Smiley Fighting JedisFighting the Ignorant Smileys and Replacing Them With Comprehending Smileys

“Say (All I Need)” by Onerepublic

Usually I don’t really like Onerepublic, but I was listening to their song “All the Right Moves” when I came across this song. I knew it had been on the radio at one point, but I couldn’t really remember the song. Either way, this song has stayed with me for the past week or so, probably because of where I am in life right about now. Anyway, here are the lyrics.

Do you know where your heart is?
Do you think you can find it?
Or did you trade it for something
Somewhere better just to have it?
Do you know where your love is?
Do you think that you lost it?
You felt it so strong, but
Nothing’s turned out the way you wanted.
Well, Bless my soul.
You’re a lonely soul.
Cause you won’t let go
Of anything you hold.
Well all I need
Is the air I breathe.
And a place to rest my head.
Do you know what your fate is?
Are you trying to shake it?
You’re doing your best and your best look
You’re praying that you make it.
Chorus
Do you think you can find it?
Do you think you can find it?
Do you think you can find it?
Better than you had it.
Do you think you can find it?
Do you think you can find it?
Do you think you can find it?
Yeah, better than you had it.
Better than you had it.
Chorus
Whenever the end is
Do you think you can see it?
Well, until you get there
Go on. Go ahead and scream it.
Just say it.

So many people feel this everyday. People are hurting. We’re hurting, and we all know it. Sometimes all we need is rest. We just need a break from the confusion. We want hope, but it’s like we can never find it. Sometimes all we want to do is to stop, then start up the search again. That’s what this song’s about. Everything is collapsing around us, so we hold as tightly as we can to the things that mean the most to us. But what we must ask if holding on so tightly is what is holding us back. We look to everything for a solution, a glimmer of hope that maybe the end to all of this suffering is near. We all want to know that there is an end, but many people look to the wrong thing for a solution. This is why people have addictions to drugs, alcohol, and who knows what else. Why don’t we look to God? He knows when we’re suffering. He knows what we need. He knows when our bodies are exhausted and hungry, and he won’t ignore that. When Elijah ran from one city to another nonstop, God hid him and let him rest before he asked Elijah to do anything else. God is there to fix us and help us. He’ll heal our bodies and our hearts, so why don’t we look to him when we’re afraid, tired, and confused? He should be all we need.

Gravity and Captivated

Shawn Mcdonald is one of my favorite Christian artists. When I first really began to understand God, I was listening to a couple of his songs: “All I Need” and “Gravity.” His songs, thoughthey are obviously Christian songs, are not exactly the first things that come to mind when an atheist or someone of the like consider Christian songs. I’ve noticed that most Christian artists nowadays sound kind of goody goody in nature. The majority of Christian songs, though their message may be true and worthwhile to listen to, they are unrealistic in general. They only speak of the times in life where we can rejoice, but what about the people who are broken? What about the people who are suffering? What about the people mired in pain? What about reality? Christianity is not just about the times when we experience God’s presence. It’s also about persevering when we feel like God has abandoned us. Christians can’t cut out what they don’t want to address. God doesn’t find us when we are whole. He finds us when we are at our breaking point to pull us back up. This is what I like about Shawn Mcdonald. His songs may have what you could call cookie cutter lyrics, but the lyrics are presented in such a way that they seem genuine and believable. You can almost tell that the singer is a real person, not someone who has been sheltered their whole life.

“Captivated” is song about falling in love with God, as cheesy as that sounds. The song shows just how much one can be enraptured in God’s nature, something I think many atheists, agnostics, and even some Christians misunderstand. I don’t listen to most Christians songs mainly because they don’t sound like anything more than a song. They don’t seem to mean anything. None of them sound so heartfelt and real as Shawn Mcdonald’s songs. There are times to hurt, to doubt, to question. There are times to laugh, to smile, to worship, but there are times that do not fit into either of those categories. Life is not defined by absolutes. Gray area exists. That’s actually most of what life is. “Captivated”, while it is a joyful song, it’s also something I could see myself singing in times of distress. It is a song of hope, of deliverance, of faith, and faith comes from a love that surpasses all human realtion simply because the being with whom this faith is tied to is not a being that can fail. God does not fail. We fail. He can just see past all that to the person we are through love and omnipotence. He knows us through and through. He is our maker. How could he not understand us? Something many people don’t realize is that love can be seen despite the most overpowering darkness. That is what this song is about. God is always there. We just have to let him show himself. This is what Shawn Mcdonald talks about in his songs “Gravity” and “Captivated.” This is what everyone needs to hear, especially some Christians in America.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/03/04/labrador-retriever-sized-herbivore-shakes-up-theories-of-dino-evolution/

As I have already touched on in some of my older posts, evolution is extremely prominant in today’s society. The newest exhibit would be a Asilisaurus, or a fourlegged herbivore. Supposedly it’s 240 million years old, which happens to make it the oldest fossil known to man. According to scientists, the fossil is ten million years older than the oldest fossil ever collected, which means certain scientists say evolution worked faster than they first thought. We’ll get to that later.  The point is, when the scientists tried to assemble the skeleton over a three year period, they were asstounded. Not only did the skeleton not fit their original expectation, it was only the size of a labrador retriever, not to mention it was an herbivore. So what do evolutionists say? Eh, let’s just change and upset the entire timeline they consider true.

First of all, this fossil was actually a skeleton from fourteen different individuals. Where did all of these individuals come from? Where were they found? How do archeologists and scientists even know these bones were from the same species? What is the likelihood that they would even find fourteen of the same species? Just curious.

Another problem with this theory is that it could severely alter the evolutionary timeline, but they play it off as if it’s no big deal. They are so set on the theory of evoltuion that they will not consider any other explanation for the animal. They agree with how old the dinosaur is, but carbon dating is extremely unreliable. How can the scientists even prove that this dinosaur is even from the time period they think it is from? Where is the proof?

Tricky Dicky (2/3)

Third Rock from the Sun is a show that was popular during the late 1990’s which has now been cancelled, yet many people still claim the show to be comic genius, either because of it’s dramatization of human nature or because of how ridiculous some of the episodes are. However, whether or not the show follows a Christian worldview is up for debate. One episode, which I find particularly funny, comes to mind: Tricky Dicky, for which the link is above. In this particular episode, Dick, the high commander of the alien family, has broken up with his fiancee, Mary Albright, and now has to face the woman he still loves at work. Unlike Dick, Mary is still furious with Dick, so she decides to take action. When he finally gets to work, she reiterates over and over again that she is allowing him to remain in her office, emphasizing her name on the door. Dick immediately retaliates and demands Nina, his and Mary’s assistant that his name be written on the door in letters twice as large as Mary’s, pouting like a child the whole time. The whole episode is basically Dick and Mary performing different schemes in the name of vengeance. Not to mention, Mary also stabbed a pack of pencils into Dick’s precious Mr. Potatohead.

From the beginning of the video to about 1:22, Mary is trying to explain to a Spanish mechanic what is wrong with her car, but she doesn’t know Spanish. Dick, however, does. He steps in and tells the mechanic what is wrong with her car…and that she wants a 200 Watt speaker system and bright orange flames to be painted on the outside of her car. Mary, of course, has no idea what he’s done. Dick just walks away laughing.

From 3:40 to 4:05 in the video, Dick gives away Mary’s desk without her knowing. Nina gets onto him about it, but he ignored her and goes on with his childish game. This particular part of the video does have a tiny bit of cursing, so if you’re looking for a perfectly clean video, this isn’t the one.

From 5:26 to 6:38, Dick walks into his and Mary’s office to see Mary sitting on the floor. He laughs histerically thinking he has won when he sits at his desk and places his hand on the surface of his desk. The next thing he knows, both of his hands are stuck to the top of his desk, and Mary is laughing at his distress. Moments later, his head is stuck to the desk as well. Mary, again, just laughs.

At the end of the video from 8:41 to 9:20 the janitor is using a broom to pull as a lever to pull Dick off the desk. Just as Mary starts apologizing, Mary’s car comes into the parking lot with its new speakers blaring, so Mary’s apology never really comes. Even with his ead stuck to a table, Dick starts laughing at Mary once again. The episode ends without either of them gaining any ground. Both realize they were being foolish and juvenile when they attacked each other because of the break up.

