Opus 2026-273: Simple Solutions

I have mentioned somewhere in the past an insight I got from a class in the Psychology of Education.  It came from Piaget and related how mental ability develops.  He demonstrated how young children can watch you poor liquid from a short wide container into a tall thin one and the child will claim the tall one has more liquid in it.  I saw this at work today.

We were experimenting with a new location for an inflatable pool in our front yard.  The ground looked level but when we started adding water it became clear that the water was building up in one end.  My six year old grandson decided to solve the problem by moving the hose to the other end and make it deeper there.  It did not work but it demonstrated the logic in a child.

Too often we run into adults who have this same lack of awareness.  In adults I always wonder if it is lack of ability, lack of training or just refusal to admit truth.  In other contexts I would use three words to define these conditions:  Stupid, ignorant or evil.  It sounds harsh but so is the effect they have on our world.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-246: Sounds of Authority

My journey begins as we were studying Jeremiah.  We were in chapter 31 and came across this verse.

Jeremiah 31:9 (KJV) They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

The theme in this section seemed to be God gathering His scattered people from around the world.  It could easily refer to something in the end times.  The discussion went down a road full of assumptions and concrete traditions that did not necessarily help us understand what the Bible was telling us.

Somehow the phrase “walk by the rivers of waters” was lifted out and it was suggested that this referred to the captives in Babylon.  Since the theme was gathering in, that was a plausible explanation.  The a resounding voice quoted something.

Psalm 137:1 (KJV) By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

The voice was deep and sure.  It spoke with authority.  Everyone looked wise and nodded his head.  At that point I was good with the concept even though Babylon was not mentioned in that section of Jeremiah and the language seemed similar.  (Later research showed that the word in Psalms was totally different than the one in Jeremiah.).  I was okay with the statement at that point but the voice of authority had to add one little point that soured his punch with me.

The Voice declared two things with great power.  He said that David was speaking prophetically and reflecting the return predicted by Jeremiah.  Wow.  What an insight.  It was spoken like you could take it to the bank without a deposit slip.

I have this problem.  I like to read the actual quote in context.  I was not doubting the voice of authority.  I was just confirming in my own mind what I was hearing.  When I read it for myself it has more staying power.

Alas.  The Psalm did not say David had written it.  One of the traps we fall into is assuming that common knowledge is true.  If you polled the population, those who did not ask “What is Psalms?” Or “Who is David?” would assume that David wrote Psalms and Solomon wrote Proverbs.  I was in that camp for years, until I started reading and thinking for myself.  One thing that comes clear when you read Psalms with your brain engaged is that David did not write all the Psalms.  How do I know?  Because the Bible says so.  I know that there are many people who would argue with me because their pastor said David wrote them.  Don’t argue with me, read what the Bible says.

To further complicate the issue, there are many Psalms that don’t say who wrote them.  Now in my way of thinking if most of the chapters have what newspapers call a “by line” then when there is no attribution we don’t make an assumption based on our wish list of absolutes.  If he had said, “It doesn’t say, but I think David wrote this.  If David wrote it then he was speaking prophetically”  I could have nodded with the rest of them.  Instead he was making an absolute declaration which I am sure fit in with his chart of the end times.  That I reject.

My point is, don’t accept voices of authority just because they have a deep, resonating sound supported by rock hard certainty.  Read for yourself.  Think for yourself.  Listen to the Holy Spirit yourself, because He will speak to you.  For me it also takes another step and makes me skeptical of anything else The Voice has to say, but that is just me.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-241: Facing the Inevitable

Let me give you one of the most divisive statements ever made:

Genesis 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The first three words begin the division. “In the beginning…”.  You would think this would be obvious but the pagan version of scientists have been denying even this bit of the obvious.  Science has been claiming there was no beginning ever since the Enlightenment became the dominant force in the West.  Their mantra has been that the universe is infinite at both ends.  In the early years when they were basing their theories on philosophy and personal necessity, that is understandable.  But we know more today and the truth is still ignored.

So Christians have always had a bone to pick with the pagans.  When you add the next word it gets even testier.  “In the beginning God…”.  Here is where punctuation might help.  As the secular scientists began to look at the evidence they themselves were collecting it became clear that the universe was not eternal.  So they would translate this, “In the beginning ?”  They didn’t know and had nothing but cool science fiction themes to work with.  Much of the science fiction writing I have read is trying to fill in the blank where the question mark goes.  Imagination is a wonderful thing to base a novel on but is not a foundation for reality and real science.

