I was on the train the other day and I suddenly had a bit of a revelation. I was thinking about control and servitude - and suddenly realised that we, as humans are born to serve one thing or another. I serve God, and Holiness - I try to keep those as my masters as the thing that guides my life, and those are honourable things to serve. There are others though, that I notice a lot of other people serve. The following descriptions are the extremes - but we have to be careful about how far we step towards them.
The first is Money - this is more commonly known as materialism, and it is the desire to gain as many things as possible - earn as much money as possible to buy the most things for yourself - and it does not matter who or what gets in the way - this is perhaps the most obvious one, and something that we possibly all fall foul of - do you have to have that thing, or is it purely for your own edification, your own status in society. Note that this is not about spending money, and is not even about buying little luxuries for yourself - but it is about buying things for the sake of buying them - for the sake of showing off to your friends how much money you have. This brings about greed, and with greed comes poverty on th flip side - people are pushed down into the mud by you own selfishness.
The second is Power - this is possibly another that is fairly obvious - the desire to be head o everybody else, the desire to have control over other people, to be able to enslave them and get them to do whatever it is you want - and you will walk over people to get there. If you gain power by rightful means, however, and because you have done honourable things to deserve your position, oreven through your own heritage, such as with a monarchy, then you can be happy and take the responsibility that the power gives you. Unless you take on that responsibility, and use it wisely, then everyone below you will fall.
The third is Sex - another fairly obvious one, but one we hope everyone esle will ignore - to be driven and have your life ruled by sex is not holy - not in the least bit - since this is a desire to have your own pleasures fulfilled - true love-making is to make the other person happy as well, not just to fulfill your own sexual desires - this even goes for those in a married relationship - your relationship should never be based on sex, but on love. If you have a relationship based on sex, you are not in a relationship - you do not have love - you love only the sex, and not each other.
The fourth is Comfort - this is a little more subtle, but we should not be ruled by comfort - and this is more difficult as well to explain, as it is one that there seemingly is nothing wrong with - but Life was meant to be lived to the full - I see comfort as where you are happy to sitwhere yu are, and do not want to accept any change that is going on around you - you hould not be interfered with, because you are happy right where you are. You should get out, enjoy life, and do things that are slightly outside your comfort zone - this is real living - sitting in a comfort zone just causes life to ebb away quietly - this is a waste of life, which is a very sad thing indeed.
The fifth is Yourself - this is a very subtle one, and is fairly new as well - and possibly the one for which this post mght get some criticism and reaction - but it is where you stand up and declare that "nobody has rights over me". This is "My Body", or "My Life", and only I have rights over what happens to it. This is a very dangerous position to be in, because you are saying that nobody has the right to tell you what to do - if that is so, then society would descend into anarchy, as the government and policing lose power over you. After all, what rigt to the government have to tell you you shouldn't smoke? you know the risks, you can do it if you want, it is your body and nobody else will be affected. what right does anyone have over your unborn child's life? it is your body, you can do with it what you want. hat right does anyone have to tell you you cannot take heroin? it is your body, it is your life. What right does anyone have to tell you not to kill yourself? it is your body, your life, not theirs. The inconvenient truth is that your life does not belong to you - it was given to you - whether you believe it is by God or by Nature, you have assumed posession over something that you did not acquire by your own means. and secondly, even if you believe that posession has been bestowed upon you, your life andyour body are not solely owned by you - bcause everyone around you is afected in your decisions, and therefore it is not solely your right. you should not be self-serving, and try to claim for yourself what does not solely belong to you, but instead focus on those around you, and be a good part of their lives instead. The former brings us back down to the animals, because they look out only for themselves, or their immediate family/group. Do not get me wrong - people do have rights still, such as the right to have a vote, the right to speak up and have a voice for justice - but seek rights and righteousness for the benefit of others and for equality, not for your own selfishness.