Some would conclude the fact that the writers made a comedy out of revenge means the writers felt revenge was fine or they were indifferent to the issue, but if one watches the video, they find the stable people in the episode, Nina in particular, warns both of them not to go along with their next scheme. Third Rock from the Sun is a show that satirizes the unwise and slightly perverse parts of human nature, showing those tendencies for what they really are. We are able to laugh at the ridiculous situations in the show because we realize how wrong Dick and the rest of the characters actually are, so in the end, I would have to say this episode follows a Christian worldview.

“Adultery! Adultery!” screams the lead singer of The Little Comets. The British band is more known for their song “One Night in October,” but it seems to me that this, “Adultery,” has much more sucstance. However, whether this substance is in the right direction or not is open for questioning. The song has a kind of jerky feel to it, but the music itself really isn’t that bad if you’re into indie music. It’s definitely not going to be one of those songs heard on the radio though. That’s for sure, but I get the feeling that is only because of the type of music it is. Perhaps it would be better suited for the song to not be played for it’s content instead.

While the lead singer does say in the first verse, “It [adultery] can destroy a life,” the song sends a very apathetic message toward adultery. Instead of taking a stance, the singer tells a story, but it’s the type of story you would hear from a friend of a friend of a friend. It’s just gossip.The song places no importance on the sanctity of marriage. In fact, the marriage itself is never talked about. The only thing the song really talks about is the affair. It of course doesn’t glorify the affair, but it doesn’t seem to have much against it either. It even goes so far as to describe the passion in an affair. What happens when we lose any faith for marriage in general? What happens when we lose respect for those we love? What happens when we become to immersed in ourselves? According to the song, nothing, but everyone knows this is not the truth.

Recently I bought Paramore’s new album, Brand New Eyes, and let me tell you. It’s an amazing cd. Just my personal opinion. You have the popular ones, such as “Ignorance,” while you also have softer songs like “The Only Exception” and “Misguided Ghosts.” All of the songs are quite impressive, but one song, “Turn It Off,” struck a chord in me. It talks about someone who is jeopardy of losing their faith in…well, anything, though I get the feeling Haley Williams and Josh Farro were talking about faith in God when they were writing this particular song. The narrator for the song sees everyone they knows working towards something, but what they’re not exactly sure. There is a sense that this person is in some type of emotional torment. Below are the lyrics.

         I scraped my knees while I was praying and found a demon in my safest haven. Seems like it’s getting harder to believe in anything  than just to get lost in all my selfish thoughts. I wanna know what I’d be like to find perfection in my pride, to see nothing in the light or turn it off in all my spite. In all my spite I’ll turn it off.

         And the worst part is before it gets any better, we’re headed for a cliff. And in the free fall I will realize I’m better off when I hit the bottom. The tragedy, it seems unending. I’m watching everyone I looked up to breaking, bending, taking short cuts and false solutions just to come out the hero. Well, I can see behind the curtain. The wheels are cranking, turning. It’s all wrong the way we’re working towards a goal that’s nonexistent. It’s nonexistent, but we just keep believing.

Now, I understand her basic point. For the most part, I like this song. The guitar is great, as are the drums. The lyrics, however, could be a problem. The fact that we can relate to someone who is searching for something, someone who is pain, is a comforting concept. We could hardly be considered human if we didn’t. I’m not saying humans experiencing pain is a good thing, but the fact that humans can be united by the fact is. Yet there remains a problem. ” I wanna know what it’d be like to find perfection in my pride, to see nothing in the light, or turn it off in all my spite. In all my spite, I’ll turn it off.” That is a potentially dangerous statement. We cannot forget goodness and righteousness because of spite. Pride does not hold perfection. It can’t because pride celebrates the self. Its main concern is with glorifying itself, unlike humility which raises someone up because they value someone else just as much as they value themselves or more. I understand what it’s like to turn the light off, and believe me. That’s not what you want to do in the long run. It’ll only lead to more confusion and pain. However, Haley was right when she wrote the part about the free fall. That part is completely true. We find who we are and what we need when we are at our lowest.

Now this is just the message I got out of the song. Maybe you heard something else that may be closer to Haley and Josh’s original meaning, but having gone through a period where i did exactly what Haley sings about, this is a potentially dangerous message. There must be a distinction made between the good and bad messages within this song. Just because one is curious about what the outcome of evil will be doesn’t mean they have to follow their curiosity. However, the fact that she realizes there is always hope when we fall makes the song that much better.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201001/avatar-3d-evolutionary-psychology-goes-hollywood

 What does the movie Avatar plus evolution plus psychology equal? A very convoluted worldview. Most people consider evolution to be only applicable to science and history, but evolutionary psychologists have a comletely different view. No, they believe evolution can be applied to social plane, which is exactly what happened to the practice of law when Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published. Thae author of the blog Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life contends every film is  a step forward for the human species as almost every film contains evidence of evolution simply because of how people act within the movie. He has hypothesized that there are four different evolutionary themes captured within the films of the past few decades, especially this past decade, yet I can’t help but ask, is the logic he used to get this hypothesis faulty?

Douglas Kenrick, the author of Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life, has analyzed the movie Avatar using the four evolutionary themes he and his partner, David Lundberg Kenrick, have developed. They have named the themes Getting the Girl, Getting Along, Getting Ahead, and Getting the Bad Guys. Obviously Jake, the main character of Avatar, gets the girl, and yes, this does follow along with the idea of the survival of the species. Does this mean the survival of the species is true? Not necessarily. This is a film, not real life. Not everyone gets the girl or the guy they want. That’s life, but realism does not really make the most interesting of plots. Therefore Jake will automatically get the girl in the movie.

As for Getting Ahead, Kenrick states that Jake practically becomes a demi-god in his efforts to become accepted by the Navi, the native people of Pandora. At first Jake is simply a crippled soldier who is thrown into his recently-dead brother’s scientific position of using an avatar to better understand the Navi. He is thrust into a world where a Ph. D. is a more recognizable accomplishment than bravery on a battlefield. His avatar gives him full reign of his legs once again, and he is introduced into a world where he can hone his talents into recognizable strengths. Yes, this goes along with natural selection, but this could also simply be someone overcoming a certain challenge.  There really would be no plot to the movie at all if Jake did not overcome something. Plus, Jake himself did not become a god seeing as his body was merely plugged into a machine at a military base. The avatar did not move any closer to perfection, nor did Jake. All Jake did was use a machine to control the avatar. That does NOT support evolution. Jake himself would have had to take on the form of the Navi purely by genetic mutation, not by a spiritual being turning him into a member of the Navi.

Now the Getting Along theme I don’t understand. It doesn’t even support evolution. Evolution says a species does not sit still, which is the opposite meaning of this theme. The writer of this blog only had a short two sentence paragraph concerning this theme, so that shows you the strength of his argument on this third theme. The writer does say in the respective paragraph that Jake receives the respect of theNavi through humility, which is not exactly supported by evolution. Evolution states that we are all animals, and animals have no need for humility. So to the writer, what does humility have to do with this “evolutionary” theme?

Finally comes the last theme: Getting the Bad Guys. I’m pretty sure this theme is self-explanatory like the themes above. Again, this could apply to survival of the species, but technically Jake is not even a part of the Navi. Still, he fights for the Navi, so doesn’t that mean he is inhibitting the survival of his species? The writer says Jake has to make a moral decision based on many evolutionary ideas, but evolution has nothing to do with morals. Evolution actually encourages the denial of all ethics. Kenrick says Jake takes into account the natural resources of the area and territory seeing as that is what the battle rages over, but the decision actually had nothing to do with land and resources. No, Jake made the choice to side with the Navi because he believed them to be a better people than his actual race, so the evolutionary theme that makes someone make decisions based on land is really a mute point.

Obviously Avatar was an enjoyable movie. After all, it’s the highest grossing film of all time, Douglas Kenrick and David Kenrick are mistaking a film as evidence of a scientific premise. A film cannot be a considered evidence because a movie is nothing more than a story told from the perspective of a certain worldview. Facts can be distorted, and themes are biased.  James Cameron has a certain perspective on life, so everything he creates also contains that perspective. There is no exception of this. There will never be an exception because we all have our own beliefs. That will never change.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-18-baylor-angel_N.htm

Baylor University conducted a survey among 1,700 people in Waco, Texas in 2006 with staggering results. The subject: do people feel protected from harm by angels during times of severe distress? Baylor students asked people from every background and every religion, whether they believed in a god or not, which is what makes the results so odd. Sixty six percent of evangelical Protestants believed angels are among among us and have helped them in the past, while black Protestants garnered a result of 81 percent. Mainline Protestants reported a 55% belief in angelic presence on Earth. Fifty seven percent of Catholics believe in angelic intervention, but only ten percent of Jews believe in this. The other religions category agreed with the survey subject by 49%, while, surprisingly enough, people who claimed no religion believed in guardian angels by twenty percent. What does this say about Christianity, or even religion, today?

What does it mean for people of different religions to believe in angelic presences? How can atheists believe in angels, but no believe in God, who is, by many religions, the creator of angels and demons in the first place? Why is it that an angel’s presence can be detected by someone who claims no religion? Perhaps because God is the one and olnly Almighty? Is this just human nature to feel like someone is there mediating on your behalf, or is there some element of truth to Christianity?

What about people who claim a different religion than Christianity? I’m not an expert, but I don’t recall any mention of a belief in angels when I had to study some Asian religions, yet any of the people involved in the survey could have been Bhuddist. Since Bhuddism takes a naturalist’s perspective, how can they believe in angels, a being that is supposedly apart from nature? Now, don’t hold me to this last paragraph. I don’t claim to to be an expert at other religions, or even my own. There is just too much for me to know at this point, but if all people, not just Christians feel the weight of angel, how can religion, especially Christianity, be completely false?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144643/god’s_divine_sperm_lib_church_shakes_up_story_of_jesus’_birth/

         I have seen some rather offensive billboards in my lifetime, but this is practically blasphemous! A billboard located in New Zealand says, “Poor Joseph. God’s a tough act to follow.” It was placed there by a progrssive church. Mary can be seen staring off into space while lying next to a solemn Joseph with the previous words written across the top of the poster. The church says it was simply a message saying that the birth of Jesus was a dramatization to enhance God’s humble nature in comparison to Caesar Augstus’ status as emperor of Rome. The church also went as far to say the literal translation of the virgin birth was absolutely absurd. Others who have already written on this subject have contended that the billboard was made to make people question the validity of the miracle of the virgin birth. Vicar Lynn Cardy wrote, “The Christmas billboard outside St Matthew-in-the-City lampoons literalism and invites people to think again about what a miracle is. Is the miracle a male God sending forth his divine sperm, or is the miracle that God is and always has been among the poor?” For those who are more curious about this particular church and its approach to life, the church also believes all Christmas stories relating Christ are lies to help enforce the idea of God’s generous relations with humans. They also say their religion is for everyone: the homosexuals, the atheists, the agnostics, all races, and all social classes. They say they have no intention of forcing anyone to believe the way they believe, but they encourage as many people as possible to attend their church. Let’s ponder for a minute, shall we?

        First let’s tackle the logical fallacy of believing Christ’s birth was just that: a simple birth. The church believes people just invented that story to make it seem like Jesus was a very ethical person, that his death was just an unfortunate effect from his hospitality, but why would his death even matter if he had no intention of fixing that “mistake”? Let me get something straight. So God can create us and the laws of physics, but he can’t bend the laws of physics so that he can be born from a virgin? Yes. That makes total sense. No! The virgin birth helped prove Jesus’ godhood. Why in the world would people follow Jesus if there was no evidence to him being Christ. Who would listen to him at first? We must also consider the amount of people who believe in the miracle of Christ’s birth. Most Christians would probably say they believed Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Obviously not all of them would say this. Otherwise this church wouldn’t even exist. I’m sure you’re thinking, “Well, that’s just this generation. That doesn’t mean all that much.” Wrong. The very first Christian churches that were founded believed in the virgin birth. So that’s several thousands of years worth of people who believed Jesus’ birth was a miracle. By being born from the virgin Mary, he asserted himself as God before he could even speak. This progressive church may believe Jesus’ birth was an exaggeration to reinforce the idea of God being a poor person’s god, but there are billions of voices crying out against their stand.

         There’s another thing. The progressive church’s focus is not on the virgin birth, but on the location of Jesus’ birth. They insist the fact that Jesus was born in a humble stable means Jesus was the God of the poor. They place more importance on the location of his birth instead of on the omnipotence of God himself. While I agree that God probably did pick Bethlehem to state that he was the God of everyone, not just the people who could afford to be religious, I must object to the church’s focus on the poor and impoverished instead of God.

        Let’s be a devil’s advocate for a second. Let’s say the virgin birth was a lie to enhance God’s generosity and his death was a mere consequence of that hospitality. What does that say about Jesus? It says he was a good man, nothing more. He would not be God. He would not win. Satan would win. We would be lost in perdition. Despair would be all that would exist. God would be a liar, making him no longer God. Jesus’ death was necessary. God created a principle for our lives: the principle that one cannot live a life without consequences. We would merely be reaping the consequences of our natures if Jesus did not die for us. This principle he did not break. He bent it. He knew that law would be necessary for our lives until the rapture when we will gain perfect bodies that are not subject to sin and death. If there were no consequences for our actions, would we choose the righteous path? Of course not. We are selfish beings by nature. Why go against one’s nature when there are no repercussions for any action, good or bad? Jesus was not just a good man. He was God. His plan to save us is written in the stars. Literally. The progressive church goes along with the idea that God had no plan to resurrect himself. Then what is there to believe in?

           Lastly I must ask why the progressive church believes they are for everyone while “regular Christianity” does not. They say they do not force anyone to believe the way they do, but what is there to believe? Honestly. If Jesus was just a man of the people, what is there to believe from their perspective? Oh! Look here! There was one great man. Mm-hm. I think I’m going to worship this man. That sounds rather narcissistic to me. He is a good man. I’m a good man, so by extension I get to worship myself. Whoo-hoo! Of course atheists and agnostics can believe in that! There’s nothing to believe in!

         I have another question. So what was that billboard about? If they’re not trying to win people over to their side, why advertise their cause? They state that they don’t force people into a decision, which is a good thing, but “regular Christianity”, or “lame Christianity” as they have called it, corner people into making a decision about their faith. That may happen, but that’s not how Christianity is supposed to work. Believing in Jesus and his sacrifice for you is a personal choice that everyone will end up making. You either believe in Jesus, or you don’t. That’s how it works. Most Christians are just trying to help you make an informed decision. While we believe we have made the right decision and we hope you will make the same decision, you may not. We did what we could. No one can force you to believe anything, but we can give you a choice. The progressive church also insinuates one can keep sinning after they become a Christian without having any repercussions. That is untrue. There are ripples for every pebble that is dropped into a pond. If one truly believes in Jesus, their particular sin should become abhorrent to them. God is not a passive god. He will change you on the most basic of levels. My advice. Don’t fight the change. He knows your heart and your future. Relax. He’s not going to let you go.

New Zealnad billboard

        It seems that the harder you look for something, the harder it is for you to find it, even if it is right under your nose. That’s what happens with car keys, isn’t it? You can look for thirty minutes and still not find those blasted keys. Then you find those keys were sitting on the coffee table the entire time. The same seems to be true with archaeologists except they can waste their entire lives looking for past relics instead of a few minutes. In this case, hikers found the skeletal remains of a Tyrannosaurus Rex in Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, but this T-Rex has already gained a reputation. This supposedly colossal dinosaur is actually no more than six feet long, no bigger than a domestic dog. Now what does this mean? More assumptions of course!

        As soon as the bones were studied, evolutionists were saying massive changes had to be accounted for. Since the bones don’t actually fit in the record, evolutionists are saying the whole fossilrecord might have to be rewritten. This could possibly upset the theory of evolution even more, but we won’t talk about that. Evolutionists are more thrilled by the fact that the dinosaur remains could indicate that dinosaurs were originally from South America. How? I’m not exactly sure.

         Here’s a question I’d like to know the answer to. Are they going to place these remains in the part of the fossil record that seems to be the graveyard for the untraceable species? There is a layer of the fossil record that defies the theory of evolution. instead of there being a layer of earth covered in evidence of a gradual change in species, it seems as if the remains inside the layer jumped hundreds of generations. All modern animals and plants were found in the layer though those animals and plants were much to complex to have been in the that layer. Christians, on the other hand, have an explanation for this phenomenon. The Flood. The Flood would have caused a massive dumping of animal and plant carcasses where the pressure of the water would have caused the to later become fossils. Evolutionist, however, have yet to accept our theory. After all, Christians are just radical and religious nuts who are trying to force their religion on others, right?

        Uh-oh! What’s this? God wants us to think? You mean we actually have to understand what the Bible says? I didn’t sign up for that!

        Apologetics. It’s the reasoned and rationalized arguments confronting many atheist’s and agnostic’s questions and evolutionist’s challenges. Mere faith is not enough to sustain a someone once they become a Christian. As Christians, we should have a drive, a craving, for knowledge of our God. American Christians, on the general level, are hypocrites who believe faith without logic and evidence will bring others to Christ, though they have no intention of collecting more people to add into our family. I’ll admit I can fall into the stereotypical conception of the Christian culture. Most of us will, but we must realize that our faith will decline when we shun our yearning for understanding. Apologetics is simply the quenching of our thirst for understanding.

        What happens when an agnostic comes up to you, a Christian, and asks you a seemingly innocent and straightforward question whose simplicity requires you to follow through a line of logic? Will you be able to answer it? If you apply reason through apologetics and knowledge of the Bible, an answer should emerge to satisfy the query. Apologetics is a higher thinking which leads us to question our faith in order to increase it. Our faith is worthless without evidence to support our claims to a superior Creator. Scientists will tear us to pieces if we cannot rise to the occasion and counter their fervent belief in evolution. In reality, scientists are more loyal to their religion than we are. If that is true, then we should know how lazy we are when we speak of our faith. How can we combat the accusations made by those of higher thinking if we ourselves shirk away from God’s call to understanding? We live in a country where Christianity is being overshadowed and eclipsed by religions that are not our own. How can our faith survive in a world that condemns Christianity?

        Not only can we install a new belief in somoene by using apologetics, we also strengthen our own faith. By furthering our knowledge of the human condition with God in control, our faith is renewed by new evidence supporting the existence of the Almighty God. God’s handiwork is here, enticing us onward into His reality. We are already His children. Now He asks us to think, to find the answers using the clues He has surrounded us with so that we can come closer to Him. He is waiting. Will we follow His will.

        According to the article “The Church’s Need Apologetics” by Massimo Lorenzini, www.frontlinemin.org/churchapologetics.asp, the Church is as responsible for teaching using apologetics as a a Christian is for asking questions and searching for answers on their own. The pastor is meant to be a spiritual leader for the body of the church. His purpose is to lead us down a path that will lead us closer to God. Apologetics can be just as useful a tool as the Bible can be as long as it is applied correctly. The pastor’s sermons can simply be a logical argument concerning a certain subject which can support Christianity, or he can merely use apologetics in one specific area in his sermon. Apologetics is not limited to sermons either. Classes concerning certain subjects can be created for those curious on those arguments. One thing I don know is that we cannot toss logic aside in favor of emotions, for belief is not simply feeling. We cannot believe until our hearts and our minds are in perfect alignment, and since we probably won’t know everything about the mysteries of God, our faith is always, or should always be, growing.

         Our faith in God is meant to be a raging fire, one that refuses to be doused by human hands. God’s love for us was the spark for the dry and crackled leaves of our souls, but a raging fire cannot continue to ravage it home if dry leaves is its only fodder. We were meant to sprint after God until our lungs burn with exertion and our muscles cry and plead for relief, but that is the problem with most American Christians nowadays. Instead of running forward despite the rain and lightning, most of us quake with fear and run the opposite way. No wonder people are skeptical of us. The tinder for our fires is knowledge and understanding, solutions we can gain through the use of apologetics. Our fires are turning into embers. Will we restart our fires again?

gravity waves of black hole collision

Scientists call for a belief in the Big Bang as the orgin of the cosmos. Christians call for a belief in the Creator of the universe. Cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe. It seems to me that humans, as a general rule, are innately curious about the cosmos in which we live. That’s a natural reaction. I say go for it. Find all the information you can about the subject, but I would also say to account for all the evidence before you reach a conclusion. The average person has a tendency to either come to a wrong conclusion about any situation or come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. Those conclusions are abominations to both science and religion. We are not here to just take a blind stab into the dark. The human mind doesn’t work like that. No, we must observe and theorize.

Clara Moskowitz, who wrote the article “Lack of Gravity Waves Limits Cosmology Theories”, reports the results of a scientific experiment using  The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory Scientific Collaboration, or LIGO for short. LIGO simply measures gravitational waves caused by the acceleration of mass. Supposedly, when any given amount of mass accelerates, say a person stands up from their chair, ripples are produced in the space-time continuum. This was all summarized by Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Steven Hawkings’ discovery of black holes. However, the ripples formed by a person standing up is too infinitesimal to be measured by any human technology. The ripples caused by a collision of two black holes, on the other hand, can be measured (picture above). All LIGO does is measures those ripples.

Physicists have been working since 2005 to receive these readings, but the results are sad news to them, though they expected the results already. LIGO was unable to measure any gravitational waves. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe was created by a massive explosion caused by gravity. When the explosion occurred and created life, ripples were sent out throughout the universe, which is supposedly expanding, away from the explosion. Scientists have theorized that one day the universe as we know it will be destroyed as gravity pulls the ripples and every other piece of matter back to where the explosion first occurred. At that point, there will be another explosion, and the universe will be recreated once more. The fact that these ripples could not be found by the machine has seriously limited some of the models of cosmology. Even Madic said, “If Advanced LIGO (a more sensitive and powerful version of the modern LIGO that is in the middle of construction) doesn’t see gravitational waves, I think people will be very surprised. It is likely such a situation would require a revision of General Relativity.” The Big Bang Theory has been severely tested and has become rather limited. If the Theory of Relativity might need to be looked over, what else might need to be revised?

I am not quite sure whether Clara Moskowitz, the author of the original article, had any real convictions when she wrote the article, but I have an inkling she slightly doubted the credibility of of certain scientific theories. If I was an atheist, I probably would too. I do, however, know what I believe. I know some evidence supporting my belief, but there is always more to learn. There is always another clue buried in the dirt waiting to be dug up. We just have to take the time to search. Perhaps this finding shook the author’s world. Maybe it didn’t, but you do have to ask yourself a question. What do you believe?

artist rendition of a black hole

artist rendition of gravitational waves caused by blak holes

         “Beep! Beep! Beep!” the alarm screeches, laughing as I throw the covers off me in a panic from my rude awakening. I grimaced in the direction of the alarm as I reassured my heart of my safety and coerced it into relaxation. My heart slowly reached its normal pace, cautious and wary of danger like a child clinging to their parent’s leg. I reigned in my frustrated annoyance against my alarm clock as I crossed the length of my room to roughly silence the alarm that seemed to remind me of a toddler’s immature attempts to catch my attention. I was already infuriated. I had woken up an hour before the alarm went off because of my subconscious trying inform me of something again. The alarm was just the icing on the cake. If I wasn’t careful I was going to hurl the entire clock against the wall. Perhaps that was what my subconscious was trying to tell me. I was too angry. No, that wasn’t it. The only thing I could remember about the dream was being overtly happy, depressingly happy. I was almost sure I had never been that happy in my life, or if I ever had been, I couldn’t remember it. It was a serene happiness, tranquil and calm. It was relaxing.  I relished the thought of the imperfect memory of it, my anger slipping along with the details of the dream.

        I sighed after a minute or two of sitting on the edge of the bed with my feet hanging over the edge and raked my hands through my hair, my fingers catching small tangles as they twisted through the strands. I grimaced against the pain, and got up off the bed to brush my hair. After changing clothes, I stuffed my pockets with my keys, phone, and wallet while rushing to the bathroom to wash my face and brush my teeth. When I finished with my teeth, I ran to the living room, careful not to bother my dad, grabbed my lunch box that my dad had taken the time to pack, and slung my book bag across my shoulder.

