Northern Wisdom

There is a place where once I was gone;
and in these lands their existed no dawn.

The name of the state could be called North Wisdom;
though the state of the name would speak much against them.

They are the ones who keep secrets with locks;
yet none more so than on the 17th block.

At the corner of Main Street this ice-cream stand stood;
but to the ground it aught to burn, oh, if only it would.

Like the town around it this place wore a mask;
it's owner inside, his eyes darting fast.

Behind the white counter and stashed in the back;
those secrets are groaning for the freedom they lack.

In a day to come, on an hour so near;
that secret will be loose, a secret so dear.

The ice-cream stand remains this moment;
a warning invisible to all who can't read it.

"Step up, guard down, just hold out your hand";
I urge you dear friends, don't reach...
or you may just be swallowed up by this dark land.

Don't ask me why this came out. It is actually a good bit longer and detailed than this, but much of it is still too fuzzy to write out. I was driving home the other night and thoughts of this place and time when I was younger came into my head. For some reason I started to write the poem (or it wrote itself) in my head while driving. I can only assume their was a purpose for it; I can only guess to what that purpose is though. Certainly is a departure from the usual blog posts so I thought why not. This won't be getting posted anywhere else.

Background: It is of a real place I once had been, far less metaphor than you might think is involved here and only one person other than me knows the place this poem refers to. The story goes that I and a friend were on a family vacation of sorts in a place to the north of home. This place was pleasant and laidback, but it their was something in the air. Something out of place. On several occasions I got the chills and the hair on my neck would stand up. On one occasion in particular we visited an ice-cream shop in town and behind the counter was a man who seemed plain as day, but in his eyes was a much deeper story. Granted I was young and my imagination is strong, but something was wrong in that ice-cream shop and the air was thick with it. Maybe it was just me, as not everyone picked up on it, but I told my friend that I didn't want to go back which is something I have never said before, or since. So, mistaken or not, I count that area to have a strange darkness to it. Something in secret since it looks very normal on the surface. Obviously I took liberties in the poem, even if I were on to something, a real dark secret of some kind (which is not necessarily true) I still don't have any knowledge to what the secret was.

Among the Cybermen

Not often do I go back to the old philosophy club (I don't imagine I'm very welcome anyhow), but this question was a rare opportunity to show the reality of God in a way that people don't often see. I think I've posted on this topic once before, but what the heck... This is pretty much a two part, direct quote from my post there.

-What is beyond the universe? The answer is nothing that we have proof of, but that does not mean that nothing is there. It brings up the idea of questioning and defining what existence is as all we know of it is what lies within the boundaries of our universe, unless of course you are one who holds to divine instruction like me.

-Was the universe designed by an outside agent? Necessarily, Yes. See below for explanation, direct any questions and abuse to Blue404 ;-)

-Does anything exist outside of the universe? If you think about it the question requires a lot of definition if we were to try and actually answer with any measure of wisdom. We need to know what existence is and we need to know a few other things as well. For my two cents, if God exists in an understandable sense outside of time and space (as well as within), and if places like heaven and hell are not within this universe as we know it (which seems plausible), then their must be a capacity for existence in other measures and so my answer is yes. Things can and do exist outside of our universe.

-How does this have an effect on our lives? You'd think it effects us more than it does, but only those who undertake this type of question or undertake a search for the divine will be likely to be effected by these things. At least, I think so.

For more see following post...

Among the Cybermen (Continued)

An explanation of the question, "Was the universe designed by an outside agent?"

The original question ("What is beyond") implies that the universe has end or limit, which is true, but it needs to be made clear as the idea of a boundless (and uncreated) universe is popular. In the process it can be made clearer that the universe does indeed have a creator, whether you agree on who or what it is falls beyond the scope of this post.

Now I'm no professor of course, but I understand that the 1st law of thermodynamics has that energy doesn't dissipate, but instead changes form through use, remaining energy then in a different form. The second law states that while energy changes form, not disappearing, it does not change to equally usable forms and so all things are running down, which is very important to the topic.