I mentioned before that this is a fairly new one - and I also mentioned that this brings is back to the animals - perhaps the inclusion of an evolutionary hypothesis being taught as fact in our schools, teaches us that we are just simply animals - so we then start mimicking their behaviour - suppose we are, then does that not still say that we should try and rise above the animals, and keep on going how humanity has been? But knowing that a loving God created me above the animals already, in his image, teaches me to seek out his holines, and allow him to be my master.
So what is your master then? what controls and guides your life? I know I am not perfect - I am also tempted by some of the above, and sometimes they rule my life too - but if you serve others, serve God, or serve holiness, and let those be the guidelines to how you live your life, then you will reap the rewards backin their multitudes - as everyone around you will repay the same.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Church, it is time to WAKE UP!
I was back in the UK this last week and went to my Parent's church on Sunday, and became rather annoyed at the prayer that was made - during which the request was made for God to "Feed the Hungry", and I wonder why on earth that prayer was made.
Now before you suddenly think I have gone stark raving mad (though I would fogive you for having that conviction about me already), The fact is is that this is not how God intends for us to work in his church - there is no point sitting around on our backsides very nicly praying for the hungry, the sick, the homeless, and anyone else in poverty, if that is ALL we are going to do! let me take a passage from the Bible, James Chapter 3. This is a passage that is commonly misread, and as a result we tend to ignore it because it seemingly doesn't fit in with our knowledge of salvation. It is the passage in which James tells us that "Faith without Deeds is Dead" - but the misconception from this passage is that this is telling us that we are dead, unless we justify ourself through deeds - hugely theologically inaccurate, mainly because as sinful human beings we hae no hope of justifying ourselves, we are justified only though Christ's death on the cross, and have eernal life through his resurrection from the dead. But I digress slightly from my point. James is stating that there is no point in having faith if we don't do anthing to SHOW that we have faith. He is not talking about being a Pharisee, where we stand an shout our prayers on street corners to show how religious we are, that is not what he is talking about - he is saying tht we are the Church - we are Christ's living body - filled with he power of the Holy spirit, we are left on earth to fulfill God's will, and to show our faith.
When I was at School, I preached the Gospel at (I liked to think that it was to, but in hindsight, I think "at" is a more appropriate word) my friends, and they came back saying that they had done good things in their lives, and there are people who do good deeds and are not christians, does that mean they will be in hell? And I think that perhaps there was some indignation that there are christians who DON'T. My Father refers to these as "Billiard Ball" christians - those who come out of their worlds, out of their pockets every sunday, knock around with a few other christians, and then dissappear back ito their pockets again come monday. It is these Christians that James was speaking about, and quite possibly to, as well. What is the point in faith if we do not use it?
I heard an alarming statistic on the way into church on sunday morning, over the radio, and it was this - we spend more money on Ice Cream in the western world each year, than would be needed to feed everyone in the third world.
We talk about a global food crisis, but it is statistics like this that show that we have plenty enough food, and can produce plenty nough food on the world to feed everybody - but where are we trying to even it out? and this is what gets me with some Christians. Other than for your own salvation, there is no point having faith if you are just going to sit on your behind every sunday, and then go to housegroup on a wednesday, but DO NOT ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD!
God has given every one of us things that we are gifted at - things we can do, not just spiritual gifts, but also skills in finaces, cooking, making music - I am Pleading with the church for everyone - the whole of God's church, over a BILLION of us on God's Earth, about a quarter of the percentage of the population of the planet, Now is the time for us to chane the world - stop being a Billiard ball Christian, get out of your pockets, and start LIVING - be a part of the Body of Christ, and fulfill his work on Earth. PLEASE!
Let us start working together - there are an estimated 34,000 different denominations of Christianity, but WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD, THE SAME MAN, WE ALL BELIEVE IN THE CHRIST, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - so let us work together to bring his glory on this earth. It is time that the Church did what it was born to do.