         It wasn’t until I reached my truck that I realized that my keys were underneath my wallet in my pocket. I hung my head in mock annoyance, smiling in irritation as I threw my lunch box into the bed of my truck and jammed my hand into my pocket, wrenching out my wallet, which apparently I had put in pocket upside down causing all the money in my wallet to spill out onto to the ground and start to blow away with the wind. All in all, not a good start to the day. Obviously I ran after my money, nearly shouting for the money to come back in exasperation. That was nearly fifty bucks I had been saving! By the time I had collected all my money, it was nearly 7:00, and my college class started at 7:30. Of course it was only natural for me to take almost thirty minutes to get to class in the first place. I groaned and leaned my head against the window of the truck as I jammed the key in the lock to unlock my door. This was going to be one of those days.

        A minute later I was on the road, fighting the urge to speed as I drove onto the main street. There was nothing on the radio, so I just turned the volume down all the way. The radio knob was slightly broken. I was supposed to be able to push it to turn the radio off, but being an older model, the knob didn’t like following directions. But despite everything, my exhaustion from having to get up so early, losing my money to the wind for a few minutes, I was alright. Why? Because I looked up.

         As I drove due east toward PJC, the sky became a painting. What were once dull grays became fiery oranges and rosy pinks. Clouds performed magnificent feats, rolling in so close that I almost wanted jump onto the clouds and ride through the sky with them. The scene was completed as as blueish clouds formed a misty spread closer to the horizon with a scarlet sun projecting its light in overpowering waves of brilliance underneath a cover of wispy cirrus clouds. The clouds below resembled the waves of the ocean crashing onto to shore, mists flying off the crests like eagles beginning to take flight. And there it was, a painting of the beach coloring the skies in an almost celestial dance. The beauty of the sunrise pierced me and settled deep within me, my awe and respect renewed for the Lord as I became entranced by the sky. I breathed out heavily, expelling the refuse of the beginning of the day.

         As I sat there watching the majesty of the sunrise float higher into the sky, I became transfixed, hypnotized. The air was still cool, but there was an obvious heaviness to the air that can only signify a hot, humid day. Still, the air rushing through my open window kept a comfortable breeze inside the truck as I made my way down to the first red light, keeping a wary eye on the road as I glanced back at the sky over and over again.

         The light turned red as I moved down the turn lane, and I turned my attention back to the road so that I wouldn’t demolish the car in front of me. I looked back up only to see the ugly sign of a billboard obstructing my view. Irritated, I moved back and forth in my seat, but the billboard still blocked my view. All I could do was sit there, seething as I realized I was missing the most brilliant sunrise I had ever seen. I clenched my teeth and stared up at the billboard, absolutely fuming, to find what was so important that I had to miss God’s imagination at work. All I could do was laugh throatily at the irony of the billboard.

       The billboard said, and I quote, “What is your choice? Heaven of Hell?” Heaven was written in the middle of a bright blue sky with puffy clouds wedged inside it, while Hell was written in a background of flames. Heaven had a phone number written underneath it unlike Hell, which had a verse underneath it. I laughed, biting my tongue against an onslaught of accusations. The rest of my day was obliterated after that incident, starting with me locking my keys in my car.

          What has happened to us? Is this what we have stooped to? Writing corny billboards in hopes that maybe one person will call that phone number? How many of us actually believe someone will listen to any Christian when we do something as worthless as this? I understand why people do this, but those people are too naive to know what they are doing. Their actions have created a stereotype for every Christian in America. We are judged as a people by these type of movements of evangelism, but are these deeds what are really going to bring people to Christ? Does putting up a billboard or putting up a Christian bumper-sticker on your car mean that you are making a good impression to other people? No, they do not. All we are doing is selling ourselves short. We are merely parading around this image that we are intolerant beings who deny any sort of logic and blame all accidents on the devil and all blessing on God. People truly believe that we are the enemy of any sort of higher thinking. Do you want to know the worst part? The worst part is that many Christians are that way.

        Oh, something good happened to you, did it? That was God working in your life right there! Oh, you lost your keys? You know that wily old Satan. He hates making our lives easy. He must have stolen your keys.

        Go ahead and laugh, but many Christians do act this way. The deny learning saying that we are just supposed to believe without ever understanding why we believe what we believe. Christians have ruined Christianity because of this. How can we win anyone over if we cannot prove to them our own religion? No, the worst part is not the actual actions of the naive. It is that we let people perceive Christians negatively. Do you want to see more Christians in the world? Go serve the homeless. Do you want to have people actually listen to you when you minister? Study the Bible and the world itself. Think with your own mind. Don’t just follow after others because they tell you to. Be your own person and your own mind. Do you want to understand God? Do you want others to accept and follow your faith? Be a real Christian.

Heaven or Hell

        Freedom. It’s what America was founded on. Freedom. It’s what we’ll give our lives for. Freedom. It’s complicated.

        What is freedom exactly? Is it having liberty? The dictionary says freedom is the exemption or liberation from slavery, imprisonment, or restraint, or from the power and control of another, but it seems to me that the definition skips over the philosophical meaning of the word. The definition itself merely describes the physical state of one who is not enslaved and in bondage. The definition does not describe freedom in the emotional sense.

        Is it possible to be free without being free? Is it possible to be free and be enslaved at the same time? Let’s tackle the simple part first. Say one has a pretty good job. They make a nice salary. They may not make as much money as they want, but they can support themselves and their family. They have a nice house, clean and orderly, maybe even with a white picket fence. Can they still be in bondage? The answer, if you haven’t guessed already, is yes, they can. The emotional state can be just as powerful as the physical state, a truth that most people tend to forget. That person could be so miserable in their tedious situation that their depression controls their lifestyle. The end result can either be suicide or some type of intervention. Suicide is all too common. Perhaps someone is being controlled by alcohol. Maybe someone else is in submission to drugs. The situations are endless. Sure, physically they are free, but they are subservient to whatever their situation is.

         Now say someone is a slave, not that slavery happens all that often in our modern world. Can they be more free than those with political and physical freedom? Absolutely. While someone may control their body, their mind is still their own. Some would refuse to be bitter and find a way to make their lives happier despite their situation. Their heart and mind cannot be conformed to their master’s will no matter how hard he tries. They are free.

         So when is someone free? When someone doesn’t have power over them? Possibly, but that is not always true, as I stated in an earlier. A person is free when they have control, control over their situation or control over their own lives. The emotional state is just as powerful as the physical state and vice versa. True freedom, however, does not always arrive when merely the physical state is satiated. The emotional and mental state of a person is what must be quenched before someone can be free. No, a person is free when they have control, but what if a person doesn’t know what to do with control? What will they do? They will abuse their freedom. That’s normally what happens when someone abuses drugs or alcohol.

         How do we gain control? First we must learn the truth. “The truth will set you free,” right? How do we find the truth? Through submission. God is the ultimate truth. He reveals himself through the Bible. We must submit ourselves to his will, to his plan, in order for us to find the freedom he created us with. We are usually the happiest when we conform to the plan God has laid out for us. Once we submit to God’s will, our knowledge of truth will increase. As we learn more about the truth, we gain more freedom, and if we find we are truly Christians, we will submit ourselves once more. For it is only through submission that we find freedom.

http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=34

         What is beauty? Is it simply something that makes us happy, or is it more? Aesthetics seeks to answer that question, a question that seems to slip from the minds of the general public as easily as water seeping between one’s cupped hands. Then again, why would anyone answer that question? Everyone knows what beauty is, right? Humans, even as children, have a picture of what beauty is. We all have a vague idea of what is pretty and beautiful, but that is only a general idea. How can we say we know beauty if we don’t fully understand the concept? Most people probably have a difficult time just putting words to the description playing out in their head. Is that true comprehension? Aesthetics is the only way we can truly grasp the reality of beauty.

         Aesthetics is simply a critical look on culture, art, sentiment, and taste. Taste itself is not beauty. It is just  what is thought to be pretty because of the influence of culture, politics, and economics. For example, plastic surgery has become extremely popular. Many people seem to think that they will only be beautiful after their “impurities” are fixed, but one of the biggest things that separates us from others is our appearance. We are beautiful because we realize none of us are perfect. When our identity is surrendered to someone else, we lose the beauty to become pretty. We technically have entered into our own form of slavery. We submit ourselves to a plastic surgeon, giving them power over us. How can slavery be beauty?

