Pilgrimage

Car project Nissan Skyline

2012-02-02T15:12:00.000-08:00

I have been running a little bit of car project over the last year or so. I found it quite fun fiddling around with bits and pieces.

The car is or was a relatively stock auto Nissan Skyline GTS25t R33 4 door. I bought an auto for the wifey who preferred driving them.

Some of it's features are:

- A 4 wheel steering HICAS system
- I put some 18" second hand mags on it :D

- It has an RB 2.5L single turbo engine (Rb25det), a little brother to the famous twin turbo GTR (RB26dett engine). Interestingly the RB25det engine which I have, is actually de-tuned so that it would not compete with the upper market GTR which has the Rb26dett.

Here is a youtube example of the power an RB25det can release.

And here is a heavily modded skyline at 1100hp

With reliable power of up to 260 rear wheel kilowatts on stock internals (many are tuned for higher output), I thought this car was a good base for a project. At stock they start with 185kw at the flywheel which is about a grunty 130rwkw ( with an auto), a manual about (140rwkw). The turbo runs a 7psi boost into the engine which is compressed air to allow better (more intense) combustion.

I have no intention of wringing it out to those ridiculous power ratios (260rwkw +) as I will have no need for that much power and will suck to many $ to upgrade all the supporting mods around the engine.

I started with getting a bigger 3" exhaust to remove any restriction for the engine to get rid of waste gasses. I noticed after doing this that the boost crept up to about 8psi since the engine could breath a bit better. After this the car needed a better fuel pump as these pumps are only designed for stock and cannot do much more than what they were made for. I installed a walbro 500hp pump which to this day goes well. The what was needed was a boost T which is a manual boost controller which allows me to bleed off air which then allows me to control the amount of boost the turbo runs at.

The stock turbo for long life reliably can only handle 10psi of boost (some people run more). But though it cannot run high boost, it does have a light ceramic wheel which enables a very quick spool time (The turbo reaches 9-10psi at low rpm). This makes the car very responsive and loads of torque down low.

Now, the stock computer will cope with a little more power/load increase before it goes into safety mode and pulls back the ignition timing. So instead of retuning the stock Rb25det ecu which cannot be tuned very easily, I went for a Z32 ecu. This ecu was tuned by mail order by tuner in Auckland, but as I found out through trial and error the car was detonating at high rpm so a proper dyno tune needed to be done.
Do it once do it right.

So we dyno tuned it to a decent 168rwkw on 9-10psi of boost in Auckland.

and found the reasons why it was pinging. It was partly timing and partly the little side mount intercooler (which cools the air coming from the turbo) was getting hot enough to fry an egg. So as intake temperatures rose detonating occurred. So I decided to get a front mount intercooler off a Mitsubishi Evolution IV since these intercoolers are larger, apparently flow well and fits real nice behind the crash bar. With that now installed it will be running a little more power and is safer for the engine on hot days. I am pretty confident there was not a heavy amount of damage to the engine since when it was pinging/detonating there was a lot of petrol going in, enough to dampen the effect.

So now everything is running pretty good these days, though second gear is slipping a little at times, just showing wear and tear for its age I guess and becoming obvious as I up the torque :D
I also had to change the radiator myself for a turbo one since there was a non-turbo version in there (WHO KNOWS WHY) and it was struggling to keep the engine cool. Temps were rising to 94 degrees C, partly due to the small radiator that should not have been in there and partly because the previous owner hadn't flushed the coolant regularly and so it got blocked.

All cheers to the Rb motor for what it gets put through by me :) It was slightly over heating with that little radiator for who knows how long, I didn't get it tuned right at first so it was pinging, and then there was the time when I had a leak in my boost gauge and accidently ran 20+ pounds of boost into the engine lol. Poor thing. You live and learn, but it still purrrs today.

Bullet proof they say? I would say pretty close.

... and one day down the road I might take it from stock and run a bigger turbo to crack the 200rwkw + mark. Not that I need it but it is simply a fun project. Huge learning curves has made it well worth it. I am pretty confident to work on a lot of areas on the car now without a mechanic... still with a fair bit of head scratching I might add.

Stay tuned :)

Merry Christmas everyone!

2011-12-23T11:45:00.001-08:00

Yeshua Ha-Adonai!

Old debate

2011-10-15T13:56:00.001-07:00

Photo By roger.karlsson

Stan the half truth teller and I had a big debate about whether Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil since they did not yet "know" good and evil.

Originally I claimed that they obviously did have some but not full "knowledge" before they ate of the tree or else God would not expect them to understand that it was wrong to disobey Him. They still didn't have full knowledge yet which they were protected from.

I heard a preacher ages ago suggest that to "know" in the Bible was to choose to have a relationship with someone. Then it hit me. The word "knew" used in the phrase in Genesis where Adam "knew" Eve is exactly the same Hebrew word as to "know" good and evil.

Genesis 4:1
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

Go figure, to "know" doesn't just mean to have knowledge it means to have a relationship with...

Revelation... ding ding

New blog "The Benevolent Hecklers"

2011-06-25T16:20:00.000-07:00

Hi peoples,

Due to struggling to find time to post very few days to keep my blog running, I have decided to start a new blog where some Christian friends and myself will be sharing articles with each other and anyone else interested. The blog will be open to comments from everyone but will be a blog with multiple authors.

It will also be an overflow from a group we have here in NZ where we discuss theology and apologetics etc.

http://thebenevolenthecklers.blogspot.com/

cheers,

Dan

P.S. Though I will keep this one going :)

David Wilkerson is with the Lord

2011-04-28T23:41:00.001-07:00

How sad and yet how hopeful it is when people pass away; Yet, Paul says that absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, Hallelujah!
David Wilkerson is author of the famous "The Cross and the Switchblade" and founding pastor of Times square church.
Truly a great guy that God has used and still uses today. He is known as God's Watchman.

From my knowledge he is the type of guy I look up to and admire; especially his relationship with God. He is someone that spurs me on to seek God deeper and deeper.

Thank you David for all you have done and praise God!

Richard Dawkins Interviews Wendy Wright

2011-04-21T14:28:00.000-07:00

INTERVIEW

LOL.

Quite entertaining. I found this from Ray Comfort's blog and I must say some serious face palming in places as they say! and regarding BOTH parties. The interview is about the benefits and deficits of evolution on people.

The interview was fascinating, both brought good points but Wendy kept dodging some answers by Dawkins and Dawkins kept on claiming evidence for evolution as if it were proof.

Commonality may be evidence for evolution if someone is in the mind set to believe it, but commonality is certainly not proof... good point Wendy.

In my opinion Dawkins was right and Wendy wrong that there is evidence for evolution, it is whether it should be considered as gospel is the question.

I also loved the point that Wendy brought that controversy should be taught and encouraged when it comes to evolution or design. Scientists aren't the only ones that should have opinion, even they are subject to their pre-conceived world views.

Matisyahu

2011-04-21T12:59:00.000-07:00

Photo by EricMagnuson

Matisyahu is an Orthodox Jew who pens reggae/rock music. It is not normal reggae in that he really does have a Jewish sound to his music and doesn't really sound much like a rootsy Rastafarian unlike Christafari.

I use to think he was a Messianic Jew but from my understanding he is an Orthodox Jew. Much of his lyrics are based on the old testament and the Psalms; so he still holds many biblical principles in his messages.

When I listen to his music I get the impression he is someone who seeks God. I can only pray and hope that he comes to know HIS JEWISH MESSIAH... YESHUA not as a blond hair blue eyed western Jesus but a Jewish messiah prophesied beforehand by His people.

Have a listen and I hope you enjoy his music as I do! Here are three of my favourite songs of his.

Jerusalem

One Day

Time of your song

Eastern Lamp Mussel

2011-04-10T01:31:00.000-07:00

Image by Helti

I found out about this amazing creature by watching a dvd called "incredible creatures that defy evolution 3".

NOTE: I cannot remember the name of the mussel but this mussel is closest to the one I observed on the dvd. The one I observed on the dvd may have been a relative.

This particular mussel has a very unique way of reproducing, in fact it is highly specific. The female mussel mantle looks like a minnow fish. It pumps water through its mantle and causes it to actually look like a little fish swimming in the water, it even has what looks like a mouth at one end opening and closing!

The reason it does this is because it is trying to attract specific varieties of fish (4 in fact) to come and eat them. The mantle has little mussel larvae on it which will attach itself to the predator fish. The hard part is, is that at a split second just as the fish goes to bite the mantle (and you know how fast they bite), the mantle has to react and fling the tiny mussel larvae into the water surrounding which then allows the mussel larvae to attach to the gills of the predator fish.

The larvae live there for a month and then drop to the ocean floor. It has to be on specific types of fish or else the little larvae die!

The questions that need to be asked is:

a. How did this mussel variety ever learn to be so quick as to be able to reproduce?

b. What did they do to survive when and if there was no bass, bluegill or sunfish?

c. How did this mussel learn or develop itself so as to look like a minnow? It even has two spots that look like eyes!

d. Looking at the evidence at hand, is it more likely that they were designed like that or that they happened to develop themselves like that?

Eastern Lamp Mussel

Photos of our little boy

2011-03-30T22:55:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone! Meet little Simeon, He is now 6 1/2 weeks old. He enjoys singing (cooing to music), smiling, feeding, sleeping, grizzling and sicking up.... many many hobbies. Thank you Lord for him!

News talk ZB interview with John Lennox NZ

2011-03-28T20:56:00.000-07:00

Photo By Medienmagazin pro

John Lennox is a christian apologist, philosopher of science and professor of mathematics.

Here is a half hour audio mp3 interview covering quite few topics including God's existence, hope and science. John Lennox had recently taken a tour of New Zealand and this is some of the fruit of it.

Quite an interesting interview. It features comments from Lennox regarding past debates with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins as well as some atheists phoning up in NZ, even an "atheistic christian", go figure?

Thanks to Thinking Matters for providing the Interview

I agree with the majority of Lennox's comments but I thought he could have done a more in depth explanation regarding the earthquakes and suffering, although I know you are always limited when it comes to radio time. I hope to do a post sometime concerning the reason and causation behind the disasters that have happened.

Jon Foreman

2011-03-27T23:01:00.000-07:00

Photo by susieq3c

If you haven't heard of Switchfoot (a great band :D), they are an alternative rock band who are sincere Christians but I would not call them a "Christian band" since they wanted their music to be universal... fair enough, kind of like Jars of Clay. It makes them less "cliche-ic" and is not as full of Christianese in their lyrics as many other Christian bands.

The lead singer for Switchfoot had taken a little side track and wrote some solo albums while still heading Switchfoot back in 2007-2008.

He took a different angle to switchfoot and went nearly all acoustic and wrote challenging and personal songs in a rather unique way. He used many different types of weird/different instruments which make the listen quite an experience.

I really love his music, if I just chuck on one of his albums and have a listen, it really can be an incredible a time of reflection on life. He likes to tackle quite deep facts of life, some pleasant and some not so pleasant, not hiding behind colourful roses and peaceful gardens. Probably one of my favourite artists these days.

BROKEN FROM THE START

A MIRROR IS HARDER TO HOLD

THE CURE FOR PAIN

and a more obviously christian one:

YOUR LOVE IS STRONG

Have a listen : )

Reverse Thinking

2011-03-25T14:22:00.000-07:00

This video is rather clever I thought, definitely one to check out whether you agree or not : D

cheers,

Reverse Thinking

Miracles by our Lord

2011-03-09T20:42:00.000-08:00

Photo by Louis Du Mont

Last Sunday my wife and I decided to visit my old church that I grew up in to show friends our little Simeon who has just entered the big wide world. But what was cool was that there was a testimony time for people to share from the congregation regarding the miracles that God had done for them. So I would like to share some of them!

One young guy who is my brother's friend had broken (or similar) his foot a week or so ago and he was un-able to run on it because of the pain. His foot was swollen and he could see where a bone was sticking out a little. He went to a prayer meeting and people prayed for him to be healed and as they were praying he said he could watch it as the swelling went down and the bone under his skin come back into place! Exciting :D

There was a guy that I did not know who could provide medical verification of his healing. His arm was disconnected from his shoulder in a way that he could not lift it very high at all. He was prayed for and he was able to move his arm freely around like a windmill. He went to the doctor and the doctor told him that what he was able to do was impossible after seeing the scans of what it was before. The doctor told him he would have to send his patients to a prayer meeting in the future lol.

Another guy I know who works with my dad and was my science teacher at school had a couple of tests that showed he had high blood sugars. He was worried it was diabetes and so he was prayed for and he went back for a conclusive test and came back as normal!

Cheers God, for the mercies You perform for us who do not deserve Your mercy!

Logic Primers

2011-03-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

Image by Sha Sha Chu

I have just been through these logic primers by Brian over at his fantastic blog Apologetics 315.

Looking back I really wish I had read these sooner as it would have helped me to clarify myself better and engage in discussion a little more easily.

It is an easy to read and not too long series of articles that take you through a basic understanding of logic. He covers such topics as how to form valid arguments coherently and how to avoid fallacies. You can access it here

LOST CIVILIZATION

2011-02-28T14:44:00.000-08:00

Another good read from RtB concerning evidence for Genesis and its accuracy. Enjoy. I had to cut out the pictures because it was warping the text. Here is the link:

http://www.reasons.org/lost-civilization-beneath-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-humanity

"Lost Civilization Beneath The Persian Gulf Confirms Genesis History Of Humanity

In almost every culture and religion of the world lies a story of a lost civilization. The Greeks told the tale of a sophisticated island nation suddenly submerged. However, the Greeks were not the only people group to embrace an Atlantis-type legend; many cultures recounted the lost-city-beneath-the-sea scenario. The ubiquitous nature of these stories, accounts, and legends lends credence to the possibility that in the early days of humanity’s history a relatively advanced civilization was indeed lost.

Now, a research paper published in Current Anthropology provides scientific evidence for such a lost ancient civilization, evidence that confirms much of Genesis 1–11’s historical account of humanity’s early days.1 University of Birmingham archeologist Jeffrey Rose reports on the discovery, conducted over the past six years, of over sixty new archeological sites along the shoreline of the Persian Gulf. All of these sites are dated as older than 7,500 years. Rose states that “these settlements boast well-built permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world.”2In 2006, archeologist Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tubingen in Germany uncovered the remains of three different settlements that date between 25,000 and 125,000 years old at the base of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates.

In his paper, Rose points out that during the late Pleistocene epoch (150,000 to 12,000 years ago) reduced sea levels periodically exposed the “Gulf Oasis.” The Persian Gulf receded to such a degree as to bring above the surface a landmass as large as, or larger than, Great Britain. Rose explains that this landmass was well watered by four large rivers flowing at the time: the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Batin. Additionally, the region was watered by fresh water springs supplied by subterranean aquifers flowing beneath the Arabian subcontinent. Such an abundant and well-distributed supply of fresh water combined with the region’s warm weather would have supported a lush agricultural enterprise.

