that, for me, God is the most logical and rational answer for everything.
I would have to assume more to believe otherwise.
cheers,
Dan
Monday, November 8, 2010
Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support
- galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form - galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form - galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result - supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life - white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry - proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart - timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry - parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible - parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets - z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great - number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry - parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry - parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result - parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis - parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life - parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result - H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life - parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop - surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life - distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle - inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life - orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life - axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result - rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life - rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life - rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life - planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life - magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation - thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life - albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop - asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements - mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role - timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life - oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly - carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis - water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life - atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere - ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life - oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe - seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup - volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged - rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life - rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life - oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result - rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive - distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life - frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing - soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result - gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation - Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit - Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions - drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life - major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone - major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone - atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface - atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support - chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms - iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible - tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life - stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth - mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result - frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production - quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency - biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect - quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field - quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate - dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
- longevity requirements (estimate .00001)
Total Probability = 1:1099
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Selfish about being unselfish?
I remember a time several years ago when my mother, sister and I really wanted to bless someone who had done us a wonderful service. We were excited to give them a gift, not a large gift but something simple just to say “thankyou”. But when it came to the actual part where we handed it over to that person, they in their own way gave the impression that they did not appreciate receiving a gift for what they had done. We came away feeling not very wonderful after having given this person the gift.
I often hear a lot about the need for giving and the need to give with a cheerful heart. But not so often I hear about the need to receive with gratitude what someone desires to give me.
Why is this?
I often feel the need to let the other person know that they “should not have given me this”. Is it because I am prideful and I unwittingly do not like to be placed so low as to need to receive a gift from someone? Is it simply that I am embarrassed that they want to give up their hard earned possessions and hand them over to me? Or is it that I do not want to be selfish by accepting a possession?
When it comes to giving, I need to remember that when I give someone something, I would like to see that they appreciate it and are thankful for it. I want to see that I can do something for them, that I can bless them; it gives me joy.
But what if someone wants to bless me? That means that if I would like someone to receive my gifts cheerfully and thankfully then I must likewise be thankful for whatever they give to me. I would then be doing to others as I would like them to do to me - as Jesus said, to “love your neighbour as your self”.
If Jesus really wants us to give then we also need to be willing to receive, otherwise no one could give because no one will receive.
From another angle, I really like a portion from C. S. Lewis’s book “The Screwtape letters”. It is a book about a senior demon coaching a younger demon how to torment his Christian patient. There are many interesting insights into how Satan can deceive us with our so-called “unselfish” actions. This analogy talks about how we as human beings can desire to compete as to who can be the most unselfish.
... the Generous Conflict Illusion. This game is best played with more than two players.... Something quite trivial, like having tea in the garden, is proposed. One member takes care to make it quite clear (though not in so many words) that he would rather not but is, of course, prepared to do so out of ‘Unselfishness’. The others instantly withdraw their proposal, ostensibly through their ‘Unselfishness’.... But he is not going to be done out of his debauch of ‘Unselfishness’ either. He insists on doing ‘what the others want’. They insist on doing what he wants. Passions are roused. Soon someone is saying ‘Very well then, I won’t have any tea at all!’, and a real quarrel ensues with bitter resentment on both sides. You see how it is done? If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would all have kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy; but just because the contention is reversed and each other is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official ‘Unselfishness’ of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it.
Though this analogy is not exactly what I have been talking about, it still carries many truths about us, such as our desire to be the least selfish. Refusing to receive someone else’s gift simply because I want to be unselfish can actually end up being a selfish act in itself. I need to humble myself.
I do find it sad that there is often superficialness to how others and I often respond to people. I need to learn to let someone else have their chance to experience joy and freedom to be unselfish by giving or acting for me.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Did GODDIDIT or did EVOLUTIONDIDIT
Well, these two views would have to be held by the majority of the people in the world regarding how our world came to be. Other philosophies would have a different title to EVOLUTIONDIDIT when concerning the formation of the universe by itself. Evolution works by the same principle by developing somehow or another by itself without any help from premeditated Guidance. An example would be the development of soils from rocks, its not evolution but the same idea is behind it.
I would tend to lump the IDON’TKNOWDIDIT’s with the EVOLUTIONDIDIT’s or similar by default, because they obviously think (in general) that whatever did bring our universe or world into being holds them with no accountability to anything... we just happened. Its like turning up to work without an understanding as to why exactly you turned up to work. You can leave when you want or stay when you want because you don't believe in a boss that pays your bills and gives you work.