         Ruth Lorand, a teacher of the philosophy of aesthetics, seems to understand the concept of beauty. It is not merely an outdated 18th century principle as some people seem to think. Aesthetics applies to the modern world just as much as it did back in the 1700’s, perhaps even more so. What used to be simple beauty in the 1700’s is now a maze of the profane and sacred. What is called art now is not necessarily beautiful.

         Aesthetics has been losing ground for years as stated by Stolnitz. Nehamas said, ” Beauty is the most discredited philosophical notion- so discredited that I could not even find and entry for it in the index of the many books in the philosophy of art I consulted in order to find it discredited.” It is perhaps this fact that is most astounding. The disappearance of the doctrine of aesthetics seems to be connected with the advent of ugly art. It wasn’t until art became warped and twisted into a perversion of its former self that aesthetics started losing popularity. Yet this is the time when we truly need the concept.  How can we discern what is true and good in art without looking critically at the subject in question?

        Art in our culture has a way of being discreetly deceitful. What seems to be at first beautiful can actually be an abomination. A statue of Jesus made of feces can be artfully prepared, but the symbolism behind the statue is absolutely abhorrent. The statue, though it may seem to be an unearthly good rendition, is destroyed because of how it makes a mockery of our deepest morals. A murder in its almost respectful performance is in no way beautiful, but the care taken to ensure the murder – the planning, the respectful operation - is beautiful. Beauty is more of a tenuous thread stretched taut. It only takes the slightest touch of a knife to sever the strand.

          The way I see it, Christians have an even larger responsibility to uphold the use of aesthetics. If we are too naive in our thinking, we can fall into beliving that the foul parts of our society are actually beautiful. Chrsitians may, however, use the verse Proverbs 31:30, “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain,” to say that aesthetics is a useless part of our lives, and we should not waste our time entertaining a pointless philosophy, but I believe the verse was actually trying to say that grace and beauty are actually hidden behind our cultures. They are lost behind the objects that pretend to be grace and beauty. Those objects are what are truly deceitful and vain. What seems to be grace is not really grace. What seems to be beauty takes all the attention away from what actually is beautiful. It is easy for Christians in America to fall into a rut. We do not have needs that lead us to realize we are helpless. Aesthetics is just one more way to pull ourselves out of the rut and keep us out. Christians cannot be naive. Christians cannot follow the crowd and simply believe what people tell them to believe. The majority is not necessarily right.

www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29evol.html?_r=1

         Can evolution run backwards? Biologists have been trying to answer that question for nearly a century to answer that question. The first biologist to seek for an answer was a Belgian scientist named Louis Dollo in 1905. His conclusion was that it was impossible for an organism to regress into the past. Evolution could only go one way. A law called Dollo’s Law was obviously named after this scientist stating his conclusion in some scientific gibberish. Basically it simply says evolution can only go forward, not backward.

         Evolutionists are still trying to refute this principle in hopes of proving evolution true. In 2003, a group of biologists teamed up to work on stick bugs to understand why at one point they had wings, but the next they didn’t. After that the bugs had wings again. Biologists were unable to determine whether or not this phenomena refuted Dollo’s Law. After all, the wings could have just been torn off instead evolving away because of a change on the molecular level. Since the fossil record created in 2003 by the biologists was not enough evidence to make Dollo’s Law obsolete, biologist Joseph W. Thornton worked with a specialized team to try to replicate the evolution of the proteins in the stick bugs backwards. They were able to change the proteins back to what evolutionists consider the last stage before the modern stage of the proteins in the stick bugs, but they could not go back much further. “All we got was a dead receptor,” said Joseph Thornton. What does this mean for evolution? Simple. Dollo was correct. What does this mean to Christians? Our answer is a little more complex. There is a lapse in logic on the evolutionists’ parts.

        Joseph Thornton says that he agrees with Dollo on his comclusion that evolution can go forward, but he comes to this conclusion because of his firm belief in evolution. His belief clouds his judgement. If we try to create a middle stage mutation and “all we get is a dead receptor,” how can we say that evolution is even true? Since evolution is based on the premise that organisms changed in stages over millions of years, and each stage is absolutely necessary, if one stage disappears from the map, the entire systems collapses. How can we get modern creatures if the organism dies in the middle of a mutation? Simple. You can’t. Plus, all mutations that we see today basically cause the host to die. If we’re supposed evolve into perfection but every mutation kills us, how can evolution continue if it is true?

         Mr. Thornton’s conclusion is based on his belief. He assumed evolution was true, so his conclusion supported evolution. Science is supposed to be completely objective. He had already closed his mind off from Creationism and Intelligent Design, so why in the world would he consider those theories when he conducts the experiment? He won’t. He didn’t. All theories must be explored in order for scientists to find any answer, but most scientists seem to be under the delusion that evolution is fact. Evolution is a theory! That’s why it’s called the Theory of Evolution. All theories must be disproved before scientists can use one singular theory. But wait! Intelligent Design and Creationism are still very viable options, but you don’t see many scientists checking out those theories. All questions must be asked, not just the ones we want to ask.

         Sorry, guys. I don’t have an article online you can go to. It’s from The Week magazine.

         Recently a device made in China has hit the market, causing a a massive row in Cairo, Egypt. The device, which costs about $15 each, allows women to fake their virginity. The device was ingeniously designed to release a blood-like fluid for a bride to use on her wedding night. It is now available in China and some Arab countries like Egypt for those women who would rather keep their sexual past secret. The Egyptian parliament is in an uproar over the device, some scholars even going so far as to say the creators of the device should be executed for “spreading a vice in society”, which is punishable by death. This, of course begs the questions, “Why is this event such an abomination?” and, “Why would women resort to this in the first place?”

         What has happened to us? Why would we even go this far to cover up our past? Women in several Arabic countries have already used this device to fool their new husbands. What does this say about us? Infidelity is a sin in, if not most, all religions. By participating in this sin, we have defied God and his plan for us. This new device has merely given women permission to have sex before marriage. Marriage is a sacred union that can be betrayed very quickly if either spouse learns of their partners infidelity or adultery. This device does not fix a problem. It simply hides the symptoms. It acts a bit like Advil. It seems to make everything better when you first use it, but when the effects wear off, the disease is still there. The sin is still there, hiding patiently for it’s moment to rise and destroy our foolishly conspired peace.

          So why would women even use the device if it will only make life worse in the end? Why use it if the device will only lead to more betrayal? The answer is quite simple. Because humans are naturally ashamed of sin. God made us in His image. We were never meant to sin in the first place. Sin itself is almost as much of an abomination to us as it is to God. We all have a conscience. We all feel guilty at least once in our lives. Women are so ashamed of their past they will do anything to hide it. Men probably feel the same when it comes to infidelity, but they bear no physical signs of their past like women do. If men did, they probably would do the same thing as some Asian women are doing. We know when we mess up. We normally, or at least we should, learn from our mistakes and lapses in judgement. Would this device help or harm our learning process? If we can keep putting off the consequences of our actions, will we ever learn?

        Now, most of these Arab women employing this device are probably Muslims, not that I can prove that. Islamic law forbids infidelity and adultery. What would happen to these women if someone were to learn of their sin? Islamic states the woman could be stoned and possibly killed. While the woman cannot be considered guilty unless four male witnesses speak against her, the threat is a very foreboding force. Men can also be punished, but since the amount of evidence is usually very minimal, they usually aren’t convicted. I understand why some of these women use the device. They are only trying to protect themselves from harm, but does that make it right? Is this not just another excuse? The women wouldn’t have to use the device if they had not sinned in the first place. Their situation, no matter how menacing and intimidating, does not justify their actions. They knew what was right. They should have waited until marriage to have sex.

         Humans have an astounding capacity for blame. We can come up with the most elaborate excuses, but when the embellishments have been swept away, what is left? Just a pathetic excuse for our actions. While I don’t quite believe the designers of the device should be executed for devising of the device, I also believe there should be some consequences for using the device if nothing else. Executing the designers will only cause conformity, not obedience. Still, every action has its consequence.

