There is a lot of talk and controversy around gender these days.
I found this article on the topic very interesting:
Israel study: Men still men, women still women
https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2017/05/14/israel-study-men-still-men-women-still-women
Apparently gender is in our DNA even if our outward appearance changes. Some may find this study, or any other sources that reach the same conclusion, tough to hear. We have to remember that if the only truths we accept are the ones we like, then we are not really seeking truth; just comfort and selfishness.
Blog dedicated to sharing truth with the world. Truth is not relative, therefore we cannot create it, we must seek it.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Sunday, May 7, 2017
People Are More Than the Sum of Their Ballot
It seems common place these days to sum up all of a person's values, beliefs, and friendship potential based solely on who they voted for. This trend serves only to divide us further, and to stop all constructive debate before it starts. What a poor measure of a man his ballot is.
What a Ballot Does and Does Not Say
A ballot does make some statements about a person. I am not arguing that they are meaningless. However, what they reveal has many limitations and only makes statements about how the voter felt at the time they completed their ballot.
A few things we can generally infer about a voter from their ballot:
- They care enough to register and vote.
- What political party they voted for during this particular election.
- Who they voted for.
A few things we cannot infer about a voter from their ballot:
- Why they voted the way they did.
- If they support 100% of all beliefs and values help by the candidate they selected.
- If they are an informed voter who researched all their options thoroughly.
- If they were voting for what appeared to be the lesser of two evils, from their perspective.
- If they were considering not voting at all or voting for a third party, because they disapprove of both major parties and government corruption in general.
There is no law that says a ballot will reflect the voter's most deeply held beliefs for all time.
Open Communication is Dying in Our Society
The main point of this post is tolerance. Tolerance of views you disagree with. When I say tolerance, I don't mean letting those you disagree with walk freely without fear of imprisonment. I mean still considering them human beings worthy of: conversation, hearing their perspective, not being called names and labeled, and still containing friendship potential. If you really what to change the world you need to do more than fill in a bubble on a ballot and shun all those who selected the other bubble. Real world change will happen when we work hard to maintain friendships with those we disagree with. If they are really so far off the mark, they need you to show them the error of their ways with gentleness and respect. Sometimes this means being friends for a very long time while still disagreeing. We do not have to agree and endorse all views held by those we care for.
What a Ballot Does and Does Not Say
A ballot does make some statements about a person. I am not arguing that they are meaningless. However, what they reveal has many limitations and only makes statements about how the voter felt at the time they completed their ballot.
A few things we can generally infer about a voter from their ballot:
- They care enough to register and vote.
- What political party they voted for during this particular election.
- Who they voted for.
A few things we cannot infer about a voter from their ballot:
- Why they voted the way they did.
- If they support 100% of all beliefs and values help by the candidate they selected.
- If they are an informed voter who researched all their options thoroughly.
- If they were voting for what appeared to be the lesser of two evils, from their perspective.
- If they were considering not voting at all or voting for a third party, because they disapprove of both major parties and government corruption in general.
There is no law that says a ballot will reflect the voter's most deeply held beliefs for all time.
Open Communication is Dying in Our Society
The main point of this post is tolerance. Tolerance of views you disagree with. When I say tolerance, I don't mean letting those you disagree with walk freely without fear of imprisonment. I mean still considering them human beings worthy of: conversation, hearing their perspective, not being called names and labeled, and still containing friendship potential. If you really what to change the world you need to do more than fill in a bubble on a ballot and shun all those who selected the other bubble. Real world change will happen when we work hard to maintain friendships with those we disagree with. If they are really so far off the mark, they need you to show them the error of their ways with gentleness and respect. Sometimes this means being friends for a very long time while still disagreeing. We do not have to agree and endorse all views held by those we care for.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Who is Jesus?