Rose argues that during the latter part of the last ice age a thriving civilization existed in what is now the Persian Gulf. As sea levels rose and as water rushed in through the Strait of Hormuz to fill up the Persian Gulf (see figure 1), people would have exited the Gulf Oasis and formed settlements along the rising shoreline. To build an iron-clad case for his theory, Rose calls for underwater exploration in the Persian Gulf to search for tools, human-built structures, and, best of all, fossil remains of humans. However, Rose also points out that the water’s rushing in to fill up the Persian Gulf and other neighboring regions could explain the many flood accounts and myths that emanate from that part of the globe. Such a flood event could have destroyed the very kind of evidence that Rose needs to solidify his case.

As Rose Himself Describes, the Gulf Oasis is consistent with Biblical account of Noah's Flood.

Rose’s theory fits not only the biblical account of Noah’s flood, it comports especially well with the earlier chapters of Genesis. Skeptics have long charged that the Bible’s description of the Garden of Eden brings biblical inspiration and inerrancy into question. Genesis 2 claims that the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates Rivers all meet together in Eden.3 However, the Pishon and Gihon flow out from the mountains of central Arabia (Havilah) and southwest Arabia (Cush), respectively, while the Tigris and Euphrates flow out from the mountains of Ararat in Armenia and Turkey (see figure 1).

As skeptics point out, nowhere on the planet do the four rivers come together. Their charge holds true—but only for today’s geography. All four rivers flow into different parts of the Persian Gulf and all four rivers meet together in what Rose identifies as the Gulf Oasis. As Rose points out, the Gulf Oasis was also watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wrecked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation. The Gulf Oasis vindicates the unique claims Genesis makes about the Garden of Eden and its surroundings.

A calibration of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies yields dates for Noah and Adam that are consistent with the timing of the existence of the Gulf Oasis. I describe that calibration based on historical and scientific dates for Abraham and Peleg in my book More Than a Theory.4

As Rose himself describes, the Gulf Oasis is consistent with biblical account of Noah’s flood. A long torrential rain storm, a tectonic event bursting forth water from subterranean aquifers, water from the Indian Ocean rushing through the Strait of Hormuz, plus a heat wave generating a sudden melt of snow in the surrounding mountains would have caused a devastating flood wiping out all inhabitants in the Gulf Oasis, the Mesopotamian Plain, and many of the regions surrounding Mesopotamia and what is now the Persian Gulf. Such an event would be perfectly consistent with everything Genesis 6–9 says about Noah’s flood.5 Rose’s study provides yet another example of how the more we learn about archeology, the more reasons we gain for concluding that the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God.

Endnotes:
1. Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (December 2010): 849–83.

2. Jeanna Bryner, “Lost Civilization May Have Existed beneath the Persian Gulf,” LiveScience (December 9, 2010), http://www.livescience.com/history/lost-civilization-possibly-existed-beneath-persian-gulf-101209.html (accessed December 10, 2010).

3. Genesis 2:10–14.

4. Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 189–90.

5. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 127–72."

Christchurch Earthquake

2011-02-23T15:36:00.000-08:00

A city in NZ has had seriously big earthquake recently. My thoughts and prayers go out to all involved! Michael, I'm glad your safe!

Would like to announce a new arrival

2011-02-18T15:29:00.000-08:00

Yes, Esther went into labour on Tuesday and we now have our first child. He was 8 pounds 13.

We have called him Simeon, after the Simeon in the Bible who met Jesus as a child. His name means "hearing" or "God hears".

In amongst the sleepless nights we are absolutely stoked that God has blessed us with this little fellow.

Truely, God hears.

Theology group discussion - Evil

2011-01-27T20:46:00.000-08:00

Some friends and I have been getting together about once a month to discuss theology in general and any difficulties regarding our understanding with christianity or really anything such as atheism or deism.

We have had a couple of topics so far and so I thought I would share a bit about what we discussed about God and evil, more particularly, about Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Often, I had wondered about what this verse means. We searched the meaning of the word evil ("ra") and we found that it actually had two possible meanings:

1. It could mean a moral evil

2. It could mean a natural evil

So what is the difference? Moral evil is to do something morally wrong such as murder or rape etc. What is interesting about natural evil is that Hebrews had a mindset that evil could also be a calamity or in other words dis-functional.

For example: When God flooded the world, it was not a moral evil act but it was a dis-functional act for God to do (because people died). He was right to judge people and wipe out what was morally wrong but people died in the act. God's best or functional ideal for humanity is to have righteousness dwell in the land and to have no death.

Like a country giving capital punishment to a moral wrong. The state isn't necessarily morally wrong for doing so (Some people might think so...) BUT a dis-funtional thing happened, someone died... it was not the best functional conclusion that could happen. It would have been functional to have everyone living good lives.

The other interesting aspect to this word "ra" is that it is used in the tree of the knowledge of good an evil.

I remember having a big debate with "Stan the half truth teller" about whether Adam and Eve could comprehend moral evil before they ate from the tree. Stan argued that God gave loaded guns to infants, (God told them not to eat of the tree of which they didn't understand that it was wrong to eat from). I argued that they only had a part knowledge of what was right and wrong before they ate from the tree and then had a full understanding of moral evil after.

I think we were both possibly wrong. IF "ra" in this sentence meant that Adam and Eve would have knowledge of dis-functionality then it completely changes the understanding of what that tree was about. They wouldn't necessarily suddenly understand what was right and wrong morally but would have an awareness understanding of what dis-functionality is. They would now comprehend dis-functionality - disease, distance from the garden and God.

So really the tree could be a tree of the knowledge of good and calamity. Good can mean moral or beautiful in a similar manner. So Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat of the tree but did not have entire (God still told them they would die) knowledge of the calamity that could happen if they ate from it.

It doesn't make sense to say that God told Adam and Eve not to do something that they didn't know was right or wrong to do.

Merry Christmas everyone! and a happy new year! DP

2010-12-25T21:14:00.000-08:00

George H. Smith quote

2010-11-24T00:48:00.000-08:00

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

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

2010-11-08T22:09:00.000-08:00

I found this an interesting read. Puts into question many "naturalism of the gaps" ideas. I am truly amazed at the amazing complexity that we find around us. Complexity that points toward a Grand Designer.

Here is the link it came from: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html#n09

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

Selfish about being unselfish?

2010-10-30T23:17:00.000-07:00

Well, I've finally got internet running properly after trying to connect broadband to our new house we have moved into. Here is a little article I have been working on for Delve Deeper:

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.

Did GODDIDIT or did EVOLUTIONDIDIT

2010-09-08T12:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Delve Deeper

2010-08-19T17:35:00.000-07:00

Hey peoples,

A friend of mine has started a webzine within the last 6 months or so and has a number of writers that pen first person articles about searching a deeper relationship and understanding of our Lord. I will be writing some articles, the last post I did was the first one... check the webzine out!

DELVE DEEPER

God Bless,

Dan

Go clean your room

2010-08-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

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 3^rd 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”.

INCEPETION

2010-07-29T18:02:00.000-07:00

Has anyone seen this movie?

Well if you haven't then you have to. Absolutely awesome. Hate a couple of blasphemies but otherwise generally quite clean and well... just an awesome movie. Best original one for a while.

What do you guys think?

The Gospel, using U2

2010-07-21T22:20:00.000-07:00

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?

Proud to announce

2010-07-15T22:34:00.001-07:00

That Esther and I are expecting our first bubby! Yay! She is about 2 1/2 months through.

I have no idea what to title this...

2010-07-13T22:24:00.000-07:00

Wow, its been a month or so since I last posted something... hmmm. I look forward to having the internet a little more accessable.

Running thoughts, final was the boringest games ever. Not much football was played. The best game was the third place match where both teams seemed like they were simply having fun!

I am currently part way through No Doubt's sermon found here: http://www.hittheriver.com/SermonFiles/062710.mp3 and am enjoying it so far! Isn't it weird when we imagine what someone sounds like and then actually find out what they sound like LOL. Your preaching good No Doubt!

I have recently been informed that one of my favourite preachers "David Pawson" may be coming to my little home town sometime next year! Can't wait. He is in his 80's so I hope he can make it.

And my fingers are frozen at the moment typing on this keyboard; it happens to be winter here in NZ.

Soccer World Cup 2010

2010-06-15T22:02:00.000-07:00

This is way off topic considering what I usually post about. I am sure there must be some soccer fans around here?

I grew up playing soccer for quite a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it. Wish I could play again someday...

Well, I am from little NZ and this is the second world cup that we have managed to be a part of. For us, just to be there is like winning the cup. Just the other night my family and I were ecstatic at the draw NZ had with Slovakia who is ranked far above us in the world standings. It really was not a good show of football (sorry NZ) but I am still glad that we are there and managed to play (at times) some good football... and to win our first ever point!!!! Maybe I am too use to watching the likes of Germany? NEway, if NZ don't win, I say go Germany.

I love their display of football, it makes soccer so beautiful as it should be, by playing as a team.

Mind you, I hear Holland and Spain are favourites for the cup which will be a hefty challenge for Germany.

Poor old England aren't sounding to great and Brazil was not entirely convincing.

What do you make of the world cup? Who do you support?

Epistemology

2010-05-11T22:11:00.000-07:00

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I thought I would make this kind of a questionnaire. I found it quite interesting to wonder how we actually decide to believe something as true. Everyone applies this in their lives at some point and for me, I am a Christian, so from my understanding of the world around me, I come to the conclusion that Christianity is the truth, it is the best explanation for the way everything is.

Firstly I define truth as "what is real".

How I determine what I believe to be true is by taking the best conclusion regarding a situation. This is all we can do in many cases... in fact, most cases. In our daily lives we put faith in the chairs we sit on without scientifically testing them to see if they will hold us up. We drink cups of water trusting that it is safe to drink.

I believe science is an excellent way of finding truth, but it cannot be the only way (practically), because we do not know the limits or scope of science as of yet. No one lives like science is the only way to finding truth. Even if someone did manage to, they would still be trusting their measurements every time they conducted science. To find truth I believe is by using science, philosophy (or common sense), history or personal experience. I don't mean to make up imaginary thinks such as Flying Spaghetti monsters to explain everything. To believe something should include real reasons why to believe something.

I don't believe that you have to test something with a tube to determine its reality. I can see the affects of many things that I cannot test but understand to be true. History is one. I can see the results of history but not history itself. I can see the results of the formation of this world but not the formation of the world itself. I can see the affects of gravity, but not gravity itself.

I believe in Christianity for many reasons, both scientifically and philosophically. Here are several reasons:

General complexity in creation -

People

Planetary positioning etc

Life itself

The Bible -

Prophecy

Miracles

History

Testimonies -

Prophecy

Miracles

Answered prayer

Personal experience

History -

Success of the spread of Christianity

Philosophy -

The idea of a personal God is the most convincing for me

Existence of morality in mankind

The ability to reason

How about you?

How do you determine what you believe to be true?

What do you believe regarding your world view?

Do you believe science is the only way to finding truth?

Do you believe philosophy is the best way to coming to a conclusion about truth?

Is it a mixture of both?

Or is it something I have not mentioned?

Thinking this through may challenge us in what we believe, strengthen us in what we believe.

God gave us brains...use them :)

cheers,

Daniel

ENZYME CONVERGENCE TAXES EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM (RtB)

2010-04-27T02:44:00.000-07:00

I have just read what RtB has brought up recently about convergence and thought it rather thought provoking. I haven't had the chance to read the links but I get the drift of what they are saying. Read it with an open mind and I don't expect this to disprove evolution but rather as noted at the end...put red flags up. Could convergence point more to a designer*?

Dan

"4/15/2010
by Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana

No one likes to pay taxes. Though necessary for our government to operate, they still represent an unpleasant financial burden.

Similarly, widespread convergence observed in the biological and biochemical realms burdens evolutionary biologists. And new work by scientists from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), further taxes the evolutionary paradigm.¹

From an evolutionary perspective, convergence describes scenarios in which it appears that natural processes generated identical (or nearly identical) anatomical, physiological, or behavioral traits in unrelated organisms (e.g., echolocation in dolphins and bats). Convergence can even occur in the molecular realm, manifesting as the independent, repeated origin of biomolecules and biochemical systems.

As I discussed in The Cell’s Design and in this article on plant convergence, quite a few scientists do not expect convergence to be commonplace because evolutionary processes are historically contingent. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski recently confirmed this expectation through the Long-term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) conducted in his lab at Michigan State University. Lenski and his team have directly observed historical contingency at work in populations of the bacterium E. coil. (For more on the LTEE, see previous articles on bacteria evolution and the LTEE research.)

In spite of the historically contingent nature of the evolutionary process, convergence appears to be widespread at the organismal and biochemical levels. And as the scientists from UCSF describe in a recent paper, biochemical convergence is even more extensive than anyone thought.

Evolutionary biologists recognize five different types of biochemical convergence.²

Functional convergence describes the independent origin on more than one occasion of biochemical functionality.
Mechanistic convergence refers to the multiple independent emergences of biochemical processes that use the same chemical mechanisms.
Structural convergence results when two or more biomolecules adopt independently the same three-dimensional structure.
Sequence convergence occurs when either proteins or regions of DNA arise separately, yet have identical amino acid or nucleotide sequences, respectively.
Systemic convergence describes the independent emergence of identical biochemical systems.

The UCSF researchers sought to determine the relationship between functional and mechanistic convergence in enzymes. They examined 95 functionally convergent enzyme pairs, focusing specifically on the set of chemical bond changes that take place during the course of enzyme catalysis.

They discovered that, while the functions of the enzymes were the same, the overall reactions mediated by the enzymes were similar in only 44 percent of the pairs and, of those, 33 percent employed the same chemical mechanism. This result means that functional and mechanistic convergence can overlap, but they remain distinct types of biochemical convergence. From an evolutionary perspective, it also appears that a large number of enzymes evolved independently multiple times to use the same reaction sequence! This result is truly surprising.

This survey represents important insight into protein structure and function. It should help biochemists do a better job of classifying enzymes. Additionally, it provides biotechnologists with insights beneficial toprotein engineering and the design of novel enzymes. On the other hand, this work also creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm simply because evolution shouldn’t repeat.

It is these types of problems that make me skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm. The red flags are up. It’s time for an audit.

Endnotes:

1. Daniel E. Almonacid et al., “Quantitative Comparison of Catalytic Mechanisms and Overall Reactions in Convergently Evolved Enzymes: Implications for Classification of Enzyme Function,” PLoS Computational Biology 6 (2010): e10007000. Doi:10.1371/journal/pcbi.1000700

2. Russell F. Doolittle, “Convergent Evolution: The Need to Be Explicit,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences19 (January 1994): 15–18"

http://www.reasons.org/evolution/convergence/enzyme-convergence-taxes-evolutionary-paradigm

Son of Hamas - Mosab Hassan Yousef

2010-04-11T22:13:00.000-07:00

I was given this little article by a friend and thought it was rather interesting to share. It is so exciting to hear stories and to know of Muslims who come to know Christ, who embrace peace instead of war.