Christians of course would use different punctuation.  We would switch the question mark for an exclamation point. “In the beginning !”  This is a basic assumption that the early scientists had which allowed them to develop the scientific method and move deeper into discovering how things work from a single cell to a galaxy.  If you can’t make that assumption then you can’t depend on your answers.  Just picture how your day would go if the law of gravity decided to act on a part time basis,

Intellectuals like to cover it up but every field of study begins with assumptions that cannot be proven or are conditional.  Does 1 + 1 equal 2?  Not in computer binary language. Some things are taken on faith.  It would help if they would stop denying that basic reality.

We know where it began and who began it.  The rest we are still working on.  Enjoy the adventure.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-218: Old Time Remedies

There are times when we look back to our childhood or read about bygone eras and we see things that people used to do differently. The difference was more than a lack of technology. It was often the hands-on power of craftsmanship.

I was recently reading something about cheese. The author was reflecting on the situation in England before one of the wars. He said that every neighborhood and sometimes every farm had a unique cheese that they made. The variety depended on many factors and may have even varied in different seasons. The point was that there was a lot more flavor and enjoyment when you compared it to our one-taste-fits-all cheeses of today.

Sometimes the old ways had the better way. I don’t want to go back to hauling water from the well in a bucket or heating the house with the fireplace but I know that pork chops don’t taste as good as they did before they became the “other white meat.”

This came to mind because my son and I were discussing the call of Abraham in Genesis 12. It is amazing the study tools you can bring to a restaurant if you have a hot spot on your phone. We were focusing on the Hebrew words. They seemed to be translated the same, were pronounced the same but looked different in the Hebrew script. We didn’t have enough knowledge to make a judgment.

Today as I was looking over it again I noticed what we call “King James English.” There were a lot of yee’s and “eth” endings. I remember looking into this once and whatever source I was reading said that this was already archaic in the time of King James. The translators did it to get across the nuances of the Greek and Hebrew. In modern English we have the pronoun “you” and we can’t know if it is singular or plural. Not so in the KJV. Thee is singular and Ye is plural. That knowledge adds to our understanding of the Bible. It would be good if we brought it back because it would make things more clear. The same applies to the “eth” endings. I already wrote about the LSB using the Hebrew name of God, Yahweh. This would be like that.

So don’t throw away your KJV. I f you are serious about Bible study it can help you get to the bottom of some questions. I don’t care what the package says, “New and improved” often isn’t.

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-186: Thank You for Asking

Do we need to understand everything?  That is called a rhetorical question.  For those who went to public school a rhetorical question is one that is either so stupid or so obvious that it does not deserve or expect an answer.  It is obvious that we cannot understand everything.  Even in a perfect world we will each have our area of strength and work together with others to put the puzzle of life together.  The Bible somewhat deals with this when it talks about spiritual gifts.  No one has them all.  Everyone has at least one.  They are given to build up the body of Christ not to glorify the individual.

Some people will go on intellectual vacation.  There are many people who are willing to have someone else make the decisions for them as long as they have beer and football.  When I am in one of those moods I would say they make up the vast majority.  It does not guarantee they will be morally degenerate, just passive.  I believe God has called us to keep thinking and using our minds.

We may come to different conclusions.  Often I can guarantee it.  The bigger the group the more chance for dissent.  The purpose of dissent is to sharpen our thinking and point out our mistakes.  It is not to identify heretics.  The time we should worry is if everyone is in total agreement.

When we differ it could be that one of us is right and the other wrong.  It could also be that we are both half way there.  Of course there is also the good chance that both of us are wrong.  One of my favorite moments in leading a study time was to say, “Of course, in eternity we may find out that both Wesley and Calvin were wrong.”  Without missing a beat one young man contributed a hearty “Amen.”

Keep asking questions.  Make them genuine.  Don’t be the teenager in the back seat who can only keep repeating, “Why?”

homo unius libri

Opus 2026-027: Understand Your Neighborhood Introvert

Yesterday was totally exhausting.  I found it hard to get up and move over to go to bed.  And looking back most people would say, “What did you do that was so energy sapping?”  That’s hard to explain to people who are not introverts.

I spent my whole day involved with people.  That involve talking.  That involved listening.  Most straining of all is simply the presence of other people.  I had a great time.  I visited with friends.  I spent time with my son.  I talked to my wife.  I am exhausted.

Introverts are drained by other people.  We don’t hate people.  We are quite capable of engaging in conversation.  The point is that at the end of that conversation our batteries are already starting to get into the red zone.  We are drained.  We need time to recover and recoup.

So if your local introvert is screening calls and doesn’t answer when you dial, it’s may not be because they don’t want to talk to you.  It’s just that they don’t want to talk to you.

Be kind.  Deal with it.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-547: Whom Do You Blame?

I’ve been listening to a Matt Fradd interview with David Wood?  It is three hours long but it might be worth your time.