One
of the most compelling figures in all of human history is Jesus. His
short three-decade life has affected more people in more places in every
generation than any other single individual. His prophesied birth, His
remarkable life and teachings, His claims and attesting miracles, and
His reported death and resurrection all are unique among all men. It is
no wonder then, that scholars and sages, common women and men, slaves
and kings all have found Him to be at least a model to follow, if not
the Savior to believe in.
The New Testament identifies Him as, “The
Christ.” Christ is not His name, but His title, the Hebrew term for the
one unique person predicted from ancient times to come and set wrong
right, and to restore our relationship with God, our Creator. But, to
quote Jesus himself, “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15).
More
important than the consensus of millions of others of every age is your
evaluation of who Jesus was and is, and your decision about how to
respond to Him. Is He the most important person you will have ever met?
Or is He merely a historical figure, fascinating and intriguing, but
having no real claim on you or your life? Certainly, this is the
question that will determine whether you become a Jew, a Muslim or a
Christian (if you believe in a single, personal God). But, according to
the New Testament, your answer will either open the door to a gracious
relationship with the Living God, or it will forever shut it. Eternity
hangs in the balance of your answer to this one single question: “Was
what Jesus did enough to make me right with God?”
Source: http://www.redeemers.org/who-is-jesus
Sunday, August 21, 2016
How Should We Interpret the Bible?
For all Bible interpretation, the real question should not be,
"could this mean something else if I look hard enough?". The question
should be: "What is the most likely meaning of this verse as it would
have been understood by the common man of that time period?"
Why is this the correct question? Because God has inspired the Bible for us to read, understand, and to apply. If it can only be understood by experts, then God probably should have worded it better, which would imply God is not perfect. See my point?
"Sola Scriptura" means scripture alone.
A short quote from wikipedia: "Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice."
Here are my general principles for Bible Interpretation:
1) Scripture should be used to interpret scripture.
2) Unclear or ambiguous versed should always be interpreting in the light of more clear verses.
3) The bible should be interpreted literally, meaning that ways the authors intended. If he wrote a poem, then read it as poetry, if history, then history, if symbolic vision, then symbolic, if a parable, then read it as a parable (a story with a moral), if song, then read it as a song; you get the idea.
4) Greater cultural understanding of the people and time period of a verse should deepen and expand the meaning of a verse. It should never reveal a new meaning that contradicts the previous straightforward reading. Why you ask? This technique could create a slippery slope that can be used to reject any passage to suit the desires of the reader.
5) We must be consistent to interpret all passages with the above mentioned principles. If we accept some verses as straightforward, but bend over backwards to get the meaning we want in another area, then we lessen the value and weight of all passages and give others the free pass they are looking for to bend over backward when they interpret areas that you consider straight forward. A dangerous precedent is created.
Other good articles that talk about the proper interpretation of scripture:
Is there a Reformed approach to science and Scripture review - creation.com
http://creation.com/is-there-a-reformed-approach-to-science-and-scripture-review
Is there a universal way Christians should interpret the Bible? - creation.com
http://creation.com/is-there-a-universal-way-christians-should-interpret-the-bible
Why is this the correct question? Because God has inspired the Bible for us to read, understand, and to apply. If it can only be understood by experts, then God probably should have worded it better, which would imply God is not perfect. See my point?
"Sola Scriptura" means scripture alone.
A short quote from wikipedia: "Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice."
Here are my general principles for Bible Interpretation:
1) Scripture should be used to interpret scripture.
2) Unclear or ambiguous versed should always be interpreting in the light of more clear verses.
3) The bible should be interpreted literally, meaning that ways the authors intended. If he wrote a poem, then read it as poetry, if history, then history, if symbolic vision, then symbolic, if a parable, then read it as a parable (a story with a moral), if song, then read it as a song; you get the idea.
4) Greater cultural understanding of the people and time period of a verse should deepen and expand the meaning of a verse. It should never reveal a new meaning that contradicts the previous straightforward reading. Why you ask? This technique could create a slippery slope that can be used to reject any passage to suit the desires of the reader.
5) We must be consistent to interpret all passages with the above mentioned principles. If we accept some verses as straightforward, but bend over backwards to get the meaning we want in another area, then we lessen the value and weight of all passages and give others the free pass they are looking for to bend over backward when they interpret areas that you consider straight forward. A dangerous precedent is created.
Other good articles that talk about the proper interpretation of scripture:
Is there a Reformed approach to science and Scripture review - creation.com
http://creation.com/is-there-a-reformed-approach-to-science-and-scripture-review
Is there a universal way Christians should interpret the Bible? - creation.com
http://creation.com/is-there-a-universal-way-christians-should-interpret-the-bible
Does Modern Man Have a Problem with Idol Worship?
When we hear the word idol or idol worship we tend to imagine some distant remote island, isolated from the world or some primitive culture from the year 653 BC. Natives dressed in coverings made from plants are bowing down to some statue while chanting. While this type of scenario would qualify as idol worship, it is far from the only thing that qualifies. In the year 2016, in first world countries, this type of idol worship is becoming more rare. Defining idol worship narrowly like this misses the point of this commandment.
Exodus 20:3 says, "You shall have no other gods before me."
The next verse does go on to talk about not making images (statues) to worship instead of God. Verse 4 and verse 3 do overlap, but I don't think they are identical. We can treat anything in our lives like a god and if we put that thing before the one true God then we are partaking in idol worship.
A better way to define idol worship for the modern man would be to say: If we allow anything in our lives to displace God, then we are committing idol worship. In other words, if anyone who claims to follow God/Jesus puts something in the place (highest priority) that God rightfully deserves, then you have displaced God by something that you could accurate describe as an idol.
We are all sinners and most of us are guilty of this sin for a period of time. Our goal should be to commit ourselves to avoiding this situation daily. Only by keeping God is the forefront or our mind, by mediating on his word daily, can we hope to avoid this common pitfall.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Can We Trust Science?
I would like to start off by saying that I like science! I am an analytical, data driven type of person. I work on computers a lot and I appreciate all the scientific advancements that mankind has made. Science has produced some really cool technology and other human advancements. However, we enjoy the benefits of science so much that sometimes we forget to ask the important questions.
Can we trust Science? Our culture answers this question with a resounding YES! We worship all things science. If a scientific study says something is true, then don't ask questions just believe it! If you try to challenge the conclusions of science you are insulted and called names. This position that science has in our culture creates some questions. Do we understand the consequences of worshiping science?
Is it healthy to worship science?
It is said that a strength of science is that it is "self correcting", meaning eventually the correct conclusion is reached. However, I see this as a reason for caution. If science is constantly correcting (a.k.a changing), we cannot tell if we are at the final correct conclusion or just a intermediate conclusion, then how can we so boldly follow and repeat the most recent scientific conclusion!?
If a nobody like me is aware of our culture's obsession with anything that has the approval stamp of "science", then a lot of much more powerful, dishonest people are aware of this too. They can easily manipulate huge masses of people by influencing the conclusions of a scientific study, project, or research. The stamp of "science" is becoming a weapon wielded by all the parties fighting for a foothold in the battle for your mind.
Part of the reason that our culture puts so much weight on "science" is because they perceive science to be objective, neutral, and less prone to corruption. However, as I learn more about our world and human thought processes, I think that these perceived qualities of science are very questionable. Science in its purest, theoretical form, does appear to have these qualities, but in reality our form of science is far from the theoretical and often very distant from its purest form. A neutral scientist is getting harder and harder to find.
Conclusion
Science is not useless. Science is great and has contributed greatly to society. However, science should not be blindly trusted and new information always requires some vetting and a healthy dose of skepticism. Science is really about man observing creation, learning about how it works, and finding new ways of arranging it so that it benefits man more. God is the creator of all things and without him science would have nothing for it to study or rearrange.
For Further consideration:
Biblical history and role of science - creation.com
http://creation.com/biblical-history-and-role-of-science
Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies | Collective-Evolution
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/15/is-science-bullshit-john-oliver-explains-the-corruption-behind-scientific-studies/
Wikipedia has a page on scientific misconduct. one person was accused of publishing 90 fraudulent research papers.
Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct - List of scientific misconduct incidents
The See also section of the above Wikipedia article lists these additional topics:
Same data different interpretations - creation.com
http://creation.com/same-data-different-interpretations
The Limits of Science | Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/the-limits-of-science/
Can we trust Science? Our culture answers this question with a resounding YES! We worship all things science. If a scientific study says something is true, then don't ask questions just believe it! If you try to challenge the conclusions of science you are insulted and called names. This position that science has in our culture creates some questions. Do we understand the consequences of worshiping science?
Is it healthy to worship science?
It is said that a strength of science is that it is "self correcting", meaning eventually the correct conclusion is reached. However, I see this as a reason for caution. If science is constantly correcting (a.k.a changing), we cannot tell if we are at the final correct conclusion or just a intermediate conclusion, then how can we so boldly follow and repeat the most recent scientific conclusion!?
If a nobody like me is aware of our culture's obsession with anything that has the approval stamp of "science", then a lot of much more powerful, dishonest people are aware of this too. They can easily manipulate huge masses of people by influencing the conclusions of a scientific study, project, or research. The stamp of "science" is becoming a weapon wielded by all the parties fighting for a foothold in the battle for your mind.
Part of the reason that our culture puts so much weight on "science" is because they perceive science to be objective, neutral, and less prone to corruption. However, as I learn more about our world and human thought processes, I think that these perceived qualities of science are very questionable. Science in its purest, theoretical form, does appear to have these qualities, but in reality our form of science is far from the theoretical and often very distant from its purest form. A neutral scientist is getting harder and harder to find.
Conclusion
Science is not useless. Science is great and has contributed greatly to society. However, science should not be blindly trusted and new information always requires some vetting and a healthy dose of skepticism. Science is really about man observing creation, learning about how it works, and finding new ways of arranging it so that it benefits man more. God is the creator of all things and without him science would have nothing for it to study or rearrange.
For Further consideration:
Biblical history and role of science - creation.com
http://creation.com/biblical-history-and-role-of-science
Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies | Collective-Evolution
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/15/is-science-bullshit-john-oliver-explains-the-corruption-behind-scientific-studies/
Wikipedia has a page on scientific misconduct. one person was accused of publishing 90 fraudulent research papers.
Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct - List of scientific misconduct incidents
The See also section of the above Wikipedia article lists these additional topics:
- Academic dishonesty
- Archaeological forgery
- Bioethics
- Bullying in academia
- Committee on Publication Ethics
- Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
- Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
- Engineering ethics
- Fabrication (science)
- Hippocratic Oath for scientists
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
- List of cognitive biases
- List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
- List of fallacies
- List of memory biases
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- Lysenkoism
- Mertonian norms
- Metascience
- Pathological science
- Politicization of science
- Reproducibility
- Research ethics
- Retraction
- Scientific method
- Scientific plagiarism in India
- Scientific plagiarism in the United States
- Sham peer review
- Source criticism
- United States Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
- Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science
- EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles
- Straight and Crooked Thinking
- The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science
Same data different interpretations - creation.com
http://creation.com/same-data-different-interpretations
The Limits of Science | Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/the-limits-of-science/
Pick your friends: Who you follow with is going to share who you are
This is a great sermon about picking your friends and being careful about who you spend time with.
Who you follow with is going to share who you are. -- Todd Wagner
Redeemer's Fellowship - Sermons and Media
http://redeemers.org/sermons-and-media/media-item/105/you-can-pick-your-friends
07.10.16 You Can Pick Your Friends from Redeemer's Fellowship on Vimeo.
Who you follow with is going to share who you are. -- Todd Wagner
Redeemer's Fellowship - Sermons and Media
http://redeemers.org/sermons-and-media/media-item/105/you-can-pick-your-friends
07.10.16 You Can Pick Your Friends from Redeemer's Fellowship on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)