Cairo, Egypt

        Scientists, evolutionists especially, have been extremely interested in fossils found in Africa, so naturally all  the archeologists have migrated to Africa in hopes of finding some revolutionary fossils. Many search their entire lives and don’t find anything. Worse for Christians is the idea of evolutionists’ interpretations of certain findings. Archeologists found several seemingly human-made tools in Southern Kenya not too far ago. These fossils were carbon-dated back to about two million years ago despite the fact that radiometric carbon-dating is only accurate for a couple thousand years. Other mammal bones were found near the dig site in such a way to suggest a larger mammal sucked the marrow out of the bones. These findings apparently have given the scientists enough information to reconstruct the ecosystems from that time period. Oh! And did I mention the scientists are also saying the tools were made by a missing link? Here’s the problem. Most people when they read this probably think, “Oh, yeah. That makes sense. They’re probably right. They are scientists after all.” However, most people forget to take into account assumptions.

         Now, what?! What in the world could make them believe that the tools were made by one of our ancestors? I honestly don’t understand. There is absolutely no evidence that could make them claim that those tools were made by a missing link! Why can’t the tools  have been made by a plain old human? What evidence is there to suggest a missing link? Do you want to know why the evolutionists claim that? Because they assume that evolution is true. They want evidence to support their beliefs, so they transfer meaning on objects where there is no meaning. They believe evolution is true, so why wouldn’t those tools be made by our ancestors? They have blocked the idea of even Intelligent Design from their minds. They refuse to indulge in another theory, so their results immediately support evolution.

           Scientific studies come out all the time. Most people see some professional language and immediately agree with the concept. The concept in the study, however, is not always true. We have a tendency to forget to read between the lines in scientific studies just because the wording sounds good. As Christians we should always be wary of certain studies. We don’t want to be taken captive by smart language and evolutionary theories. We must be aware when others are deceived.

tools found in Kenya

        Trevor Keezer held his position at Home Depot for 19 months until he was given an ultimatum: take off the button or leave. Trevor chose to leave. His lawyer is now advocating the dispute, argiung that Trevor had the right to wear the button. How is that possible if wearing the button was against company policy in the first place? Well, Skorupa, Trevor’s lawyer is saying Home Depot never really enforced the rule, saying many employees wore non-company buttons on their aprons all the time, so why was Trevor the only one disciplined? Perhaps it was his simple and blatant demonstration of his faith. After all, the button did support the idea of God, or maybe it was the fact that Trevor had started bringing his Bible to read during his lunch break about a month prior to being fired. Trevor claims that his employer didn’t have a problem with the button until about the time he started bringing his Bible to work. Can we assume that is just mere coincidence? Skorupa doesn’t seem to think we can. She even said, “There’s nothing wrong with having a Bible at work to take wherever you want to read and I think it just kind of hit them the wrong way and I think that was the pretense they used to fire him was, ‘Oh, by the way, your button is not Home Depot issued.’” Home Depot spokesperson Craig Fishel rebuked the idea saying, “As you can imagine, with 300,000 associates across the country, it is important to have a consistent policy to make sure we are respecting everybody’s views and beliefs.” But I have to ask why, if Home Depot doesn’t usually uphold the rule of wearing non-company-issued buttons, he should be persecuted for displaying his belief. Every American citizen has the freedom of religion. If an atheist employee walked in the door with a button saying, ”My god is no god,” would he be fired? If a Muslim or hindu employee came to work with a button supporting their religion, would they be told to remove it? Our society has gotten so caught up with the rights of others that we forget our own. A Christian has every right to practice and display their religion just as much as the next person, so why are we struck down?

         Now, on to the premise of his constitutional right to sue the company for infringing his rights. I can’t say he has the right to do that. Home Depot’s company policy clearly states all employees are not allowed to wear buttons not issued by the company. He broke the rules. Now he has to face the consequences, even though the punishment seems to be rather harsh in my opinion. I mean, really? Why would you fire someone for wearing a button? We must be a very very sensitive culture if something as simple as that offends us. Still, the fact remains that he broke the rules. He wore a button that was against company policy. He gave the company the right to discipline him when he broke the rule. I’m sorry, but that’s reality. Now, if he hadn’t have worn the button and simply have brought the Bible to work, the company would have nothing to base their punishment on, so he would still have a job. I’m not saying the punishment was just. I’m simply saying his approach to the matter was not the wisest, but how many people think he was completely in the wrong? How many people refuse let go of the hypocracy in supporting people’s rights? You can’t justify the rights of someone else if you reject the rights of others in the process. Our society seems to have forgotten that

Trevor’s button

        So you go down Main Street hoping for a simple night time walk through downtown. It’s cold, but you don’t care. Youhave a warm hoodie on, and your shoes are pretty comfortable. Either way you can turn the heater up all you want when you get home. Your breath rises in clouds of white smoke as you exhale into the icy air, turning instantly into crystal white tendrils that dissipate before your very eyes. You walk to nowhere in particular, merely marveling at the fantastic feats of your comparatively warm breath as it twists and tumbles between the bodies of the night air. At least you were until you took a right hand turn toward an overly crowded hot dog stand. People are pushing and shoving up to the front of the line in a jumbled mass, each person jeering, yelling, and shouting with smiles on their faces. Several people jerk their hands through the air with ten or twenty dollars tucked tightly in their grasps. You step back, momentarily startled by the noise and confused by the commotion. You gasp as you begin to listen to the conversations all aimed at the employees. Each sentence seems to be infested with profanity, almost to the point that you begin to wonder if a movie with this much cursing would even be allowed in theaters. You stand transfixed about thirty feet behind the customers, unable to look away as the server defiles one person after another with just as much profanity as the customers themselves. Your jaw nearly becomes detached from your mouth as you see the dustomers simply smile back at her, lining up once again to try and one up the attendant.  You look on horrified as a mother brings her young child up through the ranks of the seemingly murderous crowd trying to order a hot dog while keeping her hands clamped over her daughters still-innocent ears. When your sense slowly return as the cold reaches your awareness, you finally find your feet and start walking away from the accursed hot dog stand. No doubt the food is good, but it’s not worth the atmosphere. You shake your head as you walk away into the darkness of the night, but your curiosity has been sparked. As night falls over the next few days, you find yourself driven to walk the mile to the hot dog stand to watch the action. Every day you get a step closer until one day you find yourself in the throng of people laughing along with everyone else. You change into the person you never thought you would be. If you ever wake up from your new life is up to you.

        What I just described to you is an actual restaurant. The restaurant is a small hot dog stand the travel channel talked about in an episode of one of their series. The restaurant serves hundreds of hot dogs in one night, but their main money maker isn’t even a type of food. It’s the entertainment. Every night a large group of people flock to the stand to see if they can trump the employees’ comebacks that happen to be dripping in profanity. Each person lines up simply to cuss. For those who think they can bear the next level, a single customer is given a rare spectacle if they tip higher than anyone else. The travel channel refused to show the sight saying it was “too obscene” to show on television.

        We’ve fallen. There’s no doubting that. At one time just the idea of cussing was unthinkable. Now we’re showing it off like profanity makes us that much stronger. It seems that each year our personal convictions sink deeper and deeper into darkness. What’s next on the list? What else will we do when profanity isn’t enough? When I was closest to God, which was this past summer, it hurt simply to hear someone curse in front of me. Just the idea of it was wrong. Profanity was an abomination to me. I spent the night at my coach’s house with the rest of the basketball team several months ago. Three of the team members were very devout Christians who had very strong moral convictions. That night we watched a movie that had a good bit of cursing in it. All three of them were uncomfortable throughout the entire movie. The next day they apologized for not saying something to stop the movie saying they had talked about it quite a bit when everyone had fallen asleep. Most of us were shocked that they would apologize for something like that. It threw us all off guard. They’ve been my role models from that night on. They’ve taught me several lessons in the year I’ve known them, such as the fact that evil appears to be beautiful. If it didn’t, would we even go after it? Cussing out an employee at a hot dog may seem fun, but that is only the first step in a long chain of events. Who will you befriend afterwards? Who will you become? If you keep saying yes, will you ever say no?

         Uh-oh! More controversy! Recently a bill was passed negating a proposal written by the governor of Maine. The proposal, if made law, would have legalized gay marriage in Maine. While many gay rights activists jumped at the chance to make gay marriage legal, the Catholic Church was not as enthused. The St. Louis Archdiocese spent $10,000 in an attempt to stop the proposal from being passed. Four other diocese, the diocese of Arizona,  Philadelphia, Newark, New Jersey, and Youngtown, Ohio, were the only others to respond to the proposal. Together they spent about $70,000. Their attempt at suppressing the bill was successful. So where’s the controversy?

         Where did all the money come from? Why did they try to destroy the proposal in the first place? What does the church have against gay people? Those are the questions most atheists and some Christians are asking. The only questions Christians seem to be asking are, “Why didn’t more churches help with the cause?” and, “Why would the Roman Catholic governor even suggest a bill like that?”. Let’s address the first few questions. The money came from a special fund the catholic church has to support or hinder certain issues like abortion and gay marriage. Of course the church is against gay marriage! Gay marriage is considered an abomination in the Bible. Why in the world would you support something you don’t believe in? The church has just as much of a right to express their beliefs just as much as the gay rights activists. WE ARE EQUALS. It seems that many of America’s citizens have forgotten that.

         Now, the church is not against gay people, but the sin those people are committing. You can love the person and not love their sin. Is that not what God does with us? He loves us more than anything else He has created, but we chose to go after the opposite of what He wanted us to have: sin. Humans are the ones at fault for the evil presiding in this world. There are repercussions for every action we make. Evil was the result of our sin. Yes, we chose evil over good, but did God abandon us? No! He killed part of Himself just to save us when he sent Jesus to the cross. The Trinity was temporarily broken just to save our souls! If He did that to us, don’t you think we should at least love those around us. God set an example for us. We just have to follow it.

        The last set of questions are not as simple to answer. Are Christians blind now, or just apathetic? Or perhaps we’re corrupt now. After all, the governor who proposed this bill to legalize gay marriage was a Roman Catholic. He is supposed to be one of the main antagonists to gay marriage, so why did he propose this? Maybe he’s trying to get reelected by appealing to a different group of people, but in doing so he is alienating the people who elected him the first place. Maybe he’s tired of people riding him about the issue, so he’s just trying to get those people off his back. I don’t know the situation. Either way, he made the wrong decision, and for that reason I applaud the efforts of the different diocese that stood up against this lapse of judgement. Now, I’m not saying I hate gay people. I’m sure some people would take my words out of context. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying their way of life is wrong. Most gay people are really nice. My best friend two years ago was bisexual. She was one of the most loyal friends I have ever had, but people have to realize that lifestyle itself is destructive.

          There is more than one reason for voting against this act of legislation. There are more consequences to this action than most people see. Not only will the people taking part in this lifestyle be damaged, others will be damaged too. This could interrupt parents when they try to explain to their kids why they shouldn’t act that way. Have you ever seen a four year-old boy try to kiss another little boy without knowing what that meant? I have. I wish I never had. There are also consequences on a larger scale. We have already made enemies of several different countries. Do we want any more enemies? If legislation like this becomes even more popular, don’t you think other countries will take notice of it? I doubt many countries would admire that quality in America. I don’t doubt we will alienate many countries that could possibly be our allies. We are at war. Now is not the time to make enemies.

Frank Schubert celebrating the downfall of the bill that would legalize gay marriage

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/11/19/Mandatory-evolution-classes-proposed/UPI-92051258659025/

        Here is evolution at its best folks. A London newspaper just announcedtoday that the British government has proposed a new bill. The bill, if passed, would force all primary public schools to teach a class solely on evolution and modern evolutionary theory. This could come into effect as early as September 2011. Obviously, evolutionists are thrilled at the prospect if adding more members to their ranks at such an early age. While some Christians in England were a little worried about subjecting their children to the course, an anonymous spokesman said and I quote, “You could do that within the ethos of the school. If a school, in consultation with governors and parents, you have a particular take on that, you would still be able to do that.” The “that” he was speaking about would be religion, so of course everyone will still be able to practice their religion, right? Of course they can. Whether the students will believe in their religion is a different matter entirely. Now, the proposed bill has already gathered a flock of supporters, 500 in fact. Many of the supporters are scientists. Most scientists have already signed an online petition showing their support. Andrew Copson is one of those scientists expressing their support for the bill. “This is excellent news,” says Copson. “Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences. Providing children with an understanding of it at an early age will help lay the foundations of a surer scientific understanding later on.”

        Now, for once, I’m not going to go completely against the topic at hand. I can understand teaching an evolution class at a public school. A public does not have a set religion, so really anything can be taught there, or almost anything. What I do have a problem with is the fact that they will be teaching this class as if the modern evolutionary theory is a law instead of a theory. Evolution has not been proven, so it cannot be taught as fact. That is where I draw the line. This seems to be, in a more embellished form, a way of brainwashing the kids without actually saying so. By teaching the class as fact, the children will have no room for doubt in their heads when it comes to the subject of religion. It seems that every religion is in danger except for evolution.

         There’s another problem with this proposal. What about the children’s ability to choose a belief system? How can anyone make a choice without knowing the truth about all the options? If evolution teaches that all religions are wrong except evolution, where does the child’s free will go? I wouldn’t mind evolution being taught in schools as long as other theories such as Intelligent Design, Creationism, or any other belief for that matter, as long as the course was taught in an objective light. At least that way the children can make an informed decision. Plus the courses should be taught as theories since we cannot completely prove the validity of any of these arguments completely. The only way we could do that is to invent a time machine and go back to the beginning of the universe, which I don’t think is going to happen any time soon. Until then we must remember that every person has a right to choose what they believe after they have been informed of the options. Hopefully our adolescents won’t lose their free will any time soon.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/british-birds-rapid-evolution-signals-human-impact/article1387804/

        Have you ever heard of a blackcap? Apparently blackcaps are a type of warbler, a bird found around the west coast of Europe. According to birdwatchers and biologists, the blackcap used to migrate from the British Isles, Germany, and Austria to the Mediteranean coasts of Spain for the warmer climate during the winter. That migration pattern, however, was interrupted in the past few decades by a favorite pastime of the British: bird feeding. Instead of migrating to Spain, the blackcaps have remained in England where they are adequately fed. While this fact may seem inconsequential, biologists are stunned. See, these blackcaps have undergone evolution in the past forty decades, at least according to the scientists anyway. The blackcaps’ beak have become thinner and smaller so that they can fit their beaks into bird feeders. Their wings have also become slightly rounded for higher maneuverability. Biologists are flabbergasted. After all, evolution is supposed to only occur over millions of years. Even Keith Hobson, a research scientists, had this to say, “What’s really catching people’s attention with this paper is the speed at which evolution can manifest itself in short periods of time.”

        First of all, we need to look at the terminology. Scientists are contending that these changes are the result of evolution. By doing so, they are going against their own theory. How can the theory be correct when the basics of the theory can change randomly? If this was the result of evolution, these changes would occur over millions of years, not 49 years. Nice job, guys. No, this is the result of adaptation, which is not a branch of evolution necessarily. Adaptation states that small changes over a short period of time can occur so that the species in question can survive in a different situation. Here’s an example. Say you lived in Arizona or New Mexico. Obviously you were used to a warm/hot climate. Now picture yourself moving to Maine or Vermont. How do you think you’ll fair in the winter? You may have a hard time dealing with the temperature change the first couple of years, but you’ll get used to it sooner or later. That would be your body adapting to a different climate.

         Second, these are minor changes at best. Evolution deals with mutations. Mutations are changes in the DNA of a species, not changes as simple as this. Again, these are adaptations. The wings became more rounded because the birds needed more maneuverability to get around trees to get to bird feeders easily. The beaks became smaller so that the birds could get food out of the bird feeders without too much of a hassle. A much better explanation of these changes is adaptation, not evolution. No, what worries me more are the comments left below the article. Most say this is a success for evolution. Why would evolution need success? If it’s true, then it should always be a success. Perhaps that is because evolution isn’t true. Just a thought. These comments almost always say the same thing. Yay evolution! Most everyone jumps to agree with the article without even thinking about other possibilities. How can Christians spread the Gopel if people are hardened to any explanation other than evolution?

Blackcap