Guilty Conscience

Guilt is an interesting phenomenon. It's beneficial because it means we recognize our sin and the tension we have with goodness, but sometimes it can pop up when we are not actually doing something wrong. I mean, we're always sinful, but sometimes we feel we should have done something when in actuality, we made a perfectly justifiable decision. Sometimes it's because of something someone else has said, but usually, it just nags.

If you ever want to make someone feel guilty, I'm a pretty easy target. This last week I've had a couple situations rolling around in my head: "I should have spent more time with her... I shouldn't be pestering him... I should have worked harder on that." Guilt is so effective because it is true in some respect. I remember a sermon once, talking about Satan's devices. One point was it works because it's [potentially twisted, manipulated] truth! Sure, I should have spent more time working on that assignment, but does pining over it help? The trick is to move on and not make the same mistake again

What I'm slowly learning each day is that Jesus died for our sins. Sounds like a Christian should know that, but I don't think we realize what that means each day. If I do something wrong, it's over. It's pointless trying to punish myself for things that He has already been punished for, if the guilt is caused by authentic sin. As Paul said, "If God is for us, who can be against us?... Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died- more than that, who was raised- who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us." (Rom 8:31b, 34)

April Showers

I love Texas rain... I really do. It's one of my favorite things. It just pours, and the sky is as dark at noon as it is at 8:30 pm. It makes for sleepy days, for sure.

However, after 36 hours of Texas rain, I start to feel a little like Noah. I can't imagine what he did with his time... played lots of chess with Mrs. Noah, I'm sure. Not only did it rain for forty days, but then the boat rocked around for another hundred and fifty as the waters receded and the Grand Canyon was carved.

Hm... we're in a break of the weather. It's still cloudy, but the rain has paused for a moment. I wonder if the rain ever paused in the flood, and they wondered if it was over...

Our pool is green and has overflowed, the drains are clogged up with mulch so the gutters are backed up onto the patio, and the street is nearly covered over.

In one week this is going to be one green city.

Thought of the Day: Fidelity

One of the oh-so-many books I'm reading right now is called The Myserty of Marriage by Mike Mason. It was written in the mid-80's by a man who had only been married for a couple years, and was mainly composed of his journal as he was in a period of engagement. I'm almost halfway done, and so far it reads a lot like The Four Loves. Rather than being a how-to, or step-by-step guide, it's simply observations and meditations. A lot of the points he makes he connects back to the parallel of our marriage to Christ, and I think the constant switch from husband-wife marriage to Jesus-church marriage exposes details in both relationships that are worth grasping.

Anyways, a quote that I read, reread, underlined, then read again is as follows:

"Certainly, if we cannot be faithful to a living person we can see and touch, how will we ever be faithful to an invisible God?" (p. 92)

Wonderful question, Mike. The fear of infidelity in marriage is becoming more and more real in many relationships today. Does this correspond at all with the straying of people from God? Likely. Being unfaithful to your spouse, even before you marry them, is like giving up hope, and seeking after other gods.

More on this later... of to Alabama tomorrow!

Little Chelsea Lamb

I saw this picture this morning, and so many thoughts rushed to my head that I had to write about it. First off, it's at face value a powerful image to being lost and the metaphor of the Good Shepherd:

"I myself will tend my sheep and have them lay down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak..." (Ezekiel 34:15-16a)

In the photograph we can see the youth of the lamb. Perhaps he's still enjoying his adventure away from the others, but we can begin to see fear creep into its face. He feels lost and alone. He doesn't understand what's going on. He's looking around and doesn't see his mom. We know the Shepherd has a more aerial view, and can see the rest of the flock in the distance. He can bring the little lamb back.

Once I read the verse in Ezekiel, I thought about the common association the Christian community has with lamb and lost. It's probably because most verses deal with salvation (Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6-7, Matthew 25:32). We have all heard that God "searches for the lost and brings back the strays," that He rejoices in the one found sheep (Matthew 18:12-13). The metaphor is usually used with evangelical undertones. However, the verse continues to say he "will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak." I myself don't think of him as a Shepherd often when I'm still in the flock.

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures,he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me." (Psalm 23:1-4)

There's no mention of being lost. Read it again, closely, especially if you've heard it before. The Shepherd is actually "with me". I feel with God right now- maybe not 48 hours ago, but yes, now. I had run ahead of the shepherd, and I'll be back in that green valley one day, but next time with His presence and blessing.

What I'm dealing with now is missing the valley. It is a good valley- why not go now? Why do the other sheep insist on sticking around here for so long? That is my valley. However, I hold onto the faith that my Shepherd knows what he's doing- and has the power to guide those sheep too, if he feels it's best. No matter how amazing that valley is (for it really is), it's not worth being there without my Shepherd.

Photograph by Matt Blakemore, http://www.flickr.com/photos/simpologist/142876597/in/set-1587781/ . Creative Commons licence: Attribution and Non-commercial.