I have just been to a creation science speaker a couple of weekends ago to hear him speak about several topics. He was a young-earther, so I tended to disagree with some of what he said, but he did bring out some interesting points which made me think. Points I found interesting was his stance on how different worldviews interpret data, so true! And we are all guilty of it to a degree. You can have layers of rocks with fossils of trees in it that look to an old earther as lots of layers formed overtime but when speaking of Yellowstone the trees did not have any roots which was interesting. This could possibly indicate that the trees were ripped from their original position (most likely a flood) and laid down in place like what happened to the logs at mount St Helens. But what I do not know is whether tree roots will fossilize with the tree? I will have to research.
However, I was not totally happy with his answer to ice cores and their layers that have been dug around the world. Reasons to Believe give a good argument for an old earth using the ice cores on their site and the reply didn’t do the argument justice I thought.
Anyway among lots of others things the talk was very interesting to listen too.
I do not know a lot about science, however I do know a little - I am half way through my apprenticeship and I have been finding it very interesting. I have basically been learning about how to grow plants and more specifically, how to grow orchids. Isn’t it amazing how wonderful God’s creation is! How it is so complex and interwoven within itself.
Acknowledge the 16 elements that are needed for plant growth. They all serve their purpose and their function whether it is building cell walls, regulating water loss by operating the stomata, the formation of chlorophyll for photosynthesis, it is all so well operated and interwoven like a machine.
Imagine if one of them were not present…
Even environments affect growth. Orchids grow in the roots of trees in the wild so we have to learn their growing styles. They don’t like growing in soils but enjoy having air around their roots. They don’t like full sunlight but enjoy a little shade. They don’t like to be really wet so they like their water in little amounts at a time.
Well, enough with plants, what about God’s intricate design in the human body? Amazing from even an amateurs understanding.
I don’t know much about the human body but one fact I found interesting was blood clotting. I found this page really interesting, although it is above my head and I could just understand the general idea of it:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html
Also you can read Behe’s response to “talk Origins” rebuttal here:
http://creationwiki.org/Blood_clotting_is_irreducibly_complex_(Talk.Origins)
I believe the bible leaves room for some evolution within its words, but I cannot yet take the leap of belief that is required for me to believe it happened on the large scale that full blown evolutionists accept it on (even when looking at some of the evidence for evolution).
The sentence that I thought stood out from the “doesgodexist” article was the following: “The engine of Darwinian evolution only works if there is something to select--something that is useful right now, not in the future.”
Makes sense to me.
I have fingers that are useful to me now but how would they be useful to me two millennia or so ago (who knows when) when they were stumps… or even a finger. How and why grow longer or more fingers? Did it evolution plan it? Surely not - that can’t happen except through premeditation by a higher power! At least, I think so. I can agree that in general the fittest survive, but how on earth (quite literally) do the fittest get to be the fittest accidentally? Not only in one area but in all areas eventually?! I know natural selection and random mutation attempts to answer this, and I know what they are and what they do, but it doesn’t quite equate for me.
Wow, what a fruit salad post, when reading it again.
Aaaaarrrrgggghh, opening a can of worms again. It’s been a while. Some may think I am ridiculous, but really, it goes both ways somehow. Lol.
What an amazing world we live in, one that I cannot comprehend developing without the premeditation of a Higher Power.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Delve Deeper
Friday, August 6, 2010
Go clean your room
So my wife and I walked into the service to hear the speaker for that morning who was a man from “Gospel for Asia”. Talks from people like these always give a taste and understanding of what it is like in 3rd world countries, not just the lack of food but the spiritual need of so many; Pastors needing Bibles, broken families and even stories of other religions sacrificing their own children to idles!
As much as the talk gripped me with the reality of the horrors that lie outside of our snug little world of New Zealand, the speaker changed topic, or rather spoke not so much about them, but about us in the western world. The thought provoking illustration he gave was a situation between a child and his/her father:
Father, “Go clean your room”.
Child goes away and proudly returns a little while later saying, “Dad, I have memorized your words “Go clean your room””.
Father, “Go clean your room”.
Child goes away and returns again, “Dad, I went and gathered together some friends and we studied your words “Go clean your room””.
Father replied, “Go clean your room”.