A few guiding thoughts on an "outside agent";
1.Their is a finite amount of useable energy in the universe as is evident by the 2nd law. For the universe to be infinite conflicts with this apparent truth. If you have an infinite space with a finite amount of energy than that energy should be gone, spread out or transformed into less useful forms already as so much time has already passed. Their should be virtually nothing left to sustain this place, yet it clearly is still in a state of motion.

2.The universe and all in it is either eternally existent or it spontaneously became. (As seen above it can't be eternal without an some manner of outside influence to provide that which is becoming scarce.) If the universe is spontaneous according to the 1st and 2nd Law it requires an outside influence to supernaturally provide. Without such a mechanism, we are left without an answer as to how anything can become of nothing naturally. In this case, a source of all energy/matter. (I.E. Even if you were a Big Bang believer it still requires another force altogether to provide that which the Bang would have resulted.) Simply, their is no natural means for something to come from nothing.

So ultimately, four things can be gathered by the above...(though it may be hard to swallow for some.)
1.First is that the universe is necessarily created (created by the divine is implied)
2.The second would be that it is limited in it's creation/existence (count this as size or energy if you like)
3.The third (based on the first two) is that something must exist outside of it for it to have been created. (No creation without a creator.)
4.The fourth being that one day it will fail and end (as is noted in both the 2nd Law and divine authorship accounts).

Given all this I am surprised how many people still fight against creation and the divine. Especially in the instances when people try to stand on logic or science to make that stand. Doesn't seem a very strong foundation to me.

Reporting Back...

Well, as an update, the youth thingy went well. It was a good topic to talk about I gathered as nearly everyone in attendance started out with a poor understanding of truth. (Thinking that it was subject to perspective or interpretation.) We had a good time and made a good effort to cover ground on the topic. No doubt sparking a thought or two.

A usual but unfortunate after effect, was that I was up till three rolling around the thought that I was not utterly clear in making the point of it being absolute by it's nature, but the truth is I did pose some questions leading that way and more than once noted that it can't be subjective. Another potential pitfall I recounted then was that at one point I noted a personal experiance that temporarily wounded my trust in the Bible and how it was proven a false claim eventually. I am not the most sure that they got that the Bible is trustworthy, but that might just be me over critiquing myself. Ultimatly, it is out of my hands and up to the Spirit now.

On the downside, my perhaps one chance to speak about this to the youth, was met with a VERY low attendance. 2 whole youths showed for the afternoon! How can this be? The answer is sad, but true...

This past Sunday our Pastor was on vacation with his family so it seems half the church (not exagerating) showed up for the service. (I was unable because I was setting up the hour the service runs.) Much in the same fashion, the kids were expecting our youth director to be absent and so even those able to come left after church was over. I do not have the connection or the draw that she does with many of them. So because of leadership and the apparent need for people to come to our church for what percieved leaders can offer, we ended up talking to 2 youths about truth in the Christian faith and in the world.

Granted it went well and I am grateful for how it went, I am a bit sad that I won't get to speak to the rest of the youth on this topic.

Stomach Pains

Well, this is not a happy post guys. I'm admittedly not a fan of the Catholic church, but this has dropped my respect even further, I'm sorry to say. Not long ago, the pope (who had kept silent regarding evolution) finally made a statement on his (and consequently Catholicism’s) view on it. I literally became sick to my stomach reading the Reuters article which details briefly how the pope supports "theistic evolution". I was unaware that the Catholic church has been promoting such a view, but now that it is being released in articles it will have a larger impact on both Catholics and those who keep them in high regard.

Article Link

Quote: "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this."

I realize that theistic evolution is a growing trend among churches and with it my outrage. Their is not room for "half-truths" such as this. It doesn't matter that a few extra hearts or minds can be "won for Christ" when they are in fact not being won to Christ at all. They are simply being appealed to in a manner acceptable to them. I'm sorry, but that is wrong on all counts. Do not compromise the system God built for any man!

Just look at what troubles an theistic evolutionist “Christian” must face that a Bible believing one does not. (Separated into the following post.) They are just a few of the many hurdles theistic evolutionist “Christians” must face to grapple with the truth.