Mars Hill Church: Seattle, WA

Hey guys! Just wanted to share a favorite sermon podcast of mine- Mars Hill Church. The style is modern, but the theology is sound. Some consider it too old-fasioned, but I believe it's very Biblical. They are also currently ranked #3 on iTunes podcasts under Religion and Spirituality, so congratulations! :)
You can check them out there, or get their current sermon series at www.marshillchurch.org
... I would consider the current series for high school students and up (that means not you Emily!) but they also have all their old series up as well.

Purity

Purity is something that people generally try to achieve, but find hard to define. There are some things that are impure, and some things that are pure. Then there's the blurr in the middle, with a faint but definite line separating the pure fuzz from the impure fuzz. Furthermore, different situations may be more or less tempting to others, that may or may not result in a compromise of mental purity. Basically, it's a personal level.

God makes it clear that "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Phil 4:8).

I've been doing a lot of thinking on what purity means in the last two weeks. I have come to a conclusion: that ring there (points to her ring above) is not a promise to my friends. It's not a promise to my parents or even my future husband. It's a promise to God, and He holds me to account for everything I've done. I think a major stumbler in the whole purity social sector is the emphasis on the motive. True Love Waits talks about the joy in being able to tell your spouse that you came to your marriage pure, but what about God? He has higher standards than your physical purity- He cares about the state of your soul and mind as well.

I have had some deep struggles with this in my past, and they continue today. These last two months have been like riding a bike uphill steadily, but now that [I think] I've gotten to the top, the view is amazing. I'm reminded of God's faithfulness and find joy again in spending time with Him. Our God is good. :)

Hymns, or Modern Worship

Different churches that I have been to have a different idea of proper worship that they are comfortable with. I was raised in a very structured, old fasioned church till grade five. I remember as I was learning to read, I would follow the words in the hymnals with my fingers and trace the patterns of the notes.
Then we moved to a more modern church- one with drums, a guitar, and the powerpoint "hymnals." It was more like music that surrounded me outside of church.
As I am now older and thinking about what worship means, a couple things stand out about these genres. If you listen to older hymns, they focus more on the glory of God and his power. They are worshiping God as a being. Newer songs tend to focus on either our need for God, or what he has done for us. Through they're generally not self-centered, the self is a part of the song.
For instance, think of one of my favorite hymns: How Great Thou Art. The name says it all.
Compare that to My Savior My God (Aaron Shust), one of the top songs last year on Christian radio stations.
Now, is this shift necesarily bad? No. It is merely a more personal shift, and how could that hinder a personal religion? Besides, if you consider David Crowder's opinion in Praise Habit (a wonderful book, but that's worth another post) worship should be part of life. As long as the words are Biblically supported and heartfelt, worship can take many various forms.
However, hymns have value too. They're time tested and hold some solid theology. What are you guys' favorite hymns?

I and II Samuel

I actually read these two books quite a while ago (about, oh, two weeks) but between school books, procrastination, and a lovely trip to Texas :) it has been put off till now. Therefore, I'm going to group them together.

I definitely think it's amazing reading books right through, because you really pick up the author's style and certain points they're trying to emphasize. Then again, it may be that Saul and David's lives were picked out by God to carry these themes as a lesson. Who knows. What matters is, there is a definite theme that carries through these books and is a valuable lesson to all of us: Giving God the control.

It shows up a lot when they murder someone (or don't).

When David and Saul are chasing each other around in 1 Sam 24, David says "May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my had will not touch you." (v. 12)

When Nabal is rude to David, and God kills Nabal, David says "Praise be to the Lord, who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. he has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal's wrongdoing down on his own head." (1 Sam 25:39)

When David spares Saul's life again, he says "Don't destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the Lord's anointed and be guiltlss? As surely as the Lord lives," he sad, "the Lord himself will strike him; either his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish. But the Lord fobid that I should lay a hnd on the Lord's anointed." (1 Sam 26:9-11)

When Saul, David's enemy, is murdered, David killed the man who murdered him. (2 Sam 1)

Later, when men murder Ish-Bosheth (Saul's son), David says, "As surely as the Lord lives, who has delivered me out of all trouble, when a man told me, 'Saul is dead' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news! How much more- when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his on house and on his bed- should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!" (2 Samuel 4:9-11)

The theme is, [out of context] "The Lord will do what is good in his sight." (2 Sam 10:12)

Constantly, David is looking for the right thing to do in God's eyes, not man's. Yes, Saul was wicked, but David knew that it was not in his place to carry out that killing. Furthermore he is just, and punishes the man that does end up killing Saul.

So what does this mean for us? It takes a lot of faith to just leave things up to God, as well as patience, but I believe it's a reminder to be the "bigger person." Personal justice (I'm not getting into the judicial system here) should not be left up to the individual, but to God.

Picture used by permission. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chefranden/419290851/

Judges AND Ruth

Judges was a fun book to go through, because I've never actually fully read it before, but I've read most of it in segments, so it was nice to see how they come together. Something that I noticed about this area is the strength of the women. It was funny to see that they all fall in the same book. Deborah, Jael, Jephthah's daughter, Zorah's wife (Samson's mother), Samson's wife, Delilah, the Levite's concubine that brought the remaining tribes of Israel together (except Benjamin), Naomi, and Ruth.
Not all of these women are good, by any means. Samson in particular had problems, between his wife and girlfriend, Delilah. Both of them pressured and pushed Samson to tell them things that he didn't want to. It says of his wife, "She cried the whole seven days of the feast. So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him" (Jud 14:17) and then she goes and gives the information to his enemies! Delilah's worse. "She said to him, 'How can you say, "I love you," when you won't confide in me?'" (Jud 16:15) and "With such nagging she prodded him day after day til he was tired to death." (Jud 16:16). Then she went and had him tied up and brought on his death.
The other women in this book, for the most part, were decent. What's the difference?
Samson's wife and Delilah didn't realize the influence they could have had on Samson. As women, we hold more power than we realize (or, at least a different sort of power). Throughout the Old Testament, God warns the people about marrying pagan wives, because they will turn them away from Him. As women, we can use the gifts God has given us to uplift and help the men around us, or we can nag them and prod them. They will not become the gentlemen that they can be in that way. It's something I need to work on too, but I have found in the times I do support and encourage, even when I don't 100% agree with their plan, things tend to go smoother than if I try to convince them to do it another way.

Joshua

Joshua's an interesting story. It's sort of the sequal to the Israelite exodus, because it is when Moses dies, Joshua becomes the prophet, and leads the people into their lands. A lot of it is the battles and designation of areas to tribes, which means there are a lot of names, and it's very tempting to gloss over them, since most of them I have never heard of, so it is just a bunch of names to me. However, it's fun to follow along with a map, and see the size of the different allocations, and every now and then, a name will stick out.

Throughout all the battles, while the men follow God (which is all but one, I believe), he gives them success over the previous land owners. It's definitely an eye-opener to how much power God has. It's not just that their chance of victory increases, but that it is definite.

Another inspirational character I found was Caleb. Previously, when Moses had instructed spies to go scope out the new land, only Joshua and Caleb were faithful and believed that, with God, they had a chance against the current residents. Therefore, God told all the other spies that they would never enter the new land, but Joshua and Caleb would. At one point, Caleb comes up to Joshua and says, "You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God at Kadesh Barnea about you and me. I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions, but my brothers who went up with me made the hearts of the people melt with fear. I, however, followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly. So on that day Moses swore to me, 'The land on which your feet have walked will be your inheritance and that of your children forever, because you have followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly.' Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then. Now give me this hill country that the LORD promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, the LORD helping me, I will drive them out just as he said," (Josh 14:6-15). After all this time, an 85 year old man had kept faith, and was ready to march out to battle. It kind of reminds me of my grandfather. He's 85, I believe. It would be easy to give up at his age, and say, "Well, God said I could have this land, but I'm so old now, that my chances of conquering the Anakites is slim," but no, not Caleb.

Deuteronomy

Though I am about 1.5 books behind the plan, I am slowly catching up. I finished Deuteronomy today, and it was interesting. I've always thought the Old Testiment was a) confusing and b) somewhat boring. but when you read through it it actually a) makes a lot more sense, and b) is pretty neat!
One of the main themes of these last few books, and a very important one in Deuteronomy, is idolitry. I thought it was really interesting how the main law that God kept reiterating was not to fall aside and worship the gods of their enemies. Yet, he knew they would. They already had quite a bit. He tells Moses, "They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them" (Deut 31:16).
It's more subtle today, how other things slip into our lives and take up time. School, work, sin, all become time-consuming to the point of destruction unless checked (except sin. It's just bad).
However, compared to what God was offering the Israelites, giving up idolitry should have been nothing. He was giving them a beautiful land, success over their enemies, health, families, boutiful crops... silly Israelites.
... silly me. hm.

Leviticus AND Numbers (AND my Mental Health Weekend)

As some of you know, I am in the middle of a beautiful five day weekend. I am behind in all the reading I am supposed to be doing, and I needed to get away. I can't explain it really- I feel stressed, but not since there is nothing to really stress me in my life right now. No idea.

Anyhow, I packed a bag, checked with Mom, and headed out to Aunt Heather's. On the two hour drive, I listened to the first two CDs of The Dawn Treader. The second one ended just as I was getting out of the car, otherwise I may have just sat there till it was finished!

I've also caught up a bunch in my Bible plan reading; I actually finished Leviticus sometime last week and just haven't written about it. They sort of go together, so I figured rather than make two posts out of them, I'd do one.

The thing that strikes me about these two books is the amount of involvement the Lord had in these people's lives, and yet the amount of disbelief they had. He was in a cloud above their tabernacle. He was in the manna and quail. He sprouted Aaron's staff. He was in Baalam's donkey. One of my camp councelors or small group leaders had a discussion once, and I remember talking about how even though these people saw him in their lives in tangable (at least more tangably than I think we tend to) ways, they didn't believe. And I remember they posed the question: If we lived in Jesus' time (or in this case, during the grand tour of Siani ), would we belive? I like to think so. However, it is discouraging to see these people, generation after generation, doubt.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have periods of doubt. I definitely have, and the worse thing about doubt is it couples with this twisted perception that you are the only one that is experiencing it. However, when the "difficult" thing about Christianity is that it is a relationship based on faith, I just can't see how these people lacked that faith after God showed up in their lives time and time again.