Also I have heard of many Muslims coming to know Christ through dreams, visions and miracles. Here is another article that talks about what I have heard previously. Dreams, Visions and Miracles

Read to find out more about the Hamas Leader:

"The latest releases from K-House
Son of Hamas:
A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices
by Mosab Hassan Yousef
Special Price: $19.95

Since he was a small boy, Mosab Hassan Yousef has had an inside view of the deadly terrorist group Hamas. The oldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas and its most popular leader, young Mosab assisted his father for years in his political activities while being groomed to assume his legacy, politics, status … and power. But everything changed when Mosab turned away from terror and violence, and embraced instead the teachings of another famous Middle East leader. In Son of Hamas, Mosab Yousef--now called "Joseph"--reveals new information about the world's most dangerous terrorist organization and unveils the truth about his own role, his agonizing separation from family and homeland, the dangerous decision to make his newfound faith public, and his belief that the Christian mandate to "love your enemies" is the only way to peace in the Middle East.
Before the age of twenty-one, Mosab Hassan Yousef saw things no one should ever see: abject poverty, abuse of power, torture, and death. He witnessed the behind-the-scenes dealings of top Middle Eastern leaders who make headlines around the world. He was trusted at the highest levels of Hamas and participated in the Intifada. He was held captive deep inside Israel's most feared prison facility. His dangerous choices and unlikely journey through dark places made him a traitor in the eyes of people he loves--and gave him access to extraordinary secrets. On the pages of this book, he exposes events and processes that to this point have been known only by a handful of individuals… Mosab Hassan ("Joseph") Yousef is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding leader of Hamas, internationally recognized as a terrorist organization and responsible for countless suicide bombings and other deadly attacks against Israel. An integral part of the movement, Mosab was imprisoned several times by the Israeli internal intelligence service. After a chance encounter with a British tourist, he started a six-year quest that jeopardized Hamas, endangered his family, and threatened his life. He has since embraced the teachings of Jesus and sought political asylum in America. Ron Brackin has traveled extensively in the Middle East as an investigative journalist. He was in Bethlehem, Ramallah, Gaza, and Jerusalem during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. He was on assignment in Baghdad after the fall of Iraq and more recently with the rebels and refugees of southern Sudan and Darfur. He has contributed articles and columns to many publications, including USA Today and the Washington Times. Ron served as a broadcast journalist and a congressional press secretary in Washington after graduating from the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism.
Special Note: Mosab Hassan Yousef is going to be speaking at our Strategic Perspectives Conference in Franklin, TN via live video link (to keep his location a secret). See our website for conference details http://www.khouse.org/."

wedding pics

2010-04-04T13:35:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

Esther and I are back from our honeymoon, a trip to the South Island of New Zealand, so here are some photos of the wedding:

Little over a week to go

2010-03-02T20:51:00.000-08:00

Well, a week to go till Esther's and my wedding day.

The last month or so has been sooo busy, preparing for the wedding and setting up accommodation for us both. So this is where the absent posts have been of late. We are cooking and preparing all our own food which has been rather cool. We did some indian cooking classes several months ago so we are using our newly found knowledge to prepare yummy curries of different soughts for some of the meal at our reception.

After the wedding on the 13th of March we will be away for a couple of weeks on our honeymoon. So the posts will be absent then also.

Ahhhh. Happy times.

It has been really great to get to know you all. (christian/messianic Jew, atheist, agnostic atheist and deist etc)

cheers,

Dan

Easily Pleased

2010-02-05T22:09:00.000-08:00

"Easily Pleased" is a little video shared by the Desiring God blog based on a quote from C.S. Lewis. I found it intriguing so I thought I would share it here.

EASILY PLEASED

Here is the quote:

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (The Weight of Glory, 26)

DP

Parachute 2 (An add on on from the previous post)

2010-02-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

Oh and this clip from Switchfoot

Parachute

2010-02-05T10:59:00.000-08:00

Just been to parachute this weekend and had a blast!

If you guys are wondering what parachute is, it is the largest christian music festival in the southern hemisphere. Approximately 25,000 people were there I think which is huge for little NZ and maybe not for ya Yankees and Brits.
It is a festival held over 4 days with numerous bands from around the world. The main band was Switchfoot who was awesome live on Saturday night, others I liked included Leeland and Newworldson. I only went for Saturday evening and all day Sunday...though Sunday it rained heavily at times but still didn't stop us :)

It is cool to go to places like that because you can hear your favourites and also find new bands such as Leeland and Newworldson.

Here are a couple of samples:

Newworldson

Leeland,

Switchfoot,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwY9yDL8WQ&feature=related

Faith

2010-01-22T11:06:00.000-08:00

Hey guys,

Whateverman and I have had a little interesting discussion in a random thread about faith...so I thought I would put it as a post.

Whateverman said:

Da Pilgrim, does it take faith to not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I said:

Yes,

Because you cannot confirm without a doubt that he/she/it does not exist.

Whateverman said:

So then, it takes faith to believe that the traffic light will turn Red after it turns yellow, that eating a can of mushrooms wont kill you, that a pen will work when you try to write something, that your computer will turn on when you hit the power switch, etc.

DP, if everything takes faith, why do Christians endlessly trot out their faith as evidence of God's existence? According to you, believing and not believing in things requires faith - meaning that Christian faith is no different from belief or disbelief in an invisible pink unicorn...

I replied:

My definition of faith would be something like:

A logical deduction from the evidence at hand. Faith does not glory in the absence of evidence but glories in the presence of it.

I believe Christianity for a REASON. I do not come to it and say "You know what, I choose Christianity, I don't know/care why but I choose to have faith in the christian God", if I did this that would be BLIND faith.

Since we can only speak of proof in mathematics then everything else is taken as a conclusion from a logical deduction.

I do not know whether a traffic light will continue to turn red or if my computer will turn on when I hit the power switch but I put my faith in a conclusion of the evidence I have at hand.

So you may say something like...why not just call it evidence instead of faith?
Well, when you say that you have "faith" in someone such as a wife...what does that mean? It means to trust her, but of course someone could be wrong about her trustworthiness.

I would not go around saying "I have evidence of my wife's trustworthiness".

All This is why for me to say "I don't know if there is a God" and then live like there is none, is really just like (or similar in principle) living as if there were none...which then shows what my faith would be that there is most likely no God...an atheist. An atheist is willing willing to bet his/her life on it.

I don't have the faith to choose atheism.
You obviously have an opposite faith.

DP

Pillar

2010-01-21T01:23:00.000-08:00

More music that I like. I like many styles and this one is from a hard rock band called "Pillar". They are a christian band that have uplifting lyrics, the lyrics of a band mean a lot to me. They aren't the secular "kill yourself" type that are usually associated with hard rock of which I do not like.

Here is a song that I just really like of theirs.

Here is an anthem of faith:

Here is a song about how America needs to come back to the roots of the phrase "In God we trust" (note: the first 20 secs is not the song :))

Enjoy

Prayer

2010-01-12T22:29:00.000-08:00

I have recently discovered from atheist friends that the evidence for God would be in things such as answered prayer.

I thought I would try and focus on giving more evidences in this area in the future because it may be a little more relevant for some of you.

First of all I would like to talk about what prayer actually is.

I'll start with a quote from BathTub.
As for evidence for God? Well prayer working would be a good start. And all the associated effects that would entail. "I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you." That kind of tangible prayer effects. Not the completely meaningless 'Yes/No/Wait' excuse people use.

I'll come to an answer to this quote shortly.
I see prayer as communication with God. But even though we can attempt to talk to God He will not always listen:

Job 35:9 ¶ "Because of the multitude of oppressions they cry out; They cry out for help because of the arm of the mighty.
10 But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker, Who gives songs in the night,
11 Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, And makes us wiser than the birds of heaven?’
12 There they cry out, but He does not answer, Because of the pride of evil men.
13 Surely God will not listen to empty talk, Nor will the Almighty regard it."

Zechariah 7:11 "But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.
12 "Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
13 "Therefore it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen," says the LORD of hosts.

James 4: 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

God is not a wishlist kind of God, He is a person who happens to know what is best.
He still desires for us to communicate with Him. He even allows our prayers to influence or change his mind.

Genesis 18:23 ¶ And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?
25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
27 Then Abraham answered and said, "Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord:
28 "Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?" So He said, "If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it."
29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose there should be forty found there?" So He said, "I will not do it for the sake of forty."
30 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 And he said, "Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty."
32 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten."
33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

2 Kings 20:4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
5 "Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD.
6 "And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David."’"

So when we take scripture in context God does answer prayer but the answer is not always yes, not always no, not always wait(which is another term for "no for now" :).
God is a Father and He knows what is best for us...

Luke 11: 10 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
11 "If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish?
12 "Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

Notice how you can grab verse ten and stretch it to mean what you want it to mean? When in context it is talking about God giving us the Holy Spirit and not just anything we ask.

Back to BathTub's verse:

15 ¶ "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.
20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

What do you notice about the context? Especially the context of the two or three? Jesus is talking about church government.
I am unsure whether verse 19 literally means "everything" when we compare scripture and context, the same applies to verse ten of Luke 11 above.

BathTub, I know your story that you shared about prayer ages ago and I am sad that it did not work out but I sincerely hope you will look past our expectations of God and trust Him to make the best decisions. Note that God has given us freewill and our actions are not to be blamed on God.

I hope I am of some help.

DP

P.S

A fresh testimony I heard the other day (Last weekend).
While out at some family friend's place having sharing times about what we have found in God's word and what God has been teaching us lately, a young lady joined us. She had just recently given her life to God but she had some struggles with depression, headaches and a lack of desire for food. Someone baptized her in the Holy Spirit and her headache disappeared instantly, her desire for food came back!
Praise God for His goodness to those who seek Him.

I'll be adding more and more testimonies as I come across ones I think are worth sharing.

cheers

Band spotlight

2010-01-08T22:33:00.000-08:00

A random post on a band that I like to listen to.
Here is a band called "Jars of clay" and here are some of my favourite songs of theirs.
They have an acoustic rock kind of sound...awesome.
Enjoy! (I hope :D)

Jars of Clay "Liquid" (The person who put this on disabled the embed, a video clip included in this one)

Rambling thoughts on Assumptions and science in the class rooms and life,

2010-01-06T21:37:00.000-08:00

We all have a worldview. What is yours? What is your preconceived idea about the important questions about this universe/world...even if you do not recognize that it is a preconceived idea. Think about it.

Mine is that there is a God who designed nature and its laws to a greater or lesser degree. I cannot accept that it happened blindly and by chance (more or less). I believe in meaning apart from us.
Assuming you are an atheist, what would your worldview be? Naturalism?
What do you expect to find at the beginning of our world/universe through science? God or rocks, mutations, energy etc? or if you don't accept any view, the view you "neutrally" fall to will be your preconceived idea since regarding God (and particularly the Christian God) You cannot be neutral.
Both view points are invisible literally but each one of us bring that view point to the way we look at the meaning of life and even the study of science.

For example: If I did science, I would expect it to be ordered and to be able to find evidence of God's handiwork.
If an atheist/naturalist does science, he assumes that it was not made and therefore he searches for possibilities of the universe/world making itself and somehow finding order amongst itself.

Both follow evidence, both are possible views for arguments sake.

Though, some people believe religions such as theism and atheism should be kept away from science classes. Quite reasonable to think this in some aspects.
But how is this achieved?
As I pointed out before, our worldviews affect our outlook on science and the world. How then can we keep our worldviews from science rooms? I don't think we can. Therefore why is it so bad to teach Intelligent Causation and Atheistic Naturalism as philosophical companions to science and let the children decide where the evidence points to...IC or AN? Each child's outlook will influence their search and their inferences about the origins of our universe/world.

I am annoyed about a possible bias that science will play toward a "neutral" atheism and its related beliefs about the universe.

Or am I wrong and science can be conducted without these worldviews in the background?

Thoughts anyone?

Sorry

2010-01-06T21:34:00.000-08:00

I have stuffed up some of my posts because I was fiddling around. I lost the four comments on the Screwtape letters post.

Drat.

Screwtape Letters on Selfishness

2010-01-06T21:27:00.001-08:00

Here is a book by C.S. Lewis that I thoroughly enjoyed, it is called Screwtape letters. It is a book about a senior demon "Screwtape" who teaches or trains his junior demon Wormwood how to bring down his christian patient. This book brought me great insight into how the devil can influence us in ways we never even knew were there. This portion from chapter 16 is about unselfishness and selfishness. My fiancee and I read this together and even recognized it as a fascinating insight into some aspects we can be aware of in our relationship. Lewis brings out a point I had not seen so clearly put before which I now see happening everywhere, so to find out read on.
Note: Since it is from the demon's point of view, when it speaks of the "Enemy" it is are referring to God.

Yes; courtship is the time for sowing those seeds which will grow up ten years
later into domestic hatred. The enchantment of unsatisfied desire produces
results which the humans can be made to mistake for the results of charity.
Avail yourself of the ambiguity in the word "Love": let them think they have
solved by Love problems they have in fact only waived or postponed under the
influence of the enchantment. While it lasts you have your chance to foment the
problems in secret and render them chronic.
The grand problem is that of "unselfishness". Note, once again, the admirable
work of our Philological Arm in substituting the negative unselfishness for the
Enemy's positive Charity. Thanks to this you can, from the very outset, teach a
man to surrender benefits not that others may be happy in having them but that
he may be unselfish in forgoing them. That is a great point gained. Another
great help, where the parties concerned are male and female, is the divergence
of view about Unselfishness which we have built up between the sexes. A woman
means by Unselfishness chiefly taking trouble for others; a man means not giving
trouble to others. As a result, a woman who is quite far gone in the Enemy's
service will make a nuisance of herself on a larger scale than any man except
those whom Our Father has dominated completely; and, conversely, a man will live
long in the Enemy's camp before he undertakes as much spontaneous work to please
others as a quite ordinary woman may do every day. Thus while the woman thinks
of doing good offices and the man of respecting other people's rights, each sex,
without any obvious unreason, can and does regard the other as radically
selfish.
On top of these confusions you can now introduce a few more. The erotic
enchantment produces a mutual complaisance in which each is really pleased to
give in to the wishes of the other. They also know that the Enemy demands of
them a degree of charity which, if attained, would result in similar actions.
You must make them establish as a Law for their whole married life that degree
of mutual self-sacrifice which is at present sprouting naturally out of the
enchantment, but which, when the enchantment dies away, they will not have
charity enough to enable them to perform. They will not see the trap, since they
are under the double blindness of mistaking sexual excitement for charity and of
thinking that the excitement will last.
When once a sort of official, legal, or nominal Unselfishness has been
established as a rule—a rule for the keeping of which their emotional resources
have died away and their spiritual resources have not yet grown—the most
delightful results follow. In discussing any joint action, it becomes obligatory
that A should argue in favour of B's supposed wishes and against his own, while
B does the opposite. It is often impossible to find out either party's real
wishes; with luck, they end by doing something that neither wants, while each
feels a glow of self-righteousness and harbours a secret claim to preferential
treatment for the unselfishness shown and a secret grudge against the other for
the ease with which the sacrifice has been accepted. Later on you can venture on
what may be called the Generous Conflict Illusion. This game is best played with
more than two players, in a family with grown-up children for example. 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
really because they don't want to be used as a sort of lay figure on which the
first speaker practices petty altruisms. 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 side 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.
Each side is, indeed, quite alive to the cheap quality of the adversary's
Unselfishness and of the false position into which he is trying to force them;
but each manages to feel blameless and ill-used itself, with no more dishonesty
than comes natural to a human.

Waipu Highland Games

2010-01-01T12:35:00.000-08:00

New Year's Day was an awesome time this year. My family and I went to what is called the Waipu games found here http://www.waipugames.co.nz/events.php.

It was a day based on Scottish games such as athletics, throwing a big stone (like shotput), casting a hay bale or similar over a high bar, also they throw as a competition what they call a "caber" which is a long wooden poll...different though cool.
My little sister who is 13 came second in a sprint race! and my little brother's 10 and 8 also had a dash. Though poor Jeremy (ten year old) was a bit late for the ten year old's race so he joined in with the 12 year old boys...he being a little fella even for ten fell in last place though not too far behind the others. I was so proud of him for giving it a go and should it have been 10 year olds I think he could have possibly cleaned up, though short, he is a speedy little fellow.
So cute to see the 4 year olds race! Most of them have no concept of winning, they just run with big grins on their faces! LOL.

I have a few Scottish roots so it was neat to be part of that day and I even managed to find our clan the Stewarts! We even got dog tags :D with their emblem on it. It is so amazing to consider where we all come from, all the different countries and cultures.

ERV's

2009-12-26T16:28:00.000-08:00

Debunking Monkey mentioned ERV's and used them as evidence for common ancestry with apes.

Well, I thought I would play the skeptic and see what I could find which had an opposing side to what DM claimed. I am not knowledgeable in these areas but there is always time to learn. I actually thought it was quite interesting what DM brought, but I found this link which questioned whether ERV's are actually good evidence for common ancestry. I found it rather interesting and made sense to me...the guy brought forward some experiments so he wasn't all "talk", he seems well qualified with a BSc in Biology (as claimed).

ERV's Debunked

Here is a bit from his profile which I thought qualified him quite well:

Hello, and welcome to my channel.
This channel was meant for intelligent Atheists/agnostics and Christians who want to debate their beliefs in a rational and civilized manner. A bit about me:
I am currently "sitting on the fence" when it comes to accepting the theory of evolution. I am not specifically against evolution, I am against bad science. I don't think there's enough evidence as of yet for me to fully accept the theory of evolution.
In this channel, I will post videos of what and what I do not consider evidence of evolution, as well as various videos dealing with faith, religion and atheism.

My qualifications:

BSc Molecular Biology 2004
M.D. (2009)

Cheers,

DP

Merry Christimas!

2009-12-23T10:29:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas everyone,

I hope you all have good one!

and praise to God for the Birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ the Lord.

DP

Strange views

2009-12-21T20:49:00.000-08:00

I don't know whether to laugh or not :D I have never heard of explanations like this, only Dawkin's and his preference of aliens to God as an explanation for intelligent design. Anyway, I thought you guys would find this a good read.

I have no idea who this guy is but I happened across an article about this "Dr. Rhawn Joseph"

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/07/21/life.earth.came.other.planets

This guy dis-believes abiogenesis and claims that life must have come from another planet in the form of microbes. A quote from the article:

"Dr. Rhawn Joseph, the author of this landmark paper, puts it bluntly: "Given the incredible complexity of a single-celled organism and its DNA, the likelihood that life on Earth was randomly created in an organic soup is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars and proclaiming it was randomly assembled in the methane sea."

Therefore, as only life can produce life, life on earth must have originated on other planets. But then, how did it get here?"

Can I ask him a question?

Where did the microbes come from and how did it evolve on other planets if it cannot on this one? Some "unknown" piece of stuff?

So many theories, so many beliefs, so many dis-beliefs... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I believe in the Maker.

Preface to John Lennox's "God's undertaker"

2009-12-17T00:24:00.000-08:00

I have started reading John Lennox's book and have finished the preface which I thought was a fantastic introduction. The preface went on to distinguish between the different terms of use and their meaning. For example he noted that "Intelligent Design" is confusing when discussing about a "Designer" of the universe because it is a shorthand these days for "crypto-creationism". He suggested that "intelligent causation" or "design" is a better term because the meaning of intelligent design is tainted.
BathTub and I ran into this problem before. I had to explain that I meant literally "intelligent design" and not a movement.

An interesting paragraph:
"The oft repeated question whether intelligent design is science can be rather misleading, certainly if we understand the term 'intelligent design' in its original sense. Suppose we were to ask the parallel question: Is theism science? Is atheism science? Most people would give a negative answer. But if we were now to say that what we are really interested in is whether there is any scientific evidence for theism (or for atheism), then we are likely to be faced with the reply: Why, then did you not say so?
One way to make sense of the question whether (intelligent) design is science or not is to reinterpret it as: Is there any scientific evidence for design? If this is how the question should be understood, then it should be expressed accordingly in order to avoid confusion".

Hmmmm,

Onto chapter one.

DP

P.S. I am not trying to do reviews of the book but I like to share what I think is...cool :)

Name Change

2009-12-13T21:52:00.000-08:00

I decided to change my name to "Da Pilgrim" instead of "Da Bomb".
Da Bomb was my old gaming name when I was younger but for blogging it sounds haughty. So I chose a name that echoes who I really am...that is, I am a pilgrim on a journey to what and wherever God will lead me.

Cheers,

DP

Family Photo

2009-12-13T01:20:00.000-08:00

Just had a family photo taken. Left is Esther my fiancee, next is me, my sister Abbey, my brother Andrew, my brother Luke , my mother, my brother Jeremy, my sister Bethany, my brother Ethan, my future brother-in-law Joshua, my sister Naomi, my father, my grandma and Tara our dog :)

2009-12-06T21:30:00.000-08:00

Interesting quotes about the probability of macro evolution...

"More muscle is added to the argument by the fact that the vast majority of mutations observed in the laboratory have deleterious effects. This is not at all surprising in view of the digital nature of the genetic code that we shall have occasion to explore in some detail later. After all, one would hardly expect a computer programme to be improved by random changes in its code! Even the tiniest of changes is usually disastrous. But for the moment we simply record that cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion (1 in 10 to the power of 15) replications. After showing that this is only the beginning of the problems, in having such beneficial mutations integrated into the development of the entire organism and passed on in the gene pool, he concludes 'that recent hypotheses about the origin of species falls to the ground, unless it is accepted that an intensive input of new information is introduced at the time of isolation of the new breeding pair.'" - John Lennox

"As it came clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory would be wholly incorrect. When ideas are based on observations, as the Darwinian theory certainly was, it is usual for them to be valid at least within the range of the observations. It is when extrapolations are made outside the range of observations that troubles may arise. So the issue that presented itself was to determine just how far the theory was valid and exactly why beyond a certain point it became invalid." - Fred Hoyle.

I echo these men's questions and struggles with the theory of evolution...(that is, evolution without input from God)

Free Books by John Lennox

2009-12-02T21:46:00.000-08:00

I am giving away two books by John Lennox called:
"God's Undertaker, Has Science Buried God?"

I have not read the book as of yet (only a chapter on evolution) but I plan to. John Lennox comes across to me as a well qualified and respected man from what I have seen. I was very impressed with him in his debates with Richard Dawkins.

John Lennox in this book invites us to consider whether science has buried God or not and whether science points toward atheism or not.

Some info from the back cover:

"John C. Lennox MA PhD DPhil DSc is Reader in Mathematics at the university of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world He is particularly interested in the interface of science, philosophy and theology. He and his wife Sally live near Oxford."

Quotes from other people about the book:

"As an agnostic in the true sense of the word as "not knowing", I found John Lennox's book intriguing and providing much food for thought...This is a well written and thought-provoking book and will contribute to reasoned discussion on a fundamental question."
Alan Emery, Eritus Professor of Human Genetics, University of Edinburgh.

'This short book is more than just a critical analysis of the deep question posed in its title. It is a scientific detective story, which keeps the reader on his toes as the evidence is put in place bit by bit'.
Keith Frayn, Professor of Human Metabolism, University of Oxford.

"God's Undertaker is an important and topical contribution to the debate and questions about the origin of the universe and its physical laws, the origin of complex biological design and the purpose (if any) of mankind".
Chris Paraskeva, Professor of Experimental Oncology, University of Bristol.

CONTENTS:

1. War of the worldviews
2. The scope and limits of science
3. Reduction, reduction, reduction...
4. Designer universe?
5. Designer biosphere?
6. The nature and scope of evolution
7. The origin of life
8. The genetic code and its origin
9. Matters of information
10. The monkey machine
11. The origin of information
Epilogue
References
Index
191 pages.

I would like to offer these books primarily to atheist/agnostic friends who follow my blog should they like a copy. If not, then any other atheist/agnostic hanging around is welcome to have a copy.
You can send your mailing address to my email (vesselofclay88@gmail.com) and I will send it to you.

Dan

Ray Comfort-Hemant Mehta interview

2009-11-28T16:08:00.001-08:00

I found this interview posted on Ray's blog rather interesting between Ray Comfort and another atheist Hemant Mehta.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/26/interview-with-ray-comfort/#comments/

I don't necessarily agree with everything Ray says but he does bring some good points.

DB

Strange man

2009-11-27T15:54:00.000-08:00

My brother and I met strange and yet I think hurting man today.

He obviously was hurt against the church and thinking that the leaders of churches were power hungry. He went on saying that Zionism was evil and that "Jew" actually meant "unbeliever"...went on to talk about how the Bible is unreliable and he questioned whether Jesus was a real person or though he would like to think He was. He also mentioned how Barabbas the prisoner was not a real person...etc etc and went on and on. He also claimed that he had been reading secular history books which he mentioned a lot.

LOL, we were just dumping a trailer load of rubbish at the tip and he drilled us!

Well, it is hard to talk to people who are hurt like that but I simply challenged him to suggest why all the records he read were accurate?
Such as, he was claiming that Barabbas was not a real person because he was not in Pontius Pilate's records.
How can he say that? Who said Barabbas was not real? The Bible was revealed to be accurate once again in 1962, and that there was actually a Pontius Pilate. Why then should we assume that Barabbas was not real!
Carrying on,
He repeatedly said that all we had was the Bible (as if it was not good evidence for Christ) to support our beliefs about history. During this conversation I am wondering what on earth he was reading? I admit there are not many records outside of the Bible about Barabbas or Jesus (as far as I know) but to say that all we have is the Bible is ignorant.
Tacitus and the Talmud (http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm) for example mention Jesus. For me the gospels are enough, but to say that it is all made up, even his actual being a "person", I think is far fetched!
If I had his attitude to history as he did to Christianity then I probably would not believe the majority of history. I can be skeptical if I want to be, but then I must be skeptical about my own skeptical thinking.

ARGH, frustrating to talk to hurt people who seem to be against Christianity. I do hope he will come to his senses..I mean what do you say to someone like that? Nothing I can do but pray for him.
However, I can understand him being hurt with other people you look up to and respect, this so often happens with Pastors. Still no excuse though, pastors are people and after being to Bible college and seeing an inside look into a lot of what they have to deal with is eye opening. One preacher sugested that offences are caused by someone not living up to there expectations.
For example: What would you expect from a pastor and what would you think if he didn't meet your standards made for him?
Now, think about people who aren't in leadership...who much would you expect from them?
See, we have levels that we measure people with and it is easy to see how we can get so offended with people that we can possibly idolize.
Don't get me wrong, elders or pastors are to have a high standard as should all christians but I am talking about people forgetting that pastors are people who make mistakes.

Wow, that was little more blurb.

Dan

Germs, Labor Fever, and Biblical Sanitation

2009-11-08T21:34:00.000-08:00

Another interesting piece of scientific evidence for the inspired Word of God.

I am amazed at how the Bible's medical laws have so much of the modern knowledge and understanding about health and yet excludes the dangerous medical practices included in surrounding cultures 1.
(When I say "amazed" I mean that I am amazed at the evidence in the Bible to show that it is the Word of God...not "amazed" that God knows something about science!LOL)
I heard about the discovery where women in child labour during the 1880's had a highish mortality rate when treated by doctors that did not clean their hands properly after touching dead people.
If only people would heed God's Word a little sooner.
I managed to find this little piece of information on it...

Enjoy.

"Germs, Labor Fever, and Biblical Sanitation

In their book, None of These Diseases, physicians S.I. McMillen and David Stern discussed how many of the hygienic rules established by God for the children of Israel still are applicable today. To illustrate their point, they recounted the story of Ignaz Semmelweis.

In 1847, an obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was the director of a hospital ward in Vienna, Austria. Many pregnant women checked into his ward, but 18% of them never checked out. One out of every six that received treatment in Semmelweis’ ward died of labor fever (Nuland, 2003, p. 31). Autopsies revealed pus under their skin, in their chest cavities, in their eye sockets, etc. Semmelweis was distraught over the mortality rate in his ward, and other hospital wards like it all over Europe. Nuland noted that Australia, the Americas, Britain, Ireland, and practically every other nation that had established a hospital suffered a similar mortality rate (2003, pp. 41-43). If a woman delivered a baby using a midwife, then the death fell to only about 3%. Yet if she chose to use the most advanced medical knowledge and facilities of the day, her chance of dying skyrocketed immensely!

Semmelweis tried everything to curb the carnage. He turned all the women on their sides in hopes that the death rate would drop, but with no results. He thought maybe the bell that the priest rang late in the evenings scared the women, so he made the priest enter silently, yet without any drop in death rates.

As he contemplated his dilemma, he watched young medical students perform their routine tasks. Each day the students would perform autopsies on the dead mothers. Then they would rinse their hands in a bowl of bloody water, wipe them off on a common, shared towel, and immediately begin internal examinations of the still-living women. Nuland commented concerning the practice: “Because there seemed no reason for them to wash their hands, except superficially, or change their clothing before coming to the First Division, they did neither” (2003, p. 100). As a twenty-first-century observer, one is appalled to think that such practices actually took place in institutes of what was at the time “modern technology.” What doctor in his right mind would touch a dead person and then perform examinations on living patients—without first employing some sort of minimal hygienic practices intended to kill germs? But to Europeans in the middle-nineteenth-century, germs were virtually a foreign concept. They never had seen a germ, much less been able to predict its destructive potential. According to many of their most prevalent theories, disease was caused by “atmospheric conditions” or “cosmic telluric influences.”

Semmelweis ordered everyone in his ward to wash his or her hands thoroughly in a chlorine solution after every examination. In three months, the death rate fell from 18% to 1%. Semmelweis had made an amazing discovery. On the inside cover-flap of the book about Semmelweis, written by medical doctor and historian Sherwin Nuland, the text reads:

Ignác Semmelweis is remembered for the now-commonplace notion that doctors must wash their hands before examining patients. In mid-nineteenth-century Vienna, this was a subversive idea. With deaths from childbed fever exploding, Semmelweis discovered that doctors themselves were spreading the disease (2003, inside cover flap).

Had Semmeliweis made a groundbreaking discovery, or is it possible that he simply “rediscovered” what had been known in some circles for many years? Almost 3,300 years before Semmelweis lived, Moses had written: “He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.” Germs were no new discovery in 1847; the biblical text recorded measures to check their spread as far back as approximately 1500 B.C."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3159

The True God & The True Gospel - David Pawson

2009-11-08T01:14:00.000-08:00

A great talk from one of my favourite Bible teachers. It challenges mainline teachings of the christian church; it also will be an interesting listen for Christians and a help for some atheists to really grasp what Biblical Christianity is. Hope you enjoy it. I really enjoyed listening to them all and truly, I like straight forward no nonsense type teaching and getting down to the grit which is what Pawson is all about :) He is not afraid to be different...
and he is from Great Britain LOL...go the Brits!
He is easy to listen to and yet will say some things that may shock you.