In the conversation they were talking about Muslims who converted to Christianity and the question was asked what percentage of the Muslims who leave Islam when they find out the deceptions and false teachings move to atheism instead of Christianity?  Wood said it was a good question and he did not really have any statistics on it, but he knew that it was a good portion that did not embrace Christianity, that went on to reject all religion.  What got me interested was that their reason is the conviction if one religion lies to me, then all religious lie to me.  That’s my paraphrase.

What would happen in our world if we took that same attitude toward everything?  Now being one who doubts what climate change scientist tell us, I would be one who would simply ask if we can prove that the climate scientist are lying to us does that mean that we discount everything that all scientist say?  Some cynics would say yes.  Some skeptic you say yes.  Some open minded people might even say yes, but most of us would realize that that’s not really a fair analysis of the situation.

Move on to politics.  If we’re convinced that one politician is corrupt, does that mean that all politicians are corrupt?  As you can see this comes from the other side because most of us would tend to say yes.  But that’s not a fair comparison; not a fair way to look at things.

So we need to be looking into each situation ourselves instead of just taking other people’s words for it.  One reason I think that many people move to atheism instead of embracing Christianity is that the truth of Islam, or the false Islam, was right there in front of them.  All they had to do was read the Quran.  If they were really concerned, they could go into the Hadith.  The evidence was there, it was documented, and if they simply believe what somebody told them in the face of other people claiming it was not true, then whom does the blame lie on.

If you tell me that my favorite apples are on sale at the local grocery store and I go and order a big box of those apples, when I get the invoice and find out the actual price is not a bargain, but it’s full price, whom am I going to blame.  Am I going to blame you because they were on sale yesterday when you were there?   Am I going to blame you because you made the whole thing up?  Or am I going to be honest about it and say, “I should have looked at the price myself.”

Ultimately, the choices we make, and the direction we may go in life are based on our own personal decisions.  Yes, there are other influences and sometimes we’re forced into things we don’t want to do, but most of the time we have more to say about things that we want to admit.

So man up. Or maybe we should say person up. Above all grow up.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-511: Uncharted Revelation: And Willie Wonka

I just finished reading the book of Revelation again.  Like most times that I’ve read it before I have one big question generated by the reading. “Why?”  It’s not so much why did I read it.  It is in the Bible.  It is part of the inspired scripture.  It must have something to say.  The question of why really is why it was written.

Reading revelation is kind of like getting a giant bag of jellybeans from Willy Wonka.  It seems to me that he only made chocolate but bear with me on this.  Willy Wonka is not just going to give you a bunch of jellybeans in the standard flavors and colors . He’s going see how creative he can be just to lighten up your day and to exercise his creativity.

So you get this bag of jellybeans and the first thing you do is pick out the black ones because you hate licorice.  Then someone ask you, “Are you sure they’re all licorice?”  So you start looking at them again.  You sniff them.  You hold them up to the light.  Eventually you may actually lick them or put them in your mouth and you find out that no, just because they are black doesn’t mean they are licorice.  Of course, some were, but in no way are they all.  Some of them turned out to be dark chocolate.  Some of them turned out to be boysenberry with the blue so deep that it looks black.  Some turn out to taste like over-done steak.  No one ever said Willy Wonka didn’t have a sense of humor.

Another person picks out all the red ones because they love red jellybeans.  He pops one in his mouth and low and behold, it’s not just cinnamon, it’s cayenne.  Now there is an eye-opener.  There is something that will make you take your next red jellybean a little more cautiously.   Among the red ones you have raspberry, cherry, apple, pomegranate, cinnamon, and some things that you can’t identify.

You see where this can go.

The book of revelation is kind of like that.  Some people go through and pick out the things that they think they really like.  As long as they keep them in the bag and don’t taste them, they look wonderful.  If they actually tie it into some of their ideas, they may find out that it’s not quite what they thought it was at the start.  Some of the beans are unidentifiable flavors that you’ve never had before.  There are flavors that you won’t understand until eternity.  They’re still in the bag.

Anyway you want to cut it a bag of jellybeans is genuinely something reserved for dessert or times when you want a little treat.  Granted there may be a few vitamin pills mixed in and a few other nutrients.  Picture a green jellybean that taste like asparagus or broccoli.  But Revelation like a bag of jellybeans is a total hash filled with things that you can’t identify and should be reserved for after dinner.

I’m sure by this time you can tell that I am not a big fan of the book of Revelation.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-488: Enjoy Without Imbibing

I recently saw a meme and I found myself nodding my head . I liked the message that it was portraying because it agreed with my prejudices.  If I remember correctly, it was attributed to NBC news and it reported that 95% of all cases of measles occurred in children who had been vaccinated .

The inference was that this was the Covid vaccination and it fits perfectly with my preconceived notