Response to: The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

Response.

What is a soul?

Take 1 part spirit, mix it with with 1 part body, stick in an oven for 10 months and voila!  You have a soul!  But what happens when you add a robotic arm into the mix?  Read the following:

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

"...the monkey had become dedicated to controlling the robot, as if it were an extension of itself."

Once machine becomes an extension of self, we begin to question what self really is.  If you judge that I speak presumptuously on your behalf by using the subjective personal pronoun of "we", then to you I extend my apologies.  I was only speaking for my self and the extensions thereunto pertaining.

Know God; know Good. No God; no good.

My wife, Jenna, asked me today what it was I wanted to accomplish in my 29^th year on this planet.  It was an appropriate birthday question and I wanted to give it a serious response.  I paused for a moment, and then I answered, “I want to love my fellow man more.”  My wife then asked my how it was that I planned on doing that.  I would like to share what went through my mind while I contemplated this follow-up question.

Whatever capacity I have to love at this point is only due to the fact that my Father has given me the power to know good.  By my own will, I have tried to share what I know to be good but my weaknesses often hinder my intentions.  This is why I know enough to acknowledge that my will is not enough, and that it is only by the power of God that others can benefit from my efforts.  So that only by His power I came to know Good, and only by His power do others come to know Good.

Therefore, if I am to accomplish what I have set out in my heart to do when I answered my wife’s first question I must know God better.  That I may know of His goodness to a greater degree than what I know now and that I may know His will for me that I may not resist it but rather carry it out according to His grace.  It is in this line of thinking that the correlation between the two greatest commandments becomes self evident.  So how can I learn of God’s goodness more than what I do now?

I consider myself to be a faithful disciple of Christ but only so far as convenience is concerned.  I am like the rich man who does all good things but is unwilling to take the final step and give away his riches.  Within the realm of the rich man’s comfort, he is capable of doing good works among men but when Jesus asks him to forgo the worldly security for spiritual security the rich man finds it hard to oblige.  I find myself in a similar pattern, not that I am a wealthy man, but rather I am unwilling to go outside of social and cultural norms to demonstrate love for my fellow man.

A while back, I noticed a woman weeping in the parking lot.  My heart wanted to reach out to her but I told myself to mind my own business; she did not want me to interfere.  As I got in my car and drove away I felt like such a coward.  It is possible that she could have told me to mind my own business but maybe she needed someone, anyone, to talk to and I did not give her the opportunity for fear of being rejected.

This year, I will not shirk from the hard time.  As prompted, I will open my hand and my arms and my heart to those around me.  I will share the burden of others and by doing so I hope to learn of God’s goodness to a greater degree than I known in the past.  This year, my prayer is that I will have the courage to walk outside my comfort zone that I may comfort another soul.

Eucharistic Eukaryotes

I was contemplating the ways of God today. Specifically, how consciousness is affected at the cellular level, when the term Eucharistic eukaryotes came to mind. I think creationists would get a Eucharistic kick out of that one.

God wants relationships, not religion.

Why was Christ was put to death? Why were there people who hated Him? Who were these people? Were they homosexuals? Were they pro choice? Were they people who preferred to stay home and watch football instead of go to church? No, in fact, they were the super religious, conservative, fundamentalists of their time. Over and over again the phrase, "Religion killed God," has played in my head for the last week or so. Science, Christianity, and the very belief in God is under attack and I attribute it all to the same evils that exist in religion.

I feel strongly that God hates religion. "Obedience in better than the fat of rams." Obedience to what? The spirit of God guides us to Christ who teaches us of the Father and it was Christ who taught that our Father's kingdom is within us. The Babylonians did not understand this, which is why they though they could build a tower so high it would enable them to reach heaven. That tower was one of the first "churches" built and men have been building them ever since.

I have watched quite a few YouTube videos lately. I have notice that theism (belief in God) is under attack by a series of successive videos created by various atheists. First let me state that every (without exception) atheist I have met in person, I judged to be a highly intelligent, kind, moral person. This is significant because I met many atheists as a missionary. The majority of atheists I see presenting arguments on YouTube however, have faulty premises, faulty logic, and sometimes both and seem to hold a contempt for theists in some cases, especially Christians. To be clear, this post is not a personal counterstrike on atheist but an attempt to bring logical, intelligent people to an awareness of the war that is ensuing about them.

Atheism seems to be gaining popularity in this country which is disturbing to me because this growth seems to be fueled by a religious and fervorous, dogmatic belief that their is no God. To prove that something exists is infinitely easier than proving that something does not exist which is why the assumption in science is that something does not exists unless it is observable. Not only is this fair but wise because otherwise we might as well believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny and all other creatures of imagination. So as far as science is concerned, there is no God. To be real it must be proven, but to be dogmatic about atheism is more foolish than the religious fanatic who is dogmatic about the earth being created in six days.

I can respect a person who says, "I do not believe in God because I have yet to see any evidence of such a being." Likewise, I would expect the same respect in return for my belief in God and my testimony that I have experienced His divine influence in my life. To witness the majesty of the universe and of life is, in my opinion, observable evidence, though not conclusive, which is why it is a belief.

I recently watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Richard Dawkins in his interview with Ben Stein said that if you believe in evolution then you can not believe in God. Perhaps I do not fully understand evolution because I don't see why God could not have been the author of such a process if that is in fact the way it happened. However, what troubles me is that the process of evolution is still very fuzzy and Intelligent Design theorists have come along to challenge the paradigm. So what is the reaciton of the Darwinists? They treat evolutionary biology like a religion and act as though it is sacrilegious to challenge Darwin theory.

I think of Poor Charles Darwin, and the tremendous suffering and humiliation he went through as a scientist. To this day, religious fundamentalists think he was an evil man. The Vatican Church put so much pressure on Darwin that Charles renounced his Theory before he died. You would have thought that the Catholic church would have learned their lesson with Galileo but that's how incredibly ignorant religion is. Now here we are, centuries later, with all our knowledge, education and advanced marvels of civilization and now we witness a body within the scientific community acting like a bully? First we have the crusades and now we have terrorists dressed in lab coats flying their planes into the twin towers of science.

So I submit to you, that this is the very type of thinking that killed Christ. It is a spirit of pride and one of hostility towards any new way of thinking. If we are to to be Christian, we must shun any connotation of religiosity. We must be open to new ways of thinking, and if we find that we disagree with these new ways then we shall resist the ideas while loving our neighbors and the new ideas they share. Even if you do not belief in God at all, it would be wise to adopt this attitude. How many more must needlessly suffer or even die?

Irreducible Complexity

I went to lunch with a colleague of mine this week and decided to run a few ideas by him. We started off talking about Big Bang Theory and moved into discussing Intelligent Design (ID). More specifically, we discussed the major supporting idea of irreducible complexity (IC). The problem with IC is there still needs to be a scientific explanation of how we go from atoms and molecules to complex proteins and a functional system within a cell. Without one, we are back to the fundamentalist creationism way of thinking of God creating everything ex nihilo, which I do not support per se (I’ll save my argument that the sum of the universe = zero for another post). I suggested that there had to be some sort of ‘DNA’ at the sub-atomic level. That is to say that atoms, within themselves, must have a set of instructions to follow to explain something as complex as a flagellum motor.
Then the idea of Cymatics occurred to me and it offered itself as a probable explanation. So how could something complex come from something relatively simple? First take a look at Cymatics in action, and then listen to one of its proponents. Now, I do not outright agree with everything stated nor do I blindly propose that this is the answer to how God spoke the universe into existence. However, I certainly do propose that some similar mechanism may be at work. These patterns are created because of the natural path of least resistance. As such I am interested in identifying what design can be created by using the lowest frequency possible, then using a scale of pitch where the intervals strictly following the Golden Ratio. I am also interested in other energy waves or fields (e.g. electromagnetic). If anyone can find some correlation between all this and fractals, I’m interested.

The Sun of God

There are many stars in the universe but there is only one that gives the energy needed for life, which we call our sun.  Although only a small fraction of the sun's massive energy actually makes it to our humble planet, it is sufficient to sustain all the organisms that live here.  The following is an over-simplified model of the flow of energy commonly known as the food chain:

1. Through photosynthesis, plants convert energy from the sun into storable biochemical energy known as sugars.

2. These sugars are consumed by various organisms.

3. These same plant eating creatures which contain protein and fat are consumed by various prey.

As energy flows through the food chain a perfect one to one conversion does not occur because most of the energy is lost as heat (2nd law of thermodynamics).  As a result, life on earth depends on a continuous flow of energy from the sun to sustain all living organisms at both the bottom and top of the food chains.  This flow of energy is rather linear, however, some of the energy is recycled back through the food chain.  When an organism such as a lion dies, vultures, insects, and bacteria come along and scavenge the carcass for whatever food energy remains.

If I may now relate this line of thought abstractly, God's spiritual energy flows through us in much the same way.  Although some of His energy is recycled as we serve one another, were it not for His continuous and massive energy that nourishes our souls, Humanity would surely perish. Surely, humanity would stand to benefit from striving to become superconductors of this Divine energy.  Moreover, God did much more than put a star in our heavens that it may give us life; He also sent His Son to dwell on earth.

Happiness

He who is wisest is happiest and he who is happiest is wisest. God is the wisest and therefore happiest of all.

The scientific method

In my life experience, most of the atheists I have come to know have impressed me with their strong sense of morality and ethics. As a missionary, I honed my ability to find common ground beliefs and build upon them however this was especially challenging when it came to atheists. I became fascinated with the idea of understanding God in the purest (religion free) way and being able to explain this in the simplest and most direct manner. For the past seven years or so this process has stayed with me and I have been cultivating these ideas. Throughout the years I have shared my thoughts with a select few to gain new perspectives. By means of this blog I hope to accomplish this now at an accelerated pace.

The sum of my observations of people of various religious backgrounds is that the humanity at large follows a process analogous to the scientific method. Those who understand the history of religion and science can surely appreciate the irony of this statement however, I am convinced that our spirituality is a follows a set of scientific rules and that theses rules, if better understood, would help alleviate much of the frustration felt in our trial and error approach to know God.

"Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Wikipedia offers us a linearized, pragmatic scheme as a guideline (which I have slightly modified):

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment
5a. Collect data
5b. Analyze data
5c. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
6. Publish results
7. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

In religious terms I offer up a parallel:

1. Desire
2. Seek
3. Hope
4. Faith
5a. Experience
5b. Understanding
5c. Wisdom
6. Testimony
7. Repeat as desired

The fundamental difference is that the soul is the recording instrument. As we have no present means to extract this information directly from a person's soul we must rely on their testimony. Arguably, data from scientific experiments are more reliable as they are not subject to misinterpretations, exageration or lies; or are they? Is this not the importance of retesting a published scientific conclusion? If the experiment is reproduced with the exact specifications of the origional it should produce the same results and I submit the same holds true to spiritual matters.

If one man plants a seed and tends for it and another man goes and does the same does it garantee that either seed will grow? Consider that if a man says, "Plant this seed for it is good," and it is done to no avail what are the possible reasons why the seed did not grow? The same reasons could be aplied to why religion does not work the way people say it does. I submit that those who frequently experience God's joy in their life is the direct result of understanding this process to some degree or another.

Why is the grass green?

Those who know me best, understand that I am the kind of person who wonders why the grass is green. Those same people understand that I can not leave a question unanswered and so I will always try to offer up the best explanation that I have at the time. In my attempt at such, I may come across as as a "know-it-all" unless you understand that deep down, I am praying that someone has a better answer; because as much as I love teaching I love learning that much more. Therefore, I will tell you why the grass is green however, this blog is the place to one-up me; and if you are successful you will be considered the friend to my soul.

"Green" is a word used to describe a color in the English language. It means nothing in and of itself unless an agreement on the usage of the word has been established. Typically, we come these types of agreements rather quickly if you consider that as a child someone shows you a color and tells you that it's "green" and you call it such from that point forward. What about the color blind? Those with red-green color blindness sometimes confuse the two colors when presented with each other. Here we have cause for disagreement that is typically overruled by the majority; leaving the minority to be labeled as abnormal. Science has discovered the cause of the abnormality but in order to do so, science had to define green as, "a light spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 520–570-nm," and a nanometer (nm) as a unit of length in the metric system, equal to one billionth of a meter. Furthermore, for these definitions to have any meaning, a metric system had to have been established. To appreciate the measures (pardon the pun) taken to ensure this consistency in the metric system great lengths (sorry) were taken. The following describes the history of the meter:

"[A] meter was originally defined as ¹⁄_10,000,000 of the distance between the North Pole and Earth's equator as measured along the meridian passing through Paris... The meter was later redefined as the length of a particular bar of platinum-iridium alloy; then in terms of the wavelength of light emitted by a specified atomic transition; and now is defined as the distance travelled by light in an absolute vacuum during ¹⁄_299,792,458 of a second."

Thus, the green that we see in grass is the result of a light spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of aprox. 545nm reflecting off the chlorophyll within the cells of the plant. All of this to illustrate that our entire reality is based on relevant perception. We measure one thing by comparing it to another.

What about the touchy-feely stuff? How do we measure love or joy? The implication is that the same process applies when it comes to spiritual matters and even understanding God. Although I do not believe that by any temporal means we can measure an infinite God, I do believe that by using a standardized system we can make tremendous advances in understanding His creation and thus the Creator Himself. By a means of spiritual reverse engineering, I believe that science can help those of faith to understand their creator and in doing so we stand to gain a greater understanding of God's nature. May this increase in understanding lead to wisdom and a "unity of faith" (Eph 4:13).