It cuts off on part 4 which is dumb but you can understand what he is saying as a whole.

Thoughts anyone?

Dan

C.S. Lewis on pride

2009-11-04T21:37:00.000-08:00

My Fiancee and I have been continuing to read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". We have left some of his arguments/evidence for God and have entered his thoughts about the teachings of Jesus and Christianity in general. Although the whole book has been inspirational, I would like to share one chapter about pride which we found challenging. Oh how subtle pride is! I think most people can find this an interesting read all though I realize it is rather long as EPM pointed out but if you have time, do have a read and I welcome any comments and thoughts.
cheers, DB
P.S. I posted this again because apparently the text was warped???...sorry guys, hope this is better.

CHAPTER 18

THE GREAT SIN

I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, `How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me,. or show off ?' The point is that each person's pride is in competition with every one else's pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive-is competitive by its very nature-while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If every one else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.

Take it with money: Greed will certainly make a man want money, for the sake of a better house, better holidays, better things to eat and drink. But only up to a point. What is it that makes a man with £10,000 a year anxious to get £20,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. £10,000 will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride-the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power. For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing makes a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. What makes a pretty girl spread misery wherever she goes by collecting admirers? Certainly not her sexual instinct: that kind of girl is quite often sexually frigid. It is Pride. What is it that makes a political leader or a whole nation go on and on, demanding more and more? Pride again. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.

The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity - it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.

In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that - and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison -you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.

That raises a terrible question. How is it that people who are quite obviously eaten up with Pride can say they believe in God and appear to themselves very religious? I am afraid it means they are worshipping an imaginary God. They theoretically admit themselves to be nothing in the presence of this phantom God, but are really all the time imagining how He approves of them and thinks them far better than ordinary people: that is, they pay a pennyworth of imaginary humility to Him and get out of it a pound's worth of Pride towards their fellowmen. I suppose it was of those people Christ was thinking when He said that some would preach about Him and cast out devils in His name, only to be told at the end of the world that He had never known them. And any of us may at any moment be in this death-trap. Luckily, we have a test. Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good --above all, that we are better than someone else -- I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil. The real test of being in presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether.

It is a terrible thing that the worst of all the vices can smuggle itself into the very centre of our religious life. But you can see why. The, other, and less bad, vices come from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But this does not come through our animal nature at all. It comes direct from Hell. It is purely spiritual: consequently it is far more subtle and deadly. For the same reason. Pride can often be used to beat down the simpler vices. Teachers, in fact, often appeal to a boy's Pride, or, as they call it, his self-respect, to make him behave decently: many a man has overcome cowardice, or lust, or ill-temper by learning to think that they are beneath his dignity - that is, by Pride. The devil laughs. He is perfectly content to see you becoming chaste and brave and self-controlled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride-just as he would be quite content to see your chilblains cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer. For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.

Before leaving this subject I must guard against some possible misunderstandings:

(I) Pleasure in being praised is not Pride. The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says 'Well done,' are pleased and ought to be. For here the pleasure lies not in what you are but in the fact that you have pleased someone you wanted (and rightly wanted) to please. The trouble begins when you pass from thinking,, 'I have pleased him; all is well,' to thinking, 'What a fine person I must be to have done it.' The more you delight in yourself and the less you delight in the praise, the worse you are becoming. When you delight wholly in yourself and do not care about the praise at all, you have reached the bottom. That is why vanity, though it is the sort of Pride which shows most on the surface, is really the least bad and most pardonable sort. The vain person wants praise, applause, admiration, too much and is always angling for it. It is a fault, but a child-like and even (in an odd way) a humble fault. It shows that you are not yet completely contented with your own admiration. You value other people enough to want them to look at you. You are, in fact, still human. The real black, diabolical Pride, comes when you look down on others so much that you do not care what they think of you. Of course, it is very right, and often our duty, not to care what people think of us, if we do so for the right reason; namely, because we care so incomparably more what God thinks. But the Proud man has a different reason for not caring. He says 'Why should I care for the applause of that rabble as if their opinion were worth anything? And even if their opinions were of value, am I the sort of man to blush with pleasure at a compliment like some chit of a girl at her first dance? No, I am an integrated, adult personality. All I have done has been done to satisfy my own ideals - or my artistic conscience - or the traditions of my family - or, in a word, because I'm That Kind of Chap. If the mob like it, let them. They're nothing to me.' In this way real thoroughgoing pride may act as a check on vanity; for, as I said a moment ago, the devil loves 'curing' a small fault by giving you a great one. We must try not to be vain, but we must never call in our Pride to cure our vanity.

(2) We say in English that a man is 'proud' of his son, or his father, or his school, or regiment, and it may be asked whether 'pride' in this sense is a sin. I think it depends on what, exactly, we mean by 'proud of'. Very often, in such sentences, the phrase 'is proud of means 'has a warm-hearted admiration for'. Such an admiration is, of course, very far from being a sin. But it might, perhaps, mean that the person in question gives himself airs on the ground of his distinguished father, or because he belongs to a famous regiment. This would, clearly, be a fault; but even then, it would be better than being proud simply of himself. To love and admire anything outside yourself is to take one step away from utter spiritual ruin; though we shall not be well so long as we love and admire anything more than we love and admire God.

(3) We must not think Pride is something God forbids because He is offended at it, or that Humility is something He demands as due to His own dignity - as if God Himself was proud. He is not in the least worried about His dignity. The point is, He wants you to know Him: wants to give you Himself. And He and you are two things of such a kind that if you really get into any kind of touch with Him you will, in fact, be humble-delightedly humble, feeling the infinite relief of having for once got rid of all the silly nonsense about your own dignity which has made you restless and unhappy all your life. He is trying to make you humble in order to make this moment possible: trying to take off a lot of silly, ugly, fancy-dress in which we have all got ourselves up and are strutting about like the little idiots we are. I wish I had got a bit further with humility myself : if I had, I could probably tell you more about the relief, the comfort, of taking the fancy-dress off -getting rid of the false self, with all its 'Look at me' and 'Aren't I a good boy?' and all its posing and posturing. To get even near it, even for a moment, is like a drink of cold water to a man in a desert.

(4) Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call 'humble' nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a little envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all.

If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step. The first step is to realise that one is proud. And a biggish step, too. At least, nothing whatever can be done before it. If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.

Brian Tamaki - Strange happenings

2009-10-30T18:42:00.000-07:00

Some of you may not have heard of him but I would like to make an apology to all people outside of Christianity for actions taken by people like this. Assuming this article from the paper is true...this is not Christianity. I pray that this man and his followers will come to their senses and realign themselves with the gospel Jesus preached.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tamaki's 700 'sons' swear oath of loyalty

EXCLUSIVE - The leader of Destiny Church, Brian Tamaki, who not long ago anointed himself bishop of the church he founded, has now proclaimed himself the church's "spiritual father" and designated the male members of the church as "spiritual sons".

At a special service during the church's annual conference in Auckland at the weekend, about 700 male members of the church swore a "covenant oath" of loyalty and obedience to Mr Tamaki and were given a "covenant ring" to wear on their right hands.

A church document describes the covenant as "a solemn oath of commitment that is binding, enduring and unbreakable. You are bound to covenant ... Covenant is an irrevocable, undissolvable oath of commitment".

The document, entitled Protocols and Requirements Between Spiritual Father & His Spiritual Sons, contains the text of the "covenant oath", the guts of which is that "Above all, we stand here today in the presence of God to enter into this sacred covenant with our man of God, Bishop Brian Tamaki".

It says: "To you Bishop we pledge our allegiance, our faithfulness and loyalty. We pledge to serve the cause that is in your heart and to finish that work. Success to you and success to those who help you - for God is with you."

In its introduction, the church document says that proof of a man's covenant with God is how they "submit to God's chosen man ... We are blessed to our spiritual father through whom this principle is being restored. The fruit of his ministry is self-evident, so much so that his call and influence is discerned at many levels in both the Christian and non-Christian communities here in New Zealand ... Spiritual fathers are extremely rare ... For us it is about discerning the special anointing and function God has put on Bishop's life ... "

The requirements of sonship, the document says, are to give Mr Tamaki obedience and honour, to imitate him and follow his faith and to give him "your loyalty and your strength".

A church statement last night said the initiative was launched by Bishop Tamaki.

He said the covenant ceremony was witnessed by several thousand church-goers, and marked the culmination of a six-month programme aimed at "helping men to become better husbands and fathers and standout contributors to local community".

The Destiny Church statement said many of the men had emerged from social dysfunction, crime, alcohol or drug-related problems and domestic violence to become functional members of society.

Protocols

In the document comes a section entitled "Protocols towards our spiritual father", which takes 1300 words to describe in jaw-dropping detail how the "spiritual sons" shall behave towards their "spiritual father".

Under "Public Conduct", the sons will in all conversation always speak of Mr Tamaki in a favourable and positive light; and in formal and/or public occasions, they will always address him and his wife, Hannah, first in acknowledgments and addresses at meetings "as a sign of respect to the father of the movement".

If any "son" is honoured either by the church or secularly, he is to mention his "mentors and role models" - Mr and Mrs Tamaki - "because Bishop is one of God's best-known representatives in our country".

Under "Conduct Towards Bishop", the "sons" are told that "Bishop is the tangible expression of God", so they need to understand how to properly approach their man of God "to protect the anointing and not transgress this special relationship".

They are always to be respectful and honourable in Mr Tamaki's presence. "Even though he is very sociable and open - remember who he is!" They must never be "in his face" and must protect him from outsiders who attempt to do that.

They must ensure that Mr Tamaki and his wife are both honoured, cared for and given appropriate respect. "Bishop is a people person. Often it is better we offend others than him."

And since "Bishop carries our vision and our anointing for the future and hope of our families and offspring, we ought to guard, protect and watch out for him and Ps [Pastor] Hannah".

Under "Discernment", the "sons" are told they must "feel Bishop's flow and be attentive to his thoughts and directions", which "gives unity and power to what God is saying and doing through him".

They must endorse what Mr Tamaki endorses, fully support what he promotes and ensure that what he is involved in is supported and successful.

"Whenever Bishop speaks all other talking stops: give him your full attention. Be careful not to cut in on him when he is speaking and ensure others don't either.

"Don't start talking or gesturing to somebody else while Bishop is speaking."

The "sons" must never openly disagree with Mr Tamaki in front of others and must "be careful not to become familiar (which can lead to contempt)" with him "due to his friendliness and openness".

Under "Etiquette", the "sons" are told that when Mr Tamaki and his wife enter a room, they must stand and acknowledge their presence. They may sit only after the Tamakis are seated.

And if they dine with him they wait until he has started eating before they start eating, unless he indicates otherwise.

Vocal

Under "Church Service (in house) Protocols" the men are encouraged to sit as close as possible to the front of the church to be nearer to Mr Tamaki and to be vocal during his preaching, affirming what he has to say with "amen" and "that's right", clapping, shouting and laughing. This sort of participation is said to build "an atmosphere that is conducive to supernatural events".

They are told to bring Bible, pen, paper or laptop to note down Mr Tamaki's sermons which "shows how highly you value the Word of God from Bishop's mouth".

They should come to church anticipating that God will speak through Mr Tamaki and should always be dressed well at all meetings with him. "His dress code is your dress code." They should also look happy and smile and be friendly to all and encourage people.

Under "Supporting Bishop's Function & Ministry", the "sons" are encouraged to find out Mr Tamaki's speaking itinerary and travel to other churches and engagements to support him, because a team of men around their bishop "reflects his importance to them".

They must never tolerate anyone (regardless of who they are) speaking or talking critically of Mr Tamaki and his wife/family or the church. "You are not only to stop them in their tracks but warn them that they criticise you when they criticise Bishop."

They should celebrate Mr Tamaki's special occasions with him with surprises on birthdays, anniversaries and special occasions or achievements.

"Don't wait for others to do it. It is a sign of your love and respect for him: at times give gifts to him and/or Ps Hannah. A gift means many things - love, honour and blessing them: they will feel appreciated."

The men are exhorted to be protective of Mr Tamaki and his family. The protocol says he "will be more criticised, scrutinised and demonised than most others because of who he is and what he carries".

"You will hear all sorts of statements and opinions but you must be prepared to ignore them and consistently hold him in the same high regard no matter what you hear."

Somewhat surprisingly, the protocol says that Mr Tamaki is human and does make mistakes.

However, the sons must "be prepared to defend against any problems arising out of his mistakes.

A loyal man is supposed to 'cushion' the effect of a mistake on Bishop and to protect him. NEVER intentionally expose his weakness."

It says Mr Tamaki may downplay and even discourage "sons" in overtly honouring him, "BUT that should never stop the men from doing what is honourable and what is in their heart to do".

"The bishop's discomfort with honour should never rob the people of the spiritual rewards for such honourable and respectful actions towards him.

It is appropriate, says the protocol, for men to tell others of their love for Mr Tamaki, who is "one of the most well-known representatives of God in our country". The "sons" must reinforce and emphasise what he says and preaches and quote him as often as possible in favourable terms.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605956&pnum=0

Belief and influence

2009-10-20T23:15:00.000-07:00

Da Bomb said...: Zilch,

Atheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in gods, the default position we all come into the world with.

Christian theism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

Stop wearing that neutral hat, it doesn't fit. I don't have enough faith to believe what you believe.
To boil down what you are telling me, is that unless I see the causer of something...I must not believe it was caused.
But children come into this world with the basic understanding of cause and effect which then is the basic understanding of God and the universe.

Stan,

No matter what you believe about god, the inclined plane behaves the way it does. No matter what you think about god, light refraction behaves per Snell's law

How do you know that light will always behave as light behaves? by faith?
Your worldview does not tell me that it was designed and made to always be that way, but to me it was designed.

Just as a car. I can have faith in a car to work because it was designed (I also trust the designer of the car :)).
However for you, no one made the car. How do know it will work consistently enough to test and use the different mechanisms in it.
Just because it has does not necessarily mean it will.

And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms.

My "would be" old earth views

2009-10-14T13:02:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

Talking to EPM and reading many others (christians and atheists) I have found it interesting to weigh the evidence for young earth or old earth both Biblically and scientifically. I write this post because I have seen increasing evidence for an older earth and so I desire to see where it fits in with what God has told me through His Word.

Here we go:

When I read Genesis 1, I did find it hard to comprehend an old earth view in regard to the days. For one thing the word "day" is "yom" which seems to refer to a 24 hour period, especially when it refers to a morning and an evening.

However, looking closer at the days, I notice that day seven does not have a morning and an evening? I wonder why? Was day seven longer than the others or is it because day seven is not yet complete? "yom" can mean a long period of time not just 24 hours.
So I begin to wonder whether morning and evening simply represent complete periods of creation that God has made. I don't know when day seven ended but some people suggest that it ended when Jesus died on the cross and now He is creating a new heavens and a new earth (John 14:2,3. 1 Peter 3:13)

So why did God talk about "days" of creation with a morning and an evening? Throughout Exodus God tells them to follow the pattern of six days work and one day rest. I am thinking that God gave us an example to follow by example. God worked six "God days" and rested a seventh day.
We know that time is different for God and day to God or a watch in the night is as a thousand years. (Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night". 2Pe 3:8 "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.")

So time is relative...as Einstein would say :) God worked days in relation to Him as an example for mankind to work six days and rest on the seventh.

Regarding lights in the heavens to rule the day. A problem arises, was there light in the beginning and yet no stars? Was the sun after the green foods?

"16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also."

One thing I notice about this verse is that the words "God made two great lights" implies that God had created them at an earlier date but was completing the work He started by clearing the atmosphere to let the sun and the moon rule their time periods properly.
"Made" is an imperfect tense thus it could possibly mean a past tense. So day one could mean that God created the heavens through the big bang and stretched it out as it says in Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

What God did on day four was that He cleared the atmosphere to allow the great lights to become visible properly from a view from on earth.

Regarding the order of creation, it seems there may be a little bit of disorder as what people claim in the fossil record. An explanation I had heard suggested that when God wrote chapter 1 it covered millions of years so when God wrote the order of His work He did not give us a critical path analysis. He gave us a quick overview of His workings such as when I describe building a house, I would say 1. First came the builder 2. Second came the electrician 3. Third came the plumber, or similar.
What I now ask is "Did they all come with an exact stop and finish when I describe it this way or are they overlapped in their time periods?". So in general God gave us the rough accurate display of what He did...first came the plants...second came fish and third came the land animals, which then overlap each other.

What about animal death?
I always grew up thinking that there was no death before the Fall. But I don't even know where it say that in the Bible? Some people use Romans 5:12 " Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"
But when I read that it seems to only talk about mankind's death. When I look at the world around me, I see beauty. Not just in things that look nice but in animals that can cause pain such as bees, how amazing and well made they are! Our world seems to fit like a clove and work together so well causing what some would say is the circle of life.
I struggle to comprehend a world with just beings (such as a lion) that didn't live off one another.

Psalm 104 is interesting:
17 Where the birds make their nests; The stork has her home in the fir trees.
18 The high hills are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 ¶ He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.
20 You make darkness, and it is night, In which all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they gather together And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work And to his labor until the evening.
24 O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions—

NEway, I don't have a problem with death before Adam and Eve. However something is terribly wrong in the human race because the Bible says that death entered mankind through sin and that we were to have dominion over what God had created. The problems arisen in these areas (man's dominion) are what I believe is the result of the curse.

Regarding evolution and Genesis 1:
Some scientists seem to say that the fossil record is grouped rather than transitional, however should evolution be shown to be true and I am convinced then I find interesting wording used in Genesis 1.
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so."
and:
20 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
and:
24 ¶ Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.

Interesting, the verses speak for themselves.

Well, that is a quick overview of some thoughts that I have.

Cheers,

Dan

Promise Keepers: Returned

2009-10-11T01:14:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

I'm back from a wonderful time at PK.
I heard some awesome speakers and testimonies of miracles and God working in people's lives... and many got saved! One guy shared his testimony about how he was an alcoholic and drug addict who started/joined (can't remember) a gang in Wellington. He went to prison and had a contract to kill his wife.
In prison he sought God and in this particular moment God revealed Himself to Him and he was saved. This guy was healed from alcoholism and addiction to drugs. He also could not read or write, but God gave him the ability to read and write!
Another trophy of grace, someone who found God and found purpose in Him.

I found it really quite amazing to be with 2,000 guys or so and sing to the Lord and worship Him together.

In reply to the following about PK, I will share what I have learnt.

BeamStalk said...: It is pure evil Matt....

It is all about being a "man of the Bible". Knowing the roles of males and females according to the Bible. You can flesh it out from there.
I learnt:

1. To love and honour God with all my heart and will
2. To love my future wife unconditionally. To look after her and look out for her needs. To be a good husband to her, one that will be faithful to her.
3. To be a good future father. To spend time with my future kids, to love them and bring them up in the ways of God. To be a good example to them, a person they can look up to.
4.To support my fellow brethren in Christ, to help one another and keep each other accountable.
5. To be sexually pure before God. Reserving ourselves for the wife He has/will bring along for us.
6. To honour and support our leaders.
7. To pray faithfully for our family etc.
8. To spread the gospel and fulfill the Great Commission, to share the good news of Jesus Christ dying for our sins and paying the price for our trespasses. To share the good news with the broken hearted, that they may be whole.

On a side note:
I was watching an arm wrestling competition between two guys and one guy broke his arm! I heard it go crack! Insane. Some of those guys were extremely strong.
A couple of other injurys happened but all was good and we had an awesome time.

cheers,

Dan

P.S.

BathTub said...: Wow, they are still around? went to one of those like 15 years ago or so.
Try make it along next year BT. I'll pay for you if you like.
PK is well alive.

Promise Keepers

2009-10-08T11:37:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

I'm off to Promise Keepers for the next couple of days.
Have a great weekend!

Dan

Results

2009-10-04T22:21:00.000-07:00

I got my results back for my essay "Belief and the Existence of God"

I am happy with how it came out. My tutor said that my focus was good for the huge topic that I attempted to do in just 2000 words.
She said my referencing was good...Stan :)
and said that I pulled it together really well after how my draft turned out (which was not so good).

But yes my main failure was that I tried to fit too many topics in and she said that it needed to be tighter, which would come about if I kept it to a smaller portion of the topic :(

C.S Lewis's surviving BBC radio address

2009-10-01T22:50:00.000-07:00

Here is an audio recording of one of my favourite authors. It would have been recorded mid way through last century.

EPM, check out the english accent! Bring you home for a bit ay? (unless you are Scottish or something) :)

and a part 2 (another subject)

Circular morality

2009-09-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

G.E. said:

Pain, suffering, survival. Are these concepts so hard to grasp? Those are the keys to our "morality." They are as universal as can be. A species that did not take those into account would go extinct. It goes to reason that our morals were key in our survival, in our ability to cooperate and strive. Those species who could not have the minimum "morals" perished. It is all too obvious.

-Is a tough marriage wrong then?...because it hurts? Are you saying they should split up because it would suit them better to survive?...
Or should they pull through and keep their vows to one another...for better or for worse, because it is right to do what is right?

-So Hitler was right to fight for his fittest empire?

Morality according to your view is whatever suits us best, it seems. Isn't this relativism?
Morality is relative...that is, relative to God, I don't deny that. But without God then morals are relative to the individual here on earth, with no penalty whatsoever (except governments elected by man and changeable).
What if everyone eventually decided that killing off the weak in the human race was the right moral standard for everyone? Would that make it "right"?

I would say no, because morality is a standard put in place by God for every period of time.

DB

P.S. PLZ don't take offense at my examples; Open, blunt, honesty is generally what I like (with tactfulness :)). If what you are saying were true then these are the questions I raise.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

2009-09-29T19:32:00.000-07:00

I just saw this film recently

Have any of you guys seen it?
I thought it was one of the most powerful point making movies I have ever seen! It really reveals the reality of the Holocaust, not just the Holocaust, but all the people involved around it. It shows the relations between the supporters of Nazi Germany and the opposes...in Germany, also the ignorance of some was revealed.

May God bring justice...and yet, may He also bring mercy on the repentant.

Dan

Does God Exist?

2009-09-25T05:23:00.000-07:00

Here is video where someone is claiming that God is evil because He made everything, including evil. To see a "supposed" reply from Albert Einstein, watch the following.
A must see.

Evidence, Revelations

2009-09-24T02:20:00.000-07:00

EPM said:

I guess I'll tell you what evidence would convince me of a +God universe (your God, specifically)....
Other evidence would include personal revelation from God....
The Rapture. If the Rapture happened then I would instantly convert. No question.
Finally, if a YEC were able to accurately describe the theory of evolution - with a decent cross-section of the evidence that supports it - and then were to refute it using sound reasoning and scientific evidence; then I'd convert too.

Not because the ToE had been disproved, that makes no difference. Merely because a YEC was able to display a level of honesty and intellectual rigour with regards to evolution that, so far, has been so lacking that it would be miraculous at this point to actually see it. ;)

Firstly, I doubt from talking to you in the past whether you would take an angel as evidence...you would merely think you were dreaming? Yes?
Rapture...is too late as far as I know. Might as well say "When God sends me to hell, then I will believe."
Finally, you should not base your beliefs about God on your concept of dishonest people. True? Just because people can lie while in politics, does this mean that politics do not exist?
Remember, YEC people are not the only "fundamentalist" Christian believers. To me fundamentalist means sticking to the truth of the whole Bible.

I will aim to get my "would be" old earth view on soon for you as you have expressed interest in the past.

I presented things that could conceivably occur and would convince me that the way I currently view the world is wrong. You have failed to provide such instances.

Can you show me how it is probable that earth fell into just the right distance from the sun to form delicate life? Also can you show me how apparent order in our universe that seems to be like building blocks of laws working together... that seem to fit together so well, without design?

Also, show me how when at times I have prayed in faith and miracles have happened or unlikely situations occur along with my prayer, how did it happen by accident?

These refutations might convince me of no God. I would need to weigh the evidence. Just as you weigh the evidence...but we come to different conclusions. I am unconvinced of a universe without God. You are unconvinced of a universe with God.

BeamStalk said:

Eye witness testimony means nothing without corroborating evidence. There are men being freed in Texas that were accused of rape by eye witness testimony, including victim testimony. Why are they being freed? DNA evidence proves they didn't do it. Now were the eye witnesses lying? Probably not, I would guess that most were mistaken or did not see everything as clearly as they thought and the mind filled in the blanks.

Yes I know people get things wrong but we are talking about EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF. How do court cases generally make their decisions? by looking at the evidence they have, taking the best conclusion. We all live like this.
From DNA, they inference the best conclusion. DNA is not proof from my understanding. 2+2=4 is proof, it is a truism , but in reality we all take conclusions on assumptions to some degree.

What did you have for tea/dinner/supper? (whatever Americans call it :))
We know that food can be poisoned without us knowing it. Do you scientifically test it to see if it is poisoned each time or do you take the best conclusion?
Do you test the air each time you breath it in?

BeamStalk said:
Here is an example:
A person walks up to you and says, "I have a baseball."
You respond, "Do you have any evidence for this?"
"Here it is in my hand."

A different person walks up to you and says, "I have a baseball."
"Do you have any evidence for this?"
"YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE A BASEBALL!"

I'll re-write it to demonstrate how I see it:
A person walks up to you and says, "I have affectionate love for someone."
You respond, "Do you have any evidence for this?"

"Yes, the affects of it"

A different person walks up to you and says, "I have affectionate love for someone."
"Do you have any evidence for this?"
"Yes, but YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE AFFECTIONATE LOVE FOR SOMEONE!"

The person with affectionate love cannot show scientifically as a "baseball" that it is real...but they can have evidence of this affectionate love that leads to the conclusion of a real affectionate love.
God is not stick and stone, He is God. We can see evidence of His affects (like love) on creation around us. I cannot see wind, but I can see it's affects.

P.S. Who is Dani'EL?

Baby as a preacher?

2009-09-21T00:16:00.000-07:00

I am sure this little one could out do many preachers concerning energy and enthusiasm spent while preaching! Sure does have a fire and a passion...bring on the next Charles Spurgeon! LOL

Rowan Atkinson

2009-09-18T20:26:00.001-07:00

A bit of lightheartedness.

A funny guy doing a funny gig from his earlier days. Do check it out, I thought this was absolutely awesome!

Rowan Atkinson and the invisible drum kit.

Dan

Playing with negatives and positives

2009-09-16T22:35:00.000-07:00

I am a non-believer in atheism.
I am a non-believer in the non-existence of God.
I am unconvinced of the existence of a universe without God.
I don't have enough faith to believe in the non-existence of God.
I cannot see the existence of a universe without God so I would need to have faith in order to believe it.

Actually I cannot see God as well, which then means I need faith to believe in Him also. Which one is more probable? The evidence needs to be weighed and considered regarding the existence of a Godless universe, whereas evidence needs to be weighed also for the non-existence of a Godless universe.

I need to make the best conclusion regarding this matter. But could the invisible pink unicorn be a real option as to being part of our reality? Maybe it is, maybe because I cannot see it or test it, but then I must find out the evidence pointing toward it pointing out whether it is probable or not. But it is merely a parody which is not good evidence for it at all...so I logically conclude that it is not real but there is a chance that it could be real. I am willing to act by faith that the invisible pink unicorn is not real.

However I am not willing to act by faith that God is not real. He is no parody. A book written over thousands of year and followed by millions of people seems better evidence for Him. My life has been changed by Him, he has guided me and shown me the way in which I should walk.

Another thought**** if I do not follow what He says then I am actively following against His will, and against His existence. I would not be neutral, just as when I follow after God and ignore atheistic thinking, I am not neutral. I have chosen that atheism is the least likely answer by following God.

It would take me more faith to believe He does not exist. Such an amazing awareness He has placed in me that I should be able to have knowledge and understanding of Him to some degree. How can a universe without meaning form to allow itself to understand meaning and find out that the universe has no meaning.
I remember Lewis saying that it is like "darkness". If there were no light in the universe then there would be no creatures with eyes. Would the creatures have concept of "dark" without the concept of light... would the creatures developed in our universe have concept of meaning and no meaning when the universe is without meaning?
Does a fish feel wet?

Little thoughts like this cause me to think that the best conclusion about our universe is that there is a God. But which God?...and we then move into another topic.

I simply dis-believe in the positive active belief in a universe without the existence of God.
We all have faith and for someone to suggest that they do not have faith in something is dishonest. Theists admit it...why can't atheists?

To witness an ignorant atheist suggest that he doesn't "believe" atheism and yet is an atheist, watch the following http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Essay - Belief and the Existence of God

2009-09-13T03:10:00.000-07:00

Belief and the Existence of God

Atheism and theism is the central idea regarding our reality, our lives, our being. This essay will aim to draw out the two different ideas regarding the existence of God and how it affects our lives. It will also seek to demonstrate Christian theism as the most rational explanation for our universe. The fundamental question for every person is the question “Is there a God?” We cannot sit on the fence in regard to this universal issue; the relations between belief or disbelief and the existence of God affect the very way we live and the way we perceive life.

A central focus will be made on The Dawkins Lennox debate held in 2007; it will be a heavy reference throughout this essay. Dawkins holds an atheist view point and John Lennox brings a Christian theist’s view point; both are very well qualified men and worth the time to acknowledge on this topic. Their qualifications and short bios are as follows:

“Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. He is the author of nine books: The selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind watchmaker, river out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The Ancestor’s Tale and The God Delusion. He is Fellow of both Royal society and the Royal Society of Literature.
John Lennox is Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, University of Oxford. He holds doctorates from Oxford (D.Phil.), Cambridge (Ph.D.), and the University of Wales (D.Sc.) and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. Professor Lennox has weighed in on the science-religion debate with a new book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007).

Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of God. (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). There are a number of atheists that vary in their beliefs but there are examples from well known atheists that suggest the primary reasons for their disbelief in God. In the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, it is revealed some of the reasons why a leading atheist Richard Dawkins rejects the idea of God (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). He states that the revelation of the theory of evolution showed him that the idea of a Supernatural Designer is not needed to produce complex creatures. He also states that if God existed then He would need to come from somewhere. These questions raise a number of issues such as “Does evolution take away the necessity of a Grand Designer?” or “Because we cannot scientifically test God does this mean that God is not real?” For the atheist, reasons such as these cause them to disbelieve in God.

Theism is the belief in God. (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006) There are also a number of reasons for theists to believe in God. One reason is that there is design in the universe that is un-explained. John Lennox states that the universe is mathematically fine-tuned for the way we have it (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007), such as the ability to support life. Hugh Ross gives evidence that if it were slightly changed neither we nor life would be here (cited in Deem, 2006). Theists see that where there is apparent design it should be assumed there is a designer. Theists deduct that it takes more faith to believe our fine-tuned universe happened by accident, than to believe it was designed (David Pawson Ministries, 2005).

Morality has been a controversial issue and is thought and considered by every person to some degree. Different fundamental beliefs regarding morality have its consequences, for Christian theism morality is defined by God in the Bible. According to Dawkins, atheism has no absolutes regarding morality except for what our supposed evolutionary development has produced. Richard Dawkins who is a biologist describes morality as “dancing to our DNA” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). However if this is the case then there is no real or absolute way to define what is morally right or wrong in a universal sense. This kind of thinking is known as relativism; R.C. Sproul Jr. states that with morals being relative it destroys the ability for someone to define a situation as “wrong” or “right”(2007, p.101). Therefore atheistic relativism has the consequence of ultimately no universal “rights”; this line of thinking by obvious reasoning can be destructive. Dawkins argues that our ideas of morals have come from evolutionary causes and development (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). But this line of thinking still leaves a lingering thought: could someone really say that Hitler was “wrong” and be “right”? C.S. Lewis argues that the reason why people thought Hitler was “wrong” is that there was a line that every person looked to in order to judge him by; Lewis illustrates “Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality- for them to be true about.”(1952, p.13). Therefore universal morality is evidence of a standard not made by human means, but by God.

A significant issue is raised in regards to belief and consequence with the ability to justify his/her reasoning. An argument known as the “argument from reason” can be found in a book “Miracles” which brings to light this problem (Lewis, 1947). What it is saying is that if we were not designed to think then we cannot trust our thinking to be able to reach ultimate truth about our universe. In the chapter “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” C.S. Lewis draws out the point that mankind are different from animals in that we see truths through inferences. For example, when someone comes across a garden they inference “There must be a gardener” (The Dawkins Lennox debate 2007); whereas animals are less concerned with abstract meaning and if they come across a garden they may not be as aware that it has a gardener. Throughout history, man has been looking for answers using abstract thought as to why he is here. Evidence of this can be found in the Bible which is one of the oldest books to be written (Nelson, 1994). To conclude the consequences of reason Lewis illustrates:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God” (cited in Argument from Reason, 2009).

Unfortunately for the atheist the problem of purporting rationality from irrationality enters into the realm of science. If science requires the variables being tested to be consistent – if there is no Designer who designed them to be consistent – then how can we be sure that they will continue to be consistent? John Lennox makes a point that the early scientists understood that the laws are orderly because they understood that they had a law-Giver (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). A theist scientist knows that because they are orderly they can actually practice science; this is what science is and demands: “systematic study and knowledge of natural or physical phenomena” (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). If someone disbelieves in God it throws a challenging light onto their justification to practice reliable science, because if the laws were not designed, then they are potentially less able to be trusted.

It is by faith that theists believe in God and it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they do believe (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). Through discussing with atheists (Pilgrimage, 2009), the greatest struggle between atheism and Christian theism is the idea of belief and disbelief in God; the very meanings of those labels and “isms” bear witness to this fact. There are two types of atheists; one is a strong atheist who claims to know there is no God and the other is a weak atheist who does not know if there is a God. A weak atheist claims that by default they are without belief in God but they still admit there could be one, though some claim to be “agnostic” atheists and believe that it is impossible to know if there is a God. Atheism claims that theism is unscientific because God cannot be falsified and theism is accused of using the God of the gaps fallacy (God of the gaps, 2009, The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). Therefore atheists basically believe in what they can be sure of, mainly through scientific demonstration. An emphasis is made on a simple disbelief in God (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). There is no scientific proof of God, nor is there scientific proof of no-God. So we cannot pull down God and test Him in a test tube; proof is only spoken of in the field of mathematics (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). For theists finding truth and having faith is about taking the best conclusion with the evidence they have laid out before them, they take a belief in something beyond a reasonable doubt (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007).

Belief is “a principle or idea considered to be true; religious faith” (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). So a belief is what someone considers to be true; but belief is not merely speaking out what someone believes, but is more like speaking and then acting on what they believe. If someone was a Christian theist by statement and did not consistently do what Christian theists did, then they would not be a real actively living Christian theist. Consider now the weak or agnostic atheist and their stance on their disbelief in God. Notice the claim of “disbelief” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007) rather than the claim of “I believe atheism”. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the theist. The theist in reply to the atheist’s disbelief in God might as well reply “I just disbelieve in the non-existence of God” (Brian, 2009). Every person does not have a neutral belief; there is a need to act upon the best conclusion about the existence of God and live it out. Belief or disbelief in the existence of God is not a matter of “I don’t know”, but a matter of “taking the best conclusion”. Atheists not only disbelieve in God but by their actions they actively believe in no God by not acknowledging or following His ways. Without God there can be no absolute right and wrong outside of what individuals think; individuals live the way they like (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). For example, a murderer who has a lifestyle of a murderer cannot say and be neutral (even if he is honest) “I don’t know if there is a state law by which we will be judged”. Belief in regard to the existence of God affects the way we live and we cannot escape it, just as the law of the land affects the way we live.

Every person has a “religion” or something they devote their lives to by choice. Sir Keith Sinclair (1961, cited in Ahdar, 2006, p.620), speaking of New Zealand in post-World War II, states “The prevailing religion is a simple materialism. The pursuit of wealth and possession fills more minds than thoughts of salvation”. Religion is not only a belief in God but a devotion to something people believe in. We need to understand what our chosen religious world view or devotion has led us to and where it is taking us. World views such as Atheism and Christianity need to be weighed and taken seriously.

Some evidence points to the conclusion of God and some evidence points to the conclusion of no God. However, one conclusion is better than the other when the evidence is weighed. The Bible makes the Christian theist’s position clear in Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” (Nelson, 1994). Beliefs have consequences, and people need to have understanding of what they believe and the consequences of what they believe. The Bible says that people are either for Him or against Him; there is no in-between (Nelson, 1994). People need to make the best decision with the evidence placed before them. It is imperative that people make a conscious decision about where they stand regarding belief and the existence God.

References:
Ahdar, R. (2006). Reflections on the Path of Religion-State Relations in New Zealand. Brigham Young University Law Review, 3, 619-659.

Argument from Reason. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from Http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Reason

Brian. (2009, July 9). How to be morally responsible sceptic mp3 audio by Dallas Willard. Message posted to the comments, archived at http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Collins, C., Cross, R., Gilmour, L., Holmes, A., Mackie, W., & Weber, P. (Eds.). (2006). Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus (3rd ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

David Pawson Ministries. (2005, January 12th) Natural disasters a biblical perspective (Television broadcast). Britain: Revelation TV.

Deem, R. (2006, June) Evidence for the fine tuning of the universe. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

God of the gaps. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Criticisms_of_the_view

Lewis, C. (1947). Miracles. London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Lewis, C. (1952). Mere Christianity (Rev.). London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Nelson, T. (1994) The holy bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Pilgrimage. (2009) Retrieved from http://www.vessel-of-clay.blogspot.com/

Sproul Jr., R. (2002) Tearing down strongholds. New Jersey, P&R Publishing Company.

Taunton, L. (Executive director). (2007, October).The Dawkins Lennox debate. Birmingham: Fixed Point Foundation.

by Daniel (Da Bomb)

Further thoughts about evolution

2009-09-10T02:59:00.000-07:00

I was talking to a friend the other day and he brought up an interesting point on which I will expand.

If people lived in trees and there were no way of getting down except flying. Would people develop through evolutionary processes wings to fly down?...in other words accidental unguided information forming to produce wings?

Apparently it is claimed that dinosaurs turned into birds...I wonder why and how?
I just don't have the faith to believe that sought of thing.

Yes, I am sure there is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for ufo's...it does not mean that they are real.

Similarities of fossils does not mean they are derived from each other. It could mean they have a similar designer.

:)

I have a Nissan car and it is made by Nissan. There are many different varieties and ages of my car and I could show you a tree of the developments of there design. Did they accidentally evolve...or were they made?

Do you see the evolutionary assumption or fallacy?

Well, nearly finished my essay and I am back

2009-09-07T03:12:00.000-07:00

A challenge from Stan the half truth teller,

"Rather than saying "I disagree," the onus is on you to explicitly show where and how this argument fails, if indeed you continue to deny it"

Stan challenged someone to point out his logical flaws about his conclusion about the christian God.
These are the premises that he concluded that God forces and desires people to go to hell or at least claims that God is contradictory.

"P1. The Christian god prefers not a populated hell.
P2. The Christian god knew that creating would result in a populated hell.
P3. The Christian god is the "first cause."
P4. The Christian god had in its power the ability to not-create.
P5. The Christian god chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell."

I will point out his logical flaws.

P1. Half true...God would rather have a being (us) with the opportunity to choose Him or not to choose Him (loyalty), rather than having a predestined empty hell and a full heaven (robots living in paradise). God still wants an empty hell, but He leaves it up to us.
P2. As far as I know. True
P3.True
P4. We know that He did create.
P5. Half true... It is more like, God chose to create in such a fashion as to "allow" a populated hell, just as the police allow criminals to go to jail, even though the police keep telling them they don't have to go to jail.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
— C.S. Lewis

Stan, your half true premises show your ability to twist truth about the God of the Bible. Clever, but wrong.

P.S.
I am currently organising a wedding and maybe buying a house! Busy busy. I'll try to be on every second day or so.

cheers guys.

Dan

Faith like Potatoes

2009-08-25T01:59:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

I could not resist. I have just seen a great movie about a Scottish farmer "Angus Buchan" in Africa. It was so powerful...it really moved me. I just had to share this story with you guys. It is based on a true story, many amazing miracles!

God is real, I just want to say that over and over again. Seek Him...I so hope you all will come to know our Maker!!

Here is a Bio:
http://www.shalomtrust.co.za/inside-shalom/angus-buchan-biography

Regards,

Daniel.

P.S. Ok, back to study :)

2-3 weeks

2009-08-23T00:55:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone,

Thank you for all the discussions so far...
The next few weeks I am going to take a break from blogging and will focus on getting a 2000 word essay written for a paper at uni.
It is called "belief and the existence of God".

Should it turn out alright I will aim to post it on here.
Feel free to discuss among yourselves should you desire.

cheers,

Dan

Argument from morality

2009-08-21T00:28:00.000-07:00

A fascinating thought.

Why is it that man has such a strong sense of right and wrong? To the point that even when someone breaks their promise we get upset. But if we break our promises we always need to find an excuse as to why we broke our promise.

Is there a standard outside of human opinion that all humans have a similar opinion on?

I'll let Lewis illustrate on a couple of points:

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality--for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head,' how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve,' there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse. - Mere Christianity

Or did morality (if you believe in evolution) come about through evolutionary developments?
(I hope you don't mind me quoting Lewis all the time, I am fascinated by so many interesting insights of his) :)

Note: C.S. Lewis believed in evolution.

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If' two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note. - Mere Christianity

If there is no right and wrong ultimately then how can there be right and wrong? If it is the choice of humanity then it comes down to opinion. It would be merely my opinion to say that Hitler was "wrong".

R.C. Sproul Jr. stated that if there is no centre mark to aim for then how can you tell how far off the mark you are?
I remember a story he once said about when he was lecturing english classes. He stood up against the idea of relativism and stated that there was a real wrong and a real right.

A person in charge of him suggested that his career would not go far if he continued to talk like this. R.C. replied asking "Are you trying to say that it is "wrong" to say that there is a right and wrong?"

The person asked him to leave...

Without God there can be no right and wrong except for opinion. The person that will win their version of right and wrong will be the person with the biggest stick.

Two opposing beliefs

2009-08-18T02:17:00.000-07:00

Just to let you guys know that I understand what you are saying about the goodness of God and I will write exactly what I believe you are saying and the response I will give to it.

You believe that since God knows all things that He is responsible for sending people to hell because He could have made it otherwise but He chose to make the situation where they went to hell. You blame God for making us with the ability to sin and the ability to spend eternity in hell.
You think it is unfair that Adam and Eve sinned and we should inherit their sinful nature. You believe that although we have a freewill and try not to shift the blame, ultimately God is to be blamed because He caused creation to happen which would result in people going to hell.

Am I correct?
The problems you bring up many Christians have often already thought about it before. We are not ignorant fools...we just dis-agree with what you are saying.

What I believe:

I'll start by quoting ND's paragraph from his blog about a dialog between the Godhead because I think it forms a good basis...

A Prelude to the Beginning.

Before this begins, we know that some of you will rebel against us and eventually we will have to banish you from our presence. However, whether you are Ang-el or Adam, you must play out your destiny in order for us to reach the goal. For we desire not to have mindless servants but dedicated and loving companions who desire to be with us and serve all through a committed and brotherly love.

We could create beings that would do our beck and call but they would not be what we desire because they would not have reached the goal through your own free will. Such companionship can only be obtained by taking a journey along the path of your own choosing. On this journey, you will always be in our presence or have the evidence of our existence. However, you have to choose your way based on faith, not by sight. We will now embark on that journey.

Are we committed?

We are committed.

Let it happen.

(Before I continue, remember to check me up in the Bible)

God made His creation knowing the end from the beginning as far as I know. His plan is to have man made in His image with His freewill. Man can choose good or evil. God made man as a "whole". All mankind is linked. Because Adam fell, we (his descendants) now have been affected with a nature of sin being his children. But we still have a conscious and are responsible for our OWN actions.

God will judge us by our own actions. God set out to save us and give mankind a second chance by dying and paying the punishment for stuffing up His world. Our evils and our pains He laid on His back. So that mankind can choose to be good once again and live in the presence of a good God. Though God foreknew some people would choose to go and rebel against His will, He still did not cause them to. He occasioned them to or allowed them to.

If God did not allow this, then love/loyalty/freewill/faithfulness in regard to man would be a myth. How can you have love/loyalty/faithfulness without the opportunity to be hateful/disloyal/unfaithful?

God knows who loves Him by who follows His commands and seeks His presence. God is goodness in Himself, He is not like us. Yes, I take this by faith...that God is good and that He will be faithful. Whether God chooses not to sin and therefore cannot sin (being omnipotent) or whether He by nature cannot sin I do not know. All I know and accept by faith is that God is good as portrayed in His Word.

Faith is evidence of things unseen. I see evidence of God's goodness and therefore believe it and continue to believe it in the future. The next glass of water I drink I have evidence that it is drinkable by the track record of knowing it is drinkable. Yet I drink with faith. (Understand my principle)

We all have faith. Atheists, theists....the difference is, some faiths have better evidence for it than others.

I obviously think Christianity is the best answer to life and I am not ashamed of it.