However, it makes me think about the different ways God shows up in my life. No, he doesn't fall from the sky like manna, but I can definitly name situations, experiences, and people he has brought into my life that makes me fully aware of his involvement. For instance, there is an amazing opportunity I have, which I will go into more detail about in March when I learn more. Things like that don't just occur by coincidence.

Tomorrow is the ice fishing derby on Aunt Heather's lake, so we're going to wander around and see who has the biggest fish. There was a chinook today, so there are some fierce winds, but it is + 3 degrees outside right now (at 10:15 pm!)! We may head to Dawn and Bob's. It all depends. I need to work on some homework (I may leave school, but school doesn't leave me!). I hope you all had amazing Valentine's Days. When I'm not on dial-up, I will try to put some pictures up from the walk we took today, the Dawn Treader, and Deuteronomy (aiming for all of this by Monday).

P.S. I call it a mental health weekend based off of a saying my friend Katie had. No, I'm not going insane! At least I don't think I am... ;)

Exodus

Another post, yes.

I just finished Exodus. I think one of the major benefits of this mass-reading expidition is that I read complete stories all in one setting. Two days ago I read from Moses' birth to the escape of the Israelites from Egypt. Then today, I read from that (I missed yesterday, being up till 12:30 with homework and church anyways) till the creation of the Tabernacle. Definitely worth reading right through, to have the people's backgrounds fresh in your minds. A couple things stood out:

First, the importance of the Sabbath. That could also be because I read a magazine article today about it, but God definitely designed us where we need rest. All throughout, God provides ways for his people to continue to honor the sabbath- for instance giving them double manna the day before so they don't have to gather it then. In the article, the girl's role model told her: "It's also about trust. If he says I can do my work in six days, who am I to doubt?" I realize it's not just about not working, but in resting, energizing, and worshiping God.

Second, it was amazing to watch the relationship between Moses and God. He went from someone who doubted God to one who would speak to Him "face to face, as a man speaks with his friend" (33:11) and whose "face was radient because he had spoken witht he Lord" (35:29).

And I found a verse that I've not really been searching for, but just keeping my eyes open. Found it! Ex 21:22

Genesis: In the Beginning...

So, I finished Genesis yesterday. I'm doing another one of Natalie's quests, which is to read the Bible in 90 days. It consists of just over 10 chapters a day (about), but it'll be nice to get the overview, and then see what I want to study more in depth later.

Genesis is actually one of the books I've read three or four times. I always start out strong, saying, "Yay! I'm going to read the Bible", and by Numbers that goal has dwindled, but Genesis is at the beginning.

However, each time I read it I get a better grasp of the family, and notice more and more, and I remember people and recognize names easier. Especially this time, since Paul (Texas youth speaker) focuses a lot on Old Testiment and the Jewish people, it's all starting to come together.

As weird as it is, there is one story that stands out to me. The first time I read it or heard about it (don't remember which) it just amazed me so much. I can't relate to it, and I have no idea why it impresses me so much, but it's the story of Leah and Rachel. (Gen 29)

Jacob fell in love with Rachel, the younger sister. He worked 7 years for her father to marry her. Their father switched her out for Leah, and so Jacob worked 7 more years for Rachel (14 total). See, Leah had to be married first because she was older (think Taming of the Shrew). Then Leah kept having kids, but Rachel didn't so she got mad and gave Jacob her maid to have kids with. It's just one big quarrel over pregnancy.

It must have been so hard for Leah. She was pushed into a marriage by her father (whether it is custom or not, no fun) to a man who doesn't love her, but loves her sister more. Even after she has children, Rachel is loved more. However, when Rachel dies, she is buried on the way to Bethlehem. Leah was buried with Jacob's family. Interesting ending for Jacob to choose for the wife he didn't love as much...

Again, don't know why I like this story so much. Just do. :)

Also, besides Exodus, I am reading The Bean Trees for school, How Scotts Invented the Modern World for Uncle Gordon and my trip to Scotland (yay!), and Prince Caspian for fun! Exodus should, in theory, be finished next.

Polished Like Silver

My favorite household job is polishing silver. I can't even call it a chore. First off, it's only once every 6 months, so it's hardly a chore. Second, my mom never has to remind me. She usually doesn't even ask- it's one of the only things that I notice on my own.

So after I published my last blog entry, I pulled out all the silver and cleaner and layed towels out onto the floor. I had my iTunes on repeat on Relient K.

Now, I don't even really like Relient K. I love their lyrics, because I know a different point in my life where each of their songs fits, and it's nice thinking of where I've come from. However, musically speaking, their songs all sound the same.

Never the less, I was listening to them, my 7 Relient K songs on repeat. These lyrics popped out: "And this life sentence that I'm serving, I admit that I'm every bit deserving, but the beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair."

Silver tarnishes naturally. It gets a nice dark film on it, but with one nice swipe with TarniShield and an old towel, it's shiney. Beautiful. I can see my reflection. It doesn't even have to ask. It's just a really neat image for grace that I wanted to share with you guys.

I think I'll take Relient K off repeat now...

Da-da

Last Sunday, our church had a period of aloud prayer. I really don't like those, because I feel it focuses on outward appearance of a personal relationship with God, rather than inward growth. I think prayer should be private, either with an individual or small group. Our pastor had mentioned all the different names of Jesus- Lamb, King of Kings, Alpha, Omega, etc. So it was interesting everything people were saying.
However, one "prayer" really got me. While someone else was praying, a little toddler called out "Da-da." At first I just tried to block it out like I usually do with toddlers squeeks in church, and stay focused, but I realized, that is God. He is my dad.
I really dislike things like "Jesus is my homeboy" shirts, because it's so disrespectful, but my Father is protective and knows what's best for me. My New Year's resolution is to spend more time with my Da-da.

Denomination

I just started filling out my online application to Trinity Western (though I have a year- they let me save it, so I'm not turning it in yet obviously) and as you may gather from the name, it is a Christian university. Once I got past the name, address, citizenship (which I hate. They never have duel, so I always feel like I'm not telling the whole truth. And which one do I choose???) the next question is denomination.

Luckily, they have a scroll down list so that you don't have to worry about spelling, but that means you have to choose one. It's like a multiple choice question- you have to pick one of them. I'm going to list them all here, as they're written:

Advent Chr
Africa Inland Church
African Christian Church
African Methodist
African Orthodox Church
Amana Ch
American Evangelical Christian
Anglican
Anglican Church
Apostolic Church
Armenian Church
Ashland Brethren
Assembly of God
Associated Gospel Church
Bahai
Baptist
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Union of Western Canada
Beachy Amish
Bible Fellowship
Black Muslim
Brethren Church
Brethren in Christ
Buddhist
Canadian Baptist Federation
Canadian Reformed Church
Catholic
Ch of Ch Cong [I'm guessing Church of China Congregation?]
Christian Church
Christian Missionary Alliance
Christian Reformed Church
Church of Christ
Church of Christian Holiness
Church of Christian Scientist
Church of England
Church of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of the Bre[theren?]
Church of Nazarene
Congregational Church
Conservative Baptist
Conservative Mennonite Conf.
Coptic Orthodox
Covenant Church
Disciples of Christ
Ecumenical
Episcopal
Episcopal Church
Evangelical
Evangelical Covenant Church
Evangelical Free
Evangelical Mennonite
Evangelical Mennonite Confederation
Evangelical Mennonite Brethren
Evangelical United Brethren
Fellowship
Fellowship Baptist
Fourscore
Foursquare
Free Methodist
Friends (Quaker)
Full Gospel
General Conference Mennonite
Grace Brethren
Greek Orthodox
Holiness
House Church
Independent
Interdenominational
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Korean Evangelical Holiness Ch
Krimmer Mennonite
Lutheran
Mennonite Brethren
Mennonite Church
Methodist
Missionary
Moravian
Moravian Church in America
Mormon
Muslim
Netherlands Reformed Church
No Church Listed
Non-Denominational
North American Baptist
Old German Baptist
Old German Baptist Brethren
Old Ord Riv Bre [Old Order River Brethren?]
Old Order Amish
Old Order Brethren
Old Order Wisslr.
Overseas Mennonites
Pentecostal
Pentecostal Holiness
Plymouth Brethren
Presbyterian
Reformed Church of America
Reformed Episcopalian
Reformed Mennonite
Salvation Army
Seventh Day Adventist
Sikh
Southern Baptist
Southern Methodist
Spiritualist
Syrian Orthodox
Unaffiliated
Unitarian
United Brethren
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Methodist
United Missionary Church
United Presbyterian
Vineyard Association
Wesleyan Methodist
World Wide Church of God

So after I searched for the "Whoa" selection, and then had deja vu of filling out the back of the SAT form (it's like that, only you're supposed to bubble your selection with a number two pencil), I looked through them. Here are the conclusions I found:

Why Can't We Be Friends?
Yes, that song played in my head. Even if you eliminate things that are obviously not Christian (Muslim, Buddhist, Bahai, Jewish) and the ones that are questionable (not to insult anyone, but Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Unitarian) and you are still left with a boatfull of denominations. I mean, Church of God, and Church of God in Christ??? Granted, I know the university has to cover its tail, but when it comes down to it, a majority of the denominations resulted from a disagreement of some kind (or potentially, geographic location). I agree that if your church is not holding to the Bible, there is something wrong with it and therefore a new denomination may be necessary, and this isn't always cut and dry, since people interpret the Bible in different ways, but there are a lot of denominations, and that's a lot of theological skiffs. I know the formation of United Methodism is full of different things branching off and joining together and it's a mess.

Which one?
Personally, I was raised United Methodist, am now attending a North American Baptist church, and have attended an Evangelical Church of Canada until a couple weeks ago. Each denomination has its issues. But when someone asks which denomination you are, do they really care if you're Methodist or United Methodist? Do they even know the difference? Is there a difference? If there is, do you know the difference? And what if you really don't know. I agree with a majority of Methodist beliefs, but there are a couple that I don't. If someone asked me which denomination I am, is there one that better describes my beliefs?