-That God did not create in billions of years but instead 7 days time.
-That Gods account of creation is not to be meddled with.
-That without the supernatural creation as an absolute in their lives, the Christian understanding and ability will grow weak and ultimately fail. (Such a failure is not a reflection of God, but of men.)

How the pope, supposed head of Christendom, does not see this is beyond me. Then again, I do not believe he is the head of Christendom, but a man in a system build in much the same way theistic evolution is now being created. (Excuse my hostility please. This is as a life or death matter to me and from where I sit many more will die because of this recent action on the popes part.)

Stomach Pains (Continued)

1. No death before Adam’s fall
The Bible says that their was no death before the fall and that all creatures were made prior to that fall. Evolution requires generations by the multitudes to perish for even one positive outcome. So man was standing in the garden talking to God in the Bible, no death around. On the other side we see that death would have had to been present in the garden if God used evolution to create man. The two creation models are clearly conflicting. One based in the authority of God and the other in the imagination of men, so evolution and Genesis have a difference sequences. (Keep in mind that truth does not conflict with itself.) 2. Creation is finished (not in progress) When God was done creating at the end of the week He stopped and said it is finished. Finished doesn't mean new creations are being built. Evolution implies that new creations are still being built as it has no end in theory. This can't be true if God says it is not, now can it.

2. After his kind (no evolution)
A major fault of evolution is that mutations and natural selection are often seen as creating new kinds of animals (different breeds of dogs for instance), but this is not true as the both the Bible and observable science teach that no new kinds are ever created, only different types. Their are variations within each kind of animal, but never a whole new type of animal. God created each after his own "kind" and to then breed after his own kind. Plus God finished creating at one point and so again, the evolutionary principle of creating new kinds is at odds with the use of evolution within theology.

3. Genesis is literal history
Their is a major issue in Christian circles of not taking what the Bibles says as true. Often reasoning that certain things clearly spoken of are actually symbolic. How do they propose to discern that? Either you take it at face value (given science, culture, history, etc), or you don’t know what it means. If you don’t know what it means you are making it up as you go. If you are making it up as you go you are creating your own religion, your own beliefs, your own God. Genesis is written and built to be a litter account, no less. Their is simply no reason to change that.

4. Adam was created intelligent
Evolution imagines that the first life was brainless and that early man was low minded. Yet the Bible accounts for Adam being top of the game for all of mankind. He spoke and had named all the animals. He understood the command not to eat the fruit which was not a simple command, granted he didn't follow through on it. These are not the attributes of a poorly developed mind.

5. Theistic evolution = atheistic evolution plus God
While this may seem so subtle it isn't an issue at first, it's importance will grow the more you consider it. God wants you to believe in Him as the source and point of life, not by our means (evolution, atheism, etc..). We should be able to agree on that much. From their it isn't hard to see that God would not want us to simply modify atheism to include God. Evolution does not require God or it would have been made that way from the start so in no uncertain terms then theistic evolution is just the adding of a God concept to atheism. It's an appeasement. That is a second place offering and, as Cain found out, that will not cut it when it comes to pleasing God.

6. All people are descendants of Adam
Evolution does not stand that a single organism was spontaneously given life and then (alone) grew into a man. It needs several organisms to grow at the same level and time so that by multiplying it might gain positive changes. The Bible says God created man all by himself and in full form no less. The conflict is that God created (in complete) one full human while evolution needs lots of breeding by different entities to create stages of mankind until one full human is ready. The contrast in models is striking and they can't both be true.

7. All doctrines founded in Genesis
Marriage (earthly and Heavenly)...sin and salvation...death and life...purposed and meaning, all of these and so many more are first laid down in Genesis's creation account by God. These are not just dusty and out of date doctrines we are talking about, but the very basis for understanding all things. Simply put, when put under a bit of scrutiny evolution erodes and corrupts all these understandings. A clear conflict of what God intended. (While I would love to detail each one here and now I've already had to split this post once, so you'll have to email me or wait for another post on the topic.)

Well, the truth is...

...not open to negotiation. Yet we hear it spoken of as if it is. As we talk to friends and relatives and co-workers people will be making a point and say, "well, the 'real' truth is...", then go on to explain how they view something. It may be important and it may not in the grand scheme, yet the very nature of truth is its absolute nature and so is not as flimsy a thing as people often make it out to be.

This week I get to talk to the youth group on whatever I want. I think I have about 20 minutes of time, not nearly enough imo, but certainly a useful amount of time. Since I should first look to God for guidance I'll try to stay open to direction in what He would like spoken on. Supposing that a topic change does not come however, I have three topics that are very important and very close to my heart that I want to share with them. None of them are short enough to cover in 20 minutes, but we'll do what we can. :) Originally I wanted to cover the second one of those listed below, but it seems God wants the third instead. I'm happy to shift for Him though. The topics I had interest in are...
-Worldviews (pre-suppositions)
-Creation vs. Evolution (Christian Sciences)
-Truth (both cognitive dissonance and objective vs. subjective)
-(Wouldn't mind speaking on apologetics as well, but that isn't likely among the youth.)

All these things are huge in my life and (even though they may be unaware) it is also huge in everyone’s on some level. In matters of Truth and Worldview, they affect branches out to cover all thought and deed a person is capable of.

Anyhow, I figure raising some question will be a good start for the youth discussion. Simple, but very difficult questions like;
-"What is truth?"
-"Is it absolute?"
-"Is the bible is the only place for truth?"
-"What about other so-called "truths" in the world?"

I'm hoping that these questions will raise some eyebrows or questions whether they come up with the correct answers or not. Worst case scenario, they don't say anything and I get to babble about it for 20 minutes. That's ok by me, lol. One downside to this is that I have to be careful to lead them with the questions. Instead of saying, "no that is wrong, here is the right answer" when someone says that truth is relative, I need to be able to correct them with reason and set things back on track with leading questions. Spirit be with us then...

Well, the truth is... (continued)

Now, after covering the idea and nature of truth (as well as where to find it and its importance to us) their needs to be a way to tie this understanding into their lives. (Not all will see the point of the discussion up to this point.) For this I was thinking about talking on Cognitive Dissonance. A hefty term I know, but it couldn't be more applicable. Cognitive dissonance is the internal struggle one experiences when presented with new information that contradicts what he believes to be true. As he struggles for consistency, he must change what he believes—or disregard the new information.

This is so very applicable to a teens life...as much as it is to an adults, or more so. Once we mention this second topic and the kids understand what it is, we can ask a few more questions like;
-"How do you deal with new information that challenges what you thought was true?"
-"How about when it comes to your faith?"
-"Do we know where to turn when this new information is really troubling us?"
-"How do we deal with the people who cone to us with this "worldly truths" information?"

This should create a decent flow of things, defining truth and then how we apply truth in our lives. It is not a simple issue, hard to cover in 20 minutes even if they listen intently, but even if one of them hears something new or realizes it's importance it is a success. Of course I would rather it help all the kids in their discerning of the worlds truths and God's truths, but that is not in my hands.

Again, I'm really hoping that the Spirit leads this discussion or is at least sparking the minds of these kids as we talk. They honestly don't know me that well, and I am not the most charismatic speaker. Yet this is the direction I am lead and the Spirit has yet to fail me once, so my hopes are high.

(Un)Conditional?

Is God's love truly unconditional? This is one of those things I never completely understood and probably still don't. I have however heard it used as an argument for and against Christianity. (I.e.; Christians saying that God's love is unconditional and non-Christians claiming it isn't.) In both cases it is a claim meant to bolster their point of view on God.

Now, I'm sure most or all of us have heard it said that God's love is unconditional (whether you believe in God or not) and often we (as Christians) assume that is true, but 5 minutes with a strong atheist can seriously wound that certainty. Why? Because it is more complex than either side would give it credit. So I hold some confusion on this topic still, not the kind of confusion that breaks a faith mind you, but just an unanswered question...is God's love conditional or not?

Thinking about it, it's not a question of earning as much as accepting. So right off, I discount all efforts in terms of earning. (We simply cannot earn such a thing.) That leaves us with accepting and therein lies the possibility of a condition. If we were talking about salvation I could say that yes it is conditional, it requires belief and along with belief come certain deep down changes which move a person to repentance. Still, that is not the real topic. The real topic is love.

So does God require anything from us before He loves us? Not that I can think of, no. However, God does not like the wickedness in men and (rightly so) condemns us for it. So then does He or does He not love us, if we do evil by choice and he hates evil? I still favor that God's love is unconditional and freely given and here's why. In my experience, limited as it is, you can still love a person and not approve of their actions. You can still love a person and hold a heated argument with them at the same time. You can still love someone and weep over them at the same time. Love does not hinge on things being perfectly in line, but is a constant state, certainly in Gods case as He is always consistent. I'm not dismissing the existance of evil but I am seperating it. Love doesn't require approval. I know this is a weak argument, hence the original question, but it seems to me a valid one none-the-less. Love does not require something from its target to continue to carry on a loving state or manner. It is then without condition, no?

In the end though, whether what I have written is correct or not, (as a worst-case-scenario) I would rather have God in my life by observing His conditions than not at all, especially when you look at what the conditions are and what the alternative to God is! These are just some of my thoughts; comments are welcome as I do not have the answer.

Song of Psalms

New Playlist time...finaly!

Ok, here is a band I came across not too long ago while searching a site called "Worship House Media". After watching a short movie that was deeply moving to me (moving for its message, visuals, and the songs) I really fell for the artists that were used in it. They are called "The Sons of Korah" and they sing the Psalms. See the playlist on the right for samples taken from their site, "Sons of Korah Site."

Personally, I have never held a huge appreciation for the Psalms. Sure they are awesome poetry (which I love) and of course they hold a great deal of history, but still I never favored them. Anyway, when hearing them in the video (a link to which is at the end of this post) I just had to get more. My favorites are Psalm 24 and Psalm 35. They are beautiful and powerfull. I especially like to read along with the song as it plays. Somehow connects it better for me, it becomes more than just another Christian song. So..yea, that's it. Enjoy please. (^_^)

Link to the Kingdom video
(It's an 8Mb flash file format so give it time to open.)

Random Thoughts (#019)

So, as can be seen over the past decade or two, moral decline has moved from individual personal choices to overall political agendas and now borders on becoming law. (In some cases already passed as law.)

That which once framed and supported the house (in the same way Biblical values once upheld society) has been weakened and knocked down to a point where a new framework (a new value system) can be implemented. Metaphors aside, I'm talking about how agendas such as the "gay agenda" or the "keep God out of school agenda" are not just attempting to make a way for themselves any longer, but instead are pressing the morality of good and truth away from reach. Talk has even come about making certain Christian practices illegal in some countries. Sadly, those crying out for equality, truth, and "open-mindedness" are leading the charge to cut God out of society.

So in all this the question presents itself; “If you were arrested for being a Christian, how much evidence would there be against you?” I take this question to exclude personal testimony, meaning you can't just say you are and admit to it. Instead, what evidence would be there to use as proof you are a follower of Christ? An awesome question and one that we should each take the time to answer honestly and fairly. It should paint a vivid picture of just how much we are followers of Christ, or not.

Just a passing thought.

Tracing Creation...

Different things bring people different feelings and some things can initiate a connection to God much easier than others. At times, often even, the "thing" in question is bound in nature as nature has the finger prints of God all over. It only makes sense, no?

Recently, someone mentioned how being on a beach can bring them so much closer to God and how it sparks the remembrance of the only true creation. This is in comparison (to me at least) to other natural beauties such as the Grand canyon or certain mountain ranges. Features on the earth that are vast and magnificent certainly do charge and reveal that connection I would have to agree, but as I thought about it (imagining it in my mind) I realized how utterly true those words were.

The ocean is without question a division of land and sea as was once recorded in creation. Granted things were not always in the arrangement that they now are, it is still true. (A product of the Flood to my understanding as are the canyons.) To stand and look out into a disappearing horizon of water and sky helps point to that time long ago. The scale and depth of it all. The power it must have taken to literally will it into being. One who looks, sees, and acknowledges it can't help but be drawn to a closeness with its designer. A God that made you, me, and an immensely complex world full of laws and designs for us to inhabit until we finally go home.

When I go to the beach this year with the youth group I will try to remember to bring this thought up. Maybe we can spark a few imaginations or appreciations peering out onto the horizon...listening to the waves.

Random Thoughts (#377)

John spoke out at the conference, which ended well, but something he said was taken as well founded and yet was so very far off. Unfortunately, I was not quick on my feet then and only realized the truth later. He said that people should not seek a worship service that "feeds or suits" them. In context he was saying that the committee for the contemporary service was mistaken to make a service to help bring in new people. At the time I was ill-prepared to answer even while I felt he was wrong. It further upset me that many people seemed to agree, not in a personal sense but in the way that one does when a so-called "superior truth" is presented to them. About an hour later it finally dawned on me. He was way off to claim that only one kind of service should suit all people. It's faulty logic at least and I am so frustrated that I hadn't thought on my feet quicker.

The argument itself is self-defeating as it only need redirected to the original speaker. If I had stood up and said, "If changing the style of service to meet the times and needs of the public is wrong then the services you love are also wrong as they are much changed from the original traditional services. By your own statement any change to suit a persons particular worship needs is a mistake and yet we don't claim that is the case when it comes to the Sunday services as they are."

OR even something like , "Would you leave if the Pastor decided to go contemporary or traditional with 'all' the services? By your own logic neither you or anyone else could complain despite how it speaks to you. What if it were a music style you didn't like or the message was in a different format you didn't understand? You would stay when all it takes is a going a block down the road where the music moves you and the message is more understandable to you? So long as the words are the same and only the efficacy is changing, what is their to fight about?"

The point here being that he accepts one form and not another (and accepting it without a single originating standard to base it on) saying that change is unwarranted or even dangerous which is clearly self-defeating to his cause as he accepted change long ago in the form of the current "blended" service we hold. Yet there he was complaining of the contemporary service, about it's proposed style and use, happy as a clam in his much revised "blended" service. Sheesh...

Anyhow, the service was approved despite several complaints and despite the logical fallacy he put forth, it is fair to say a person 'should' come to a service to worship God and not solely to hear a different style of music they favor. This however, does not speak at all of the mission and calling we all hold as Christians, to reach out and build up the Kingdom as fishers of men. A new service is just one of many ways to do so.

An odd couple

I'm probably centuries behind on this one, but I just got it. "Will" and "Grace". Maybe this wasn't meant, but I have to assume it was. It is odd, but not shocking that the writers or creators of that show (which I have seen more than a couple episodes of) would have chosen those two names both for the show and for the main characters. A show with characters and plots that openly promote homosexuality, substance abuse, and other various bad practices. Indeed, it would require grace AND will to find hope in this and many other shows like it over the past decade. (While I am aware of the, "but it has a good heart" argument I do not think that equals justification.) When I think of Grace and Will I think of the following things (though the common usage of these words is more broad)...

Defining Will:
-The faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action.
-The power of choosing one's own actions.

Defining Grace:
-Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people.
-A favor rendered by one who need not do so.

Looking beyond the show however, I can't help but notice how much of an odd couple the two words are. Man has both grace and will as does God, but the two are not comparable and in fact often at odds. God's will is absolute and defies all reality as we know it. Existence itself hinges on God's will in fact. Man's will on the other hand is weak and hinges on our poor understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. Rarely do these wills align seeing as how man bases his will on his desire and what man desires is more. God on the other hand can have anything instantly, but holds back, waiting for man. God's desire then is not for "more" as man's is, because God has everything. God is giving and selfless while man is greedy and wicked. A clear view of the conflict of wills.

Truly, their is an abundance of things to think about on this topic. (Ie; God's will vs. man's will, God's grace vs. man's grace, God's grace vs. man's will, God's will vs. man's grace.) I don't know that it has a point right now and I'm not going to investigate it personally, but this realization of the show title will and grace (and it's depth) became apparent recently, sparking one of those "well isn't that neat" moments. Thought I'd share it.