Meaning

2009-08-14T03:33:00.000-07:00

I have since found these thoughts from Lewis rather interesting about whether there is meaning behind our universe, like this flower pot. It has more meaning than just flowers in a flower pot.

He illustrates:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.
Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. 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." (Mere Christianity)

I have heard one person make a point that the complexity of what we have today in our universe is like getting a thousand monkeys on type writers hoping to draft a thesis.

1. So, what are the likely hoods of our universe accidentally producing creatures with the ability to understand the concept of meaning?

2. Is it more likely that it was an accident or objectively caused?

3. Would the concept of meaning arise out of no meaning? Just as, would the concept of dark ever hit us if there were no light?

Many, many questions really, we need to be honest with ourselves.
I believe that God has made us to understand meaning, in order to understand God as our Maker. We are designed to think and understand meaning, unlike animals.
We have two cows on our little piece of land. Should they walk through our garden, I am sure they would have no idea that they are trespassing and have no idea that it is ordered for a reason/meaning :) To them it is just food. But when a person sees it, they wonder why it is ordered and conclude with the best option that it must have had someone who ordered it with a meaning/purpose in mind.

Omniscience, Omnipotence

2009-08-11T17:44:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about the problems that people have (including Christians) with getting rid of Greek ideas of thought.

For example. Where in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent? All powerful to do good and evil.
I know He is most powerful but when thinking about it, there are some things that I can do that God cannot. E.G. I can lie but God cannot...He is good.

Titus 1:
2 "in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,"

Is God all knowing? I seem to remember in Hebrews somewhere it saying that God forgets our sins! LOL...isn't that awesome!

Heb 10:17, Heb 8:12
(Thanks Keith :))

But some questions that I would like to ask is "Does God know the future or does He cause what He plans (prophecy)? Is God outside of time?...that is Greek thought. Or is simply God eternal who was and is and is to come?

Genesis 18:21. Seems to suggest that God came down to check out Sodom and Gomorrah? If I remember correctly... God knows the hairs on our heads which implies He can know everything...but is there some things He will not intrude on (want for a better word)? Though maybe it is just figurative language about God musing over what we as people have done :)

Answers from the Bible is what I would like. It is the Word of God and I believe it! Praise God for revealing Himself to us through His Word! Help us to learn oh God!

Keen to hear your guys thoughts?

Dan

P.S.
Taking what I said here:
"But some questions that I would like to ask is "Does God know the future or does He cause what He plans (prophecy)? Is God outside of time?...that is Greek thought. Or is simply God eternal who was and is and is to come?"

I am NOT saying that God does not know the future. I think He does when I consider prophecies in Daniel etc etc, however I am just wanting to challenge thoughts that we have been brought up in and get back to the Word of God.

Breaking Tradition

2009-08-08T04:22:00.000-07:00

I notice that people keep referring back to old ways of thought that sometimes we have been brought up in.

I myself am guilty of this. We need to come back to the God of the Bible and not fit our own ideas into it. It is a challenge that we all face since reality is sometimes not what we would desire. Come back to the Hebrew God and not Greek ideas of a God "way up there". God is personal, seek Him and find Him! (There are probably some good Greek ideas but I am speaking in general)

Here is a neat little video that you guys may enjoy. It is a challenge to break off old traditions :) LOL. Hmmmm I wonder if I could do something like this on my wedding day next year?

Break off old traditions

DB

The God of the Bible

2009-08-06T16:43:00.000-07:00

I thought I would answer a common topic found through the different posts here.

The claim by atheists that I dis-agree with.

1. Atheism has no relation to consequences.
2. God is evil becaue he is most powerful and most knowledgable...so He is responsible for our sin.

Firstly, point 1.
What follows a person when he takes up the belief of atheism?
I'll give you a clue.
I believe that the God of the Bible is THE God. period. Because I believe in Him there are consequences.
a.I will be punished for my evil deeds because there is a law behind our morals.
b.There is an ultimate moral law
c.There is reason for me being here beyond what I am.
d.There is a hell.
e.There is a heaven and a new earth where righteouness will dwell.

These are consequences for my belief in the God of the Bible both good and bad. This is my worldview.

Atheism is not just "belief in no god"...there are consequences that follow that belief that affect the way we live and view life.

Secondly, point 2.
God is responsible for all evil it is claimed.

Wrong.
God occasions evil but is NOT the cause. This is the God of the Bible. The god atheists portray is not the God of the Bible. If the god that the atheists portray is god then I would be an atheist. In fact I am an atheist in regard to there imaginary god.

The Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish. Yet people go to hell? God is good in character and has freewill. We as people were made in His image and have been made to make OUR OWN decisions, seperate from God. God wants a people that are loyal to Him and to dwell with Him but to have real loyalty is to have the opportunity to be dis-loyal.
Analogies like God as father and us as children, so God is responsible for our bad... are inadaquate because we are not children and nor were Adam and Eve.

Our freewill is subject to God's freewill and God's freewill is subject to His character. He is sinless and does not make us sin.

Hell is a terrible place...don't go there, unless of course some people would rather be there than with a good God, and go by there own choice.

Is hell a worthy punishment of evil? To my thinking it is harsh in a way, I admit that, but that is because my standards are not as high as God's standards and evil to me (not a force but an action) is more of a stench to God then it is to me...sadly, I should understand it. God wants a good world but WE keep stuffing it up.
Often reality is not often what we want...that is what makes it real, whether we like it or not.

So, is an everlasting hell really a terrible thing? At first glance it is but let us think deeper.
We live in a world where evil people plague the planet...including us. If we knew that hell would be annihilation then there would not be any real incentive to seek to be right with God. There would be no real punishment. Kind of like a druggy who knows it is killing him but he is just wanting to have a grand time and then die, doesn't want to preserve his life. So annihilation would not be a very good justified punishment.

What about a temporary hell?
Well, same thing again. Do periods of temporary imprisonment stop people from being evil? would it stop people?
No, people have a grand time being evil while knowing they will just a have a period of punishment.
No justified punishment there.

But an everlasting hell for those who would prefer to live without God and His righteousness would be a sure hell indeed and well deserved.

BUT there is good news peoples,
Why think on hell when there is no need to go there? You shouldn't think to yourself "The police are unjust because they give lifetime jailment, so I will not belive in them".

Look at God's provision for us. He paid our price of eternal death and conquered it for us! How awesome is that. Through a second chance we can be right with our Maker after stuffing up His world. We can be good again and be renewed by Him living in us through His Holy Spirit. To heal the broken hearted and set the captives free!

Come to God and become a new person.

Best wishes,

Dan

Consequences

2009-08-05T17:51:00.000-07:00

Beliefs have consequences...

The following quotes are taken from a couple atheist friends that try to convince us that atheism need not have consequences.

Dale said

"I hope you are not rying to say that you have free will because you believe in a supernatural power but I do not because I don't believe in supernatural powers? Hmmmmmmm?"

I am saying that if your philosophy of "no God" is true then you can accept the consequences. I f I am wrong about a consequence then show me why. (I am talking to everyone) Don't fob off problems as "just philosophy" because our very world views are philosophical)

G.E. said:

"There are many ways towards atheism. You do not need to subscribe to a given and described philosophy to be an atheist. All you need is to doubt that there is any gods. Clear so far?"

I am afraid that it is unclear Mr G.E.
What you are trying to sell us is thinking such as "I don't believe in cars" and nothing can affect me because of it.

1. A car could run you over.
2. Sore feet could develop from walking everywhere...unless you believe in wearing shoes.

Etc. Etc.

We cannot believe what we want to believe and forget about all the conequences of what we believe.
Another angle is that beliefs collide with other's beliefs. For example Israel to Palestine is Palestine's and Israel to Israel is Israel's.
Can they just agree to disagree? I don't think so. Who will win? The person with the biggest stick :) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will!

The most reasonable answer should win, the one that is nearer to truth. At least Dawkins has the guts to admit that his atheism is a dark world (Dawkins Lennox debate) with no absolute morals and no purpose except for what you make it... the list of consequences go on and on.

Don't turn a blind eye but face up to reality.

Relativism does not work. Atheism is not "just" atheism.

Determinism

2009-08-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

Another controversial topic is the topic concerning determinism.

I have often wondered about a naturalistic (materialistic) vs a super-naturalistic universe and it's consequences regarding belief. (I am using basic understandings of these terms when referring to them).

Naturalism or materialism to me means, that which is naturally linked together in a causal chain of happenings gradually getting smaller to the first cause. Science should be able to find the causal links eventually.

"In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1] All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy)

Supernaturalism is another higher intelligence outside of the causal chain of natural happenings.

E.G. God.

Christianity lives as if there is a God and places it's faith in supernaturalism.

On the other side of the fence is atheism which lives and believes in no-God naturalism to a lesser or greater extent.

So what is the big deal?
If atheistic naturalism is true then I ask, would it take away all free-will? What I mean by this is...I was meant to write this post and NO OTHER WAY could have happened except what is happening now. I was meant to write this post and you were predestined by cause and effect to read this post.
If there is no "outside" nature then we are all stuck in a series of causal happenings causing us to act and our "will" is a delusion. The thought you just thought was caused by the thought before and the thought you are having now was caused by the other thought you had just before.

So I am a Christian because I cannot help it and you are maybe an atheist because you cannot help it; the same applies to every person if this is true.

If so, do we NEED police? If someone murders someone else isn't it just their chemistry causing them to act? Chemistry attacking another lot of chemistry?
Is not today's world seeming to take that turn in thinking...justifying someone because they couldn't of known better? Such as when a school kid is being uncontrollable the teachers pass it off as "It was his/her upbringing" (I admit there is some truth to this but I use it to make a point).

Many Christian theists don't have a problem with this situation because they believe that people are spirit as well as body and we have an "outside nature" part to us...an image of God...a free-will.
Why do people have such enormous ability to have abstract thought and inference truths about our universe? Someone once said that man is incurably abstract.
Does this give evidence that man is special as the Bible teaches us...more than just an animal?

To read more on this subject try this link to chapter 3 entitled "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism" in a book called "Miracles". Note: It may be helpful one day to read the whole book in context to since we miss the first two chapters but here is the third which brings out some interesting thoughts. If you disagree with a statement then don't throw away the baby with the bath water :)

"The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism"

cheers,

DB

P.S. Another slant on the thought of naturalism:

“	Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."	”
—C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

Blog Spotlight

2009-08-01T04:10:00.000-07:00

Hey peoples,

My fiancee runs a blog and puts up a lot of her art work that she does. She is completing a degree in visual arts this year and is focusing on illustrating children's stories and currently is working on a book to be published. You can find her artwork here:
Esther's blog

Do check it out.
I am soo proud of you Ess!

DB

P.S. Feel free to leave a thoughtful comment... :)

Hope you all have great weekend!

Ex-Christians

2009-07-29T18:12:00.000-07:00

I am noticing that so far you are all telling me that all of you who I have been talking to are ex-christians.

Why is it that most ex-christian atheists seem to be the most militant (from my experience)? are wou guys actually anti-God? Am I wasting my time talking with you guys (I don't mind) if you are really so against God?

DB

Atheism as unscientific?

2009-07-27T00:50:00.000-07:00

I notice that atheists love to tell theists that what they believe is non falsifiable.
BUT.
Atheism is non falsifiable as well, which makes that "theism is unscientific" argument irrelevant and self contradictory.

Why is atheism non falsifiable? Well, for the same reasons as theism. Can it be shown that there is no God? (absolutely scientifically)
I would say no...therefore atheism is non falsifiable.

We all have assumptions that affect our outlook and view on life/universe/morals etc.
We must take the best options and follow the evidence as Antony Flew says "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads."

However, I would like to share with guys that (Biblical) theism is not quite non falsifiable (in an experiential miraculous way) because God said that those who seek Him with a sincere heart will find Him.

Seek God,

DB

(Note: I am rather busy at the moment and will try to get back to answering you guys when it is reasonable to do so. I am currently doing a full time apprenticeship and studying a paper from university...busy, busy. Good to talk with you guys though)

Purposeful order or accidental order?

2009-07-24T18:25:00.000-07:00

Continued from a Fine Tuning of the universe post...http://vessel-of-clay.blogspot.com/2009/07/fine-tuning-of-universe.html?showComment=1248484033916#c8942741036086708178

Cantareous said: "The fact is our universe is fine tuned. But I fail to see how that is strong evidence for God. All it means is that the physical constants we observe aren't random."

An orchid production complex is made up of constants that work together without a single designer moving every bit. But the orchid production complex needed to be ordered in its constants the way it is, in order to achieve the amazing attributes it has. A snowflake is a wonderful explanation of a Lawmaker's lawmaking that makes a snowflake be a snowflake.

I have evidence of complex things being designed around me but none that I know of that has formed itself without a designer and whose constants just happened to be rightly connected with each other.

Theists are fulfilling the burden of proof for what we believe. Fine tuning is evidence for God. Fine tuning is not evidence against God.

Atheism needs to fulfill the burden of proof for its belief in naturalism over God.
Also proof for it's dis-belief in God just as theism tries to fulfill the burden of proof for its dis-belief in the non-existence of God.

Seek God!

DB

Pilgrimage

Car project Nissan Skyline

Merry Christmas everyone!

Old debate

New blog "The Benevolent Hecklers"

David Wilkerson is with the Lord

Richard Dawkins Interviews Wendy Wright

Matisyahu

Eastern Lamp Mussel

Photos of our little boy

News talk ZB interview with John Lennox NZ

Jon Foreman

Reverse Thinking

Miracles by our Lord

Logic Primers

LOST CIVILIZATION

Christchurch Earthquake

Would like to announce a new arrival

Theology group discussion - Evil

Merry Christmas everyone! and a happy new year! DP

George H. Smith quote

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

Total Probability = 1:1099

Selfish about being unselfish?

Did GODDIDIT or did EVOLUTIONDIDIT

Delve Deeper

Go clean your room

INCEPETION

The Gospel, using U2

Proud to announce

I have no idea what to title this...

Soccer World Cup 2010

Epistemology

ENZYME CONVERGENCE TAXES EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM (RtB)

Son of Hamas - Mosab Hassan Yousef

wedding pics

Little over a week to go

Easily Pleased

Parachute 2 (An add on on from the previous post)

Parachute

Faith

Pillar

Prayer

Band spotlight

Rambling thoughts on Assumptions and science in the class rooms and life,

Sorry

Screwtape Letters on Selfishness

Waipu Highland Games

ERV's

Merry Christimas!

Strange views

Preface to John Lennox's "God's undertaker"

Name Change

Family Photo

Free Books by John Lennox

Ray Comfort-Hemant Mehta interview

Strange man

Germs, Labor Fever, and Biblical Sanitation

The True God & The True Gospel - David Pawson

C.S. Lewis on pride

CHAPTER 18

THE GREAT SIN

Brian Tamaki - Strange happenings

Tamaki's 700 'sons' swear oath of loyalty

Belief and influence

My "would be" old earth views

Promise Keepers: Returned

Promise Keepers

Results

C.S Lewis's surviving BBC radio address

Circular morality

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

Does God Exist?

Evidence, Revelations

Baby as a preacher?

Rowan Atkinson

Playing with negatives and positives

Essay - Belief and the Existence of God

Further thoughts about evolution

Well, nearly finished my essay and I am back

Total Probability = 1:10⁹⁹