Now before you suddenly think I have gone stark raving mad (though I would fogive you for having that conviction about me already), The fact is is that this is not how God intends for us to work in his church - there is no point sitting around on our backsides very nicly praying for the hungry, the sick, the homeless, and anyone else in poverty, if that is ALL we are going to do! let me take a passage from the Bible, James Chapter 3. This is a passage that is commonly misread, and as a result we tend to ignore it because it seemingly doesn't fit in with our knowledge of salvation. It is the passage in which James tells us that "Faith without Deeds is Dead" - but the misconception from this passage is that this is telling us that we are dead, unless we justify ourself through deeds - hugely theologically inaccurate, mainly because as sinful human beings we hae no hope of justifying ourselves, we are justified only though Christ's death on the cross, and have eernal life through his resurrection from the dead. But I digress slightly from my point. James is stating that there is no point in having faith if we don't do anthing to SHOW that we have faith. He is not talking about being a Pharisee, where we stand an shout our prayers on street corners to show how religious we are, that is not what he is talking about - he is saying tht we are the Church - we are Christ's living body - filled with he power of the Holy spirit, we are left on earth to fulfill God's will, and to show our faith.
When I was at School, I preached the Gospel at (I liked to think that it was to, but in hindsight, I think "at" is a more appropriate word) my friends, and they came back saying that they had done good things in their lives, and there are people who do good deeds and are not christians, does that mean they will be in hell? And I think that perhaps there was some indignation that there are christians who DON'T. My Father refers to these as "Billiard Ball" christians - those who come out of their worlds, out of their pockets every sunday, knock around with a few other christians, and then dissappear back ito their pockets again come monday. It is these Christians that James was speaking about, and quite possibly to, as well. What is the point in faith if we do not use it?
I heard an alarming statistic on the way into church on sunday morning, over the radio, and it was this - we spend more money on Ice Cream in the western world each year, than would be needed to feed everyone in the third world.
We talk about a global food crisis, but it is statistics like this that show that we have plenty enough food, and can produce plenty nough food on the world to feed everybody - but where are we trying to even it out? and this is what gets me with some Christians. Other than for your own salvation, there is no point having faith if you are just going to sit on your behind every sunday, and then go to housegroup on a wednesday, but DO NOT ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD!
God has given every one of us things that we are gifted at - things we can do, not just spiritual gifts, but also skills in finaces, cooking, making music - I am Pleading with the church for everyone - the whole of God's church, over a BILLION of us on God's Earth, about a quarter of the percentage of the population of the planet, Now is the time for us to chane the world - stop being a Billiard ball Christian, get out of your pockets, and start LIVING - be a part of the Body of Christ, and fulfill his work on Earth. PLEASE!
Let us start working together - there are an estimated 34,000 different denominations of Christianity, but WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD, THE SAME MAN, WE ALL BELIEVE IN THE CHRIST, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - so let us work together to bring his glory on this earth. It is time that the Church did what it was born to do.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Word Game
One increasing frustraion of mine is a word game that is being played. Often I am bashed for bein a creationist, because people come back with the response "It's already been proven..." usually followed by some insulting expletive. The problem is that we equivocate on the word evoution, which in today's terms has three differnt meanings.
The first is with regards to Molecules-to-Man evolution. This is the hypothesis that out of some pehistoric goo, life was formed by a lightning bolt, created proteins, which thenstarte interacting, forming cells and then eventually single-celled organisms - through a series of mutations, it is then theorised that from this single celled organisms, RNA evolved into DNA, and DNA kept changing to make different organisms and different species - and eventually coming to Humans. It is this version of the word "Evolution" that I argue against - oddly enough, not from a theological basis but actually a scientific one - I do not believe that it is a scientifically valid theory - and in fact, so does an increasing proportion of the atheistic scientific community. It still doesn't stop this hypothesis being taught as fact in our schools, and so called "proofs" of this hypothesis being taught, despite having already been proven as faked (such as the famous embryonic drawings that show that all animals have similar embryos, and the pictures of spotted moths on trees, that were actually pinned on). But that is another rant altogether.
My rant is about the misuses of the word "evolution" where more valid, and not nearly as confusing, words, can be used. Let us take, for example, the Galapagos tortoises. When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos islands, he discovered that tortoises on different islands had different shells, to allow the tortoses to reach different plants. This does not demonstrate Evolution, but natural selection. This is a process that has been proved - where by the process of certain genes giving an animal an advantage, means that the gene pool is narrowed as the less advantaged were removed, through starvaion because they were not able to get food, etc - just like the galapagos tortoises - the genes were previously available to have the different types of shell - but as the islands became cut off, different food bearig plants existed on each island, and the tortoises whose shells allowed them to lift their head up and reach the higher fruit survived, having the advantage, and those that didn't died out. This is not evolution, because no new species has been created. However this is where the confusion andequivocation comes in, becaue I then get lambasted for criticising evolution, for criticising a hypothesis that is "proven" - however my critics are talking about natural selection and adaptation, I am talking about evolution - we are arguing two different things.
Evolution is used now even in a worse format - the word "evolutionary" can now equal the word "survival" as i read in an article today about an evolutionary advantage - which just was referring to a survival advantage of the particular race or species - and I hate this word game because it feeds into everyone, subconciously that this word is okay to use because it has been proven - whereas the real hypothesis behind it hasn't.
I also find that on the BBC news, every science article seems to try and find some "evolutionary advantage" - as if they further need to show proof of the evolutionary hypothesis - despite, of course, they are a) talking about a different thing, and b) surely it hasbeen proven already...
I hope that you now realise the difference and why us creationists are so hard on the Real Evolutionary Hypothesis. We don't criticise what has already been proven...
The first is with regards to Molecules-to-Man evolution. This is the hypothesis that out of some pehistoric goo, life was formed by a lightning bolt, created proteins, which thenstarte interacting, forming cells and then eventually single-celled organisms - through a series of mutations, it is then theorised that from this single celled organisms, RNA evolved into DNA, and DNA kept changing to make different organisms and different species - and eventually coming to Humans. It is this version of the word "Evolution" that I argue against - oddly enough, not from a theological basis but actually a scientific one - I do not believe that it is a scientifically valid theory - and in fact, so does an increasing proportion of the atheistic scientific community. It still doesn't stop this hypothesis being taught as fact in our schools, and so called "proofs" of this hypothesis being taught, despite having already been proven as faked (such as the famous embryonic drawings that show that all animals have similar embryos, and the pictures of spotted moths on trees, that were actually pinned on). But that is another rant altogether.
My rant is about the misuses of the word "evolution" where more valid, and not nearly as confusing, words, can be used. Let us take, for example, the Galapagos tortoises. When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos islands, he discovered that tortoises on different islands had different shells, to allow the tortoses to reach different plants. This does not demonstrate Evolution, but natural selection. This is a process that has been proved - where by the process of certain genes giving an animal an advantage, means that the gene pool is narrowed as the less advantaged were removed, through starvaion because they were not able to get food, etc - just like the galapagos tortoises - the genes were previously available to have the different types of shell - but as the islands became cut off, different food bearig plants existed on each island, and the tortoises whose shells allowed them to lift their head up and reach the higher fruit survived, having the advantage, and those that didn't died out. This is not evolution, because no new species has been created. However this is where the confusion andequivocation comes in, becaue I then get lambasted for criticising evolution, for criticising a hypothesis that is "proven" - however my critics are talking about natural selection and adaptation, I am talking about evolution - we are arguing two different things.
Evolution is used now even in a worse format - the word "evolutionary" can now equal the word "survival" as i read in an article today about an evolutionary advantage - which just was referring to a survival advantage of the particular race or species - and I hate this word game because it feeds into everyone, subconciously that this word is okay to use because it has been proven - whereas the real hypothesis behind it hasn't.
I also find that on the BBC news, every science article seems to try and find some "evolutionary advantage" - as if they further need to show proof of the evolutionary hypothesis - despite, of course, they are a) talking about a different thing, and b) surely it hasbeen proven already...
I hope that you now realise the difference and why us creationists are so hard on the Real Evolutionary Hypothesis. We don't criticise what has already been proven...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)