My point is, labeling denominations is necessary to help choose churches, and get someones beliefs in a nutshell, but once you have that basic overview, does it hinder us from asking tough questions? If someone tells me they're Lutheran, my pathetic amount of knowledge would tell me "Cool, Lutheran, aren't they the ones who don't share communion with other denominations?" and leave it at that. However, if we didn't have nifty denomination titles, I would have to ask, "Well, what's your opinion on this?" and "How do you feel about that?" This would also encourage people to question their own personal beliefs, rather than following a denomination that may not describe them.

Thought of the day

"God made the world round so we would never be able to see too far down the road." (Isak Dinesen)

Evoluion vs. Creation: Proof?

WARNING: Long post. Read when you have time to think.


How much of our knowledge is based on fact?


I'd say quite a lot. Pretty much all. And if we know something isn't based on fact, we don't store it as positive knowledge, but rather tentative. A great man (who I'm not going to name because of where this article is going to go) once said: "Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2.20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such temperature and it did so-and-so.'... why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this i not a scientific question."


If that went in one ear and out the other, what I believe he is saying is that the purpose of science is to make observations, and figure out the earthly reasons. Not make predictions about why the earthly reasons exist. Here's the point I'm trying to make.


Today in Biology, we were taking notes on "evidence of evolution." Mrs. Fehres's points were the following:

1) Biogeography- the fact that marsupials being restricted to Australia proves they developed completely post-Pangea. Another example would be Darwin's finches. However, I would like to ask how this proves anything? Just because I don't believe man developed from apes doesn't mean I don't believe in variations in species. I breed dogs, for goodness sakes. I know how easy it is to create something that is completely original by tweaking traits. I would agree that this proves micro-evolution (evolution within a species) but not macro-evolution (evolution from species to species, from whale to horse). It is not as though it takes millions of years to change a species either. There have been scientific studies done that prove these changes occur 10 000 to 10 000 000 times faster than evolutionists previously thought. How you can say that because there are different species in different areas proves adaptation that crossed from a monkey to a man, with rational thinking and a unique language, is not proof. It is doing what the quote-speaker said above, and putting too much guesswork into science.

2) Fossil Record- all I have to say on this is the following quotes from evolutionists:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Stephen Gould, Harvard evolutionary geologist)

"However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Mark Ridley, Oxford University)

3)Morphology- the fact that bat wing skeletons look like human arms, and whales have femurs. This is a very interesting "proof" for evolution. I hope by this point, you are getting the gist of what I am saying: Though I obviously believe in Creation, my goal is not to persuade people to this (at least not in this article. just be patient...) . It is merely to point out that the "evidence" for evolution is not solid. It does not prove evolution or Creation in itself, and yet it's being taught as proving the evolution "theory" (which is rarely treated as a theory).

Anyways, back on topic: Morphology. Just because there are similarities between animal structures does not have to lead to the fact they developed from each other. What about the idea that they developed from the same Creator? Why couldn't God have used something that He found worked in several, if not all species? Just shining a different light on it, and saying that it isn't proof. It's just an observation.

4) Embryological development- the fact that many embryos look the same in very early stages. Again, if it worked why not use it repeatedly in Creation? However, a famous evolutionist, Ernest Haeckel exaggerated these drawings. The first is a drawing by A. Ecker:

Now by Haeckel:

Leading embryologists have agreed that he drew these inaccurately. From a site: "[Prof His] sarcastically pointed out that Haeckel taught in Jena, home of the then finest optical equipment available, and so had no excuse for inaccuracy. He concluded that anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research workers of any stature.

5. Artificial selection- the fact that by ourselves using evolutionary methods in breeding and farming, it proves evolution occurred. What? Does that make sense? By proving it's possible, we are not proving it occurred. We are proving the possibility, and not even the possibility of macro-evolution, but micro-evolution. Furthermore, I would like to see someone use selective breeding to turn a snake into a frog- things that are "closely related." I would say this in no way justifies macro-evolution.

6. Biochemistry- similarities in molecular biology in nonidentical species.

Mrs. Fehres gave the example of respiratory enzymes. She said that humans have 48% of the same respiratory enzymes as bacteria. Humans and chickens share 86%. Humans and rabbits share 92%. Humans and chimps share 100%. However, I ask again, what is the point of these enzymes? If different species use them and they work to their purposes, then why not use them in multiple species? This does not prove gradual development. It proves something higher. I mean, bacteria? Actually, the amount of change that would have had to occur and the length of time it would have taken for bacteria to develop into humans would have included so many mutations, that it would have probably resulted in much less than 48% (I don't have anything to back that up, I'm just thinking out loud).

I am not trying to prove Creation [here]. I am merely expressing the concern that evolution is being treated as having a higher amount of proof than Creation. Because the evidence is proving both, I would venture to say that this particular evidence proves nothing. It is observations, which is what it should be. It is not meant to prove evolution or Creation- what is supposed to decide that for you is your personal beliefs. It is difficult for Christians to stand up for what their beliefs are telling them when their blatant proof is being treated as meaningless. If Biblical evidence is not solid evidence, I would call it weak evidence to non-Christians. However, proof for evolution is weak evidence to everyone. What I originally meant to write this about is how unspecific evidence can be modified to suit whichever case you're going for to begin with. If you are gung-ho for evolution, you can find fallacies in my arguments. If you're gung-ho for Creationism, you can find fallacies in evolution. It's scary how that works, but it is very difficult for a person to make a completely unbiased observation of the two. And in a way, I think that's best.

The Four Loves, by C.S. Lewis

I'm working on a scholarship where I have to tell of the "greatest literary work of all time." I figured the best way to judge this would be find the work with the largest application over the largest amount of people. What's better than love? Love influences all people, and my belief of that has only been strengthened as I read The Four Loves, by C.S. Lewis. As I mentioned before, I highlighted influential quotes as I went, but I will not be able to type them all here. There are simply too many. Before one reads this book, it should be understood that C.S. Lewis writes from a Christian perspective. While many of the points he makes apply to a universal audience, he does delve into the representation of marriage in the relationship between Christ and the Church. It also assumes the reader agrees that God gave us the longings we have, and created everything. I encourage you to read all the quotes, even if you don't have the same beliefs I do. I do not expect you to change your beliefs because of these quotes, but I hope it will give you a better understanding of either the topic of love, Christian religion, or both. It is also amusing, as you read, to consider your own relationships, whether friendships, romantic relationships, or spiritual ones. To summarize, the book starts out grouping the different ways we love: Need-love (young child's love for mother), Gift-love (service), and Appreciation-love (simply loving something because it is the way it is). Then it delves into the ways this is expressed, essentially, the four types of love: Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity. They are elaborated in the following quotes (the chapter titles are bolded for organization). * My favorites/ those I relate to the most Likings and Loves for the Sub-Human (defines the ways we love) "Need-love cries to God from our poverty; Gift-love longs to serve, or even suffer for, God; Appreciative love says: 'We give thanks to thee for thy great glory.' Need-love says of a woman 'I cannot live without her'; Gift-love longs to give her happiness, comfort, protection-if possible, wealth; Appreciative love gazes and holds its breath and is silent, rejoices that such a wonder should exist even if not for him, will not be wholly dejected by losing her, would rather have it so than never to have seen her at all." "Nature 'dies' on those who try to live for a love of nature...Say your prayers in a garden early, ignoring steadfastly the dew, the birds and the flowers, and you will come away overwhelmed by its freshness and joy; go there in order to be overwhelmed and, after a certain age, nine times out of ten nothing will happen to you." Affection "But Affection has its own criteria. Its objects have to be familiar. We can sometimes point to the very day and hour when we fell in love or began a new friendship. I doubt if we ever catch Affection beginning. To become aware of it is to become aware that it has already been going on for some time." "The more intimate the occasion, the less the formalisation; but not therefore the less need of courtesy. On the contrary, Affection at its best practises a courtesy which is incomparably more subtle, sensitive, and deep than the public kind." "Change is a threat to Affection." "If you need to be needed and if your family, very properly, decline to need you, a pet is the obvious substitute....Those who say 'The more I see of men the better I like dogs' -those who find in animals a relief from the demands of human companionship- will be well advised to examine their real reasons." "Affection produces happiness if-and only if- there is common sense and give and take and 'decency.' In other words, only if something more, and other, than Affection is added. The mere feeling is not enough. You need 'common sense,' that is reason. You need 'give and take'; that is, you need justice, continually stimulating mere Affection when it fades and restraining it when it forgets or would defy the art of love. You need 'decency.' There is no disguising the fact that this means goodness; patience, self-denial, humility, and the continual intervention of a far higher sort of love than Affection, in itself, can ever be. That is the whole point. If we try to live by Affection alone, Affection will 'go bad on us.' Friendship "To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it....Without Eros non of us would have been begotten and without Affection none of us would have been reared; but we can live and breed without Friendship....To those- and they are now the majority- who see human life merely as a development and complication of animal life all forms of behavior which cannot produce certificates of an animal of origin and of survival value are suspect. Friendship's certificates are not very satisfactory." "It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual."

*"Lamp says somewhere that if, of three friends (A, B, and C), A should die, then B loses not only A but 'A's part in C,' while C loses not only A but 'A's part in B.' ... Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald's reaction to a specifically Caroline joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him 'to myself' now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald. Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves."

*"It is often called Friendship, and many people when they speak of their 'friends' mean only their companions... Friendship arises out of mere Companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden). The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, 'What? You too? I thought I was the only one.'"

*"When the two people who thus discover that they are on the same secret road are of different sexes, the friendship which arises between them will very easily pass- may pass in the first half-hour- into erotic love. Indeed, unless they are physically repulsive to each other or unless one or both already loves elsewhere, it is almost certain to do so sooner or later...If one who was first, in the deep and full sense, your Friend, is then gradually or suddenly revealed as also your lover you will certainly not want to share the Beloved's erotic love with any third. But you will have no jealousy at all about sharing the Friendship. Nothing so enriches an erotic love as the discovery that the Beloved can deeply, truly and spontaneously enter into Friendship with the Friends you already had: to feel that not only are we two united by erotic love but we three or four or five are all travellers on the same quest, have all a common vision."