Child goes away and returns a third time, “Dad, I even learnt your words “Go clean your room” in Greek”.
Why is it that when God says something, we often look over it. When I say look over it, I mean we read it, understand it and wonder “wow, God wants this to be done” and then never really apply it to our lives? Here, I am talking about our intending to apply it to our lives and not asking why we fail when we try. There is a difference.
Covetousness is something that we westerners struggle with and I think sometimes we don’t really even realise it. I don’t know about others but when I read through the ten commandments, covetousness seems like “the little one at the end” to me. Is it possibly because we have already over come the power of it in our lives or is it because we are blind to it living and breathing in our lives?
I don’t think that there is a blanket rule for anyone about how much a person should have or give. There are rich people in God’s word and there are poor people, neither of them are necessarily covetous people. You can be rich without holding onto everything you have and you can be poor without wanting everything everyone else has. Like what God’s Word says, about how where your treasure is, there your heart will be also, Job was a man of tremendous wealth and had it all taken away and he never cursed God, he was upset, but he never cursed God. His reliance was on God and that is where ours should be also.
To “want” is different to “covet”. Job would have to have wanted the things he had or else he would not be in possession of them; the difference is that his heart was not in them even though he could still enjoy them. Covetousness seems to mean to deeply desire what someone else has and to envy that person. But I do not think that this is the only form it comes in. I may be moving into talking about making little gods out of things but if so then it too is another one of the “not to do’s” in the list of ten that we tend to overlook.
Yet I believe Christianity should not have this idea that we are all to be paupers, nor should we have this idea that we are all to be rich. Both are in the kingdom of God, both can walk closely with God and be right with Him, it is our relationship with God that matters. Though God does pose a warning for the rich, Matthew 19:23 “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, “verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven””. If you have more stuff in your life then it is bound to distract us more easily from where the real origin and meaning of life is.
So really, to finish, we need to ask ourselves if there is something in our lives that we hold onto; more specifically, is there something or someone that we hold onto with our heart and will not let go easily. Or are we like the young rich ruler who Jesus had told to give away all his things? The young ruler could not give them up and that is why I believe Jesus asked him to, Jesus tested his heart. If we struggle with something, it is God our Father who can set us free and help us walk the right path, the path that has God on the throne. As we conclude, remember that there is no struggle or test brought about by ourselves that we cannot cope with when we are with Him, 1Cor 10:13 “No temptation has overtaken you except such as are is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it”.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
INCEPETION
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Gospel, using U2
This is a pretty random post.
I bought a U2 cd while on our honeymoon and have been thrashing it. I have heard U2 lots before but I have really come to enjoy their music and I think they would have to be musically one of the greatest bands ever, well, for me anyway :-) I don't know if he would be what I or the Bible would call a Christian, but I will leave that between him and God.
It would be cool fun to do something a bit different and attempt to write a gospel message using titles of U2 songs mixed in. I have no idea whether anyone will bother but I challenge anyone to see how many U2 songs they can recognise in the gospel message. I suppose this would be the band to do it with because almost everyone knows U2.
Here it goes:
Back in the day when God made people, it was a beautiful day. But people decided to go their own mysterious ways and ignore what God had instructed them to. Ever since, man has continued walk on down the same path building towers to push open the window in the skies to be like God. Pride entered man's heart.
Thankfully a Saviour, Jesus Christ, came to stamp out man's pride (In the name of love). He came to teach you and I that some times you can't make it on your own. “Stuck in a moment you can't get out of” is our hearts anthem, we needed this Saviour to save us from our sin and take our penalty of death on Himself. New years day is when we try to get right with oursleves but we need to look to God to make us new people, a people with a new desire. Though I still haven't found what I am looking for, one day I will see what I have been looking for and that is a place where we can be one and whole, good and righteous where sin will not abound.
But we need to leave where the streets have no name, leave the desert in which we are lost and come home. “I will follow” should be our cry, follow Christ not just in word but in deed.
One day our miserable selves will be God's sweetest thing. We will be in elevation when Jesus returns and one day the saints are coming and we will join them to be with our King forevermore. God will either leave with or without you. Which will you choose?
Leave this vertigo and walk with our Maker.
How many U2 songs are in there?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Proud to announce
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
I have no idea what to title this...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Soccer World Cup 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Epistemology
Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη - episteme-, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) ofknowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:
- What is knowledge?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- What do people know?
- How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.