"The stereotyped 'Don't mention it' here expresses what we really feel. The mark of perfect Friendship is not that help will be given when the pinch comes (of course it will) but tat, having been given, it makes no difference at all."

*"In a perfect Friendship this Appreciative love is, I think, often so great and so firmly based that each member of the circle feels, in his secret heart, humbled before all the rest."

"Affection obviously requires kinships or at least proximities which never depended on our own choice. And as for Eros, half the love songs and half the love poems in the world will tell you that the Beloved is your fate or destiny, no more you choice than a thunderbolt, for 'it is not in our power to love or hate.'...ree of all that, we think we have chosen our peers. In reality, a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain house, the choice of one university instead of another, posting to different regiments, the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at a first meeting- any of these chances might have kept us apart. But, for a Christian, there are, strictly speaking, no chances. A secret Master of the Ceremonies has been at work... The Friendship is not a reward for our discrimination and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each the beauties of all the others."

Eros

"We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he 'wants a woman.' Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus...Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give."

"Charles Williams has said something of it in the words, 'Love you? I am you.' "

"The very faces of all the happy lovers we know makes it clear. Lovers, unless their love is very short lived, again and again feel an element not only of comedy, not only of play, but even of buffoonery, in the body's expression of Eros."

"When natural things look most divine, the demoniac is just round the corner....Within which Eros, of himself, will never be enough- will indeed survive only in so far as he is continually chastened and corroborated by higher principles. But Eros honoured without reservation and obeyed unconditionally, becomes a demon...Of all loves he is, at his height, most god-like; therefore most prone to demand our worship. Of himself he always tends to turn 'being in love' into a sort of religion."

"Everyone knows that it is useless to try to separate lovers by proving to them that their marriage will be an unhappy only...But even if they believed, they would not be dissuaded. For it is the very mark of Eros that when he is in us we had rather share unhappiness with the Beloved than be happy on any other terms."

*"Theologians have often feared, in this love, a danger of idolatry.... The real danger seems to me not that the lovers will idolise each other but that they will idolise Eros himself....'These reasons in love's law have passed for good,' says Milton's Dalila. That is the point; in love's law. 'In love,' we have our own 'law,' a religion of our own, our own god. Where a true Eros is present resistance to his commands feels like apostasy, and what are really (by the Christian standard) temptations speak with the voice of duties- quasi0religious duties, acts of pious zeal to love. He builds his own religion around the lovers...It seems to sanction all sorts of actions they would not otherwise have dared...The pair can say to one another in an almost sacrificial spirit, 'It is for love's sake that I have neglected my parents...' These reasons in love's law have passed for good. The votaries may even come to feel a particular merit in such sacrifices; what costlier offering can be laid on love's alter than one's conscience?"

*"Spontaneously and without effort we have fulfilled the law (towards one person) by loving our neighbour as ourselves. It is an image, a foretaste, of what we must become to all if Love Himself rules in us without a rival. It is even (well used) a preparation for that...Can we be in this selfless liberation for a lifetime? Hardly for a week...But these lapses will not destroy a marriage between two 'decent and sensible' people. The couple whose marriage will certainly be endangered by them, and possibly ruined, are those who have idolised Eros... When this expectation is disappointed they throw the blame on Eros or, more usually on their partners. In reality, however, Eros having made his gigantic promise and shown you in glimpses what its performance would be like, has 'done his stuff.'...It is we who must labour to bring our daily life into even closer accordance with what the glimpses have revealed. We must do the works of Eros when Eros is not present.

Charity

*"The loves prove that they are unworthy to take the place of God by the fact that they cannot even remain themselves and do what they promise to do without God's help.... For when God rules in a human heart, though He may sometimes have to remove certain of its native authorities altogether, He often continues others in their offices and, by subjecting their authority to His, gives it for the first time a firm basis."

"This is what comes, he [St. Augustine] says, of giving one's heart to anything but God. All human beings pass away. Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose. If love is to be a blessing, not a misery, it must be for the only Beloved who will never pass away...Of course this is excellent sense...To my nature, my temperament, yes. Not to my conscience. When I respond to that appeal I seem to myself to be a thousand miles away from Christ...To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal...I believe that the most lawless and inordinate loves are less contrary to God's will than a self-invited and self-protective lovelessness."

*"It is probably impossible to love any human being simply 'too much.' We may love them too much in proportion to our love for God; but it is the smallness of our love for God, not the greatness of our love for the man, that constitutes the inordinacy....The real question is, which (when the alternative comes) do you serve, or choose, or put first? To which claim does your will, in the last resort, yield?... So, in the last resort, we must turn down or disqualify our nearest and dearest when they come between us and our obedience to God....It is too late, when the crisis comes, to begin telling a wife or husband or mother or friend, that your love all along had a secret reservation- 'under God' or 'so far as a higher Lover permits.' They ought to have been warned; not, to be sure, explicitly, but by the implication of a thousand talks, by the principle revealed in a hundred discussions upon small matters. Indeed, a real disagreement on this issue should make itself felt early enough to prevent a marriage or a Friendship from existing at all."

"We cannot see light, though by light we can see things. Statements about God are extrapolations from the knowledge of other things which the divine illumination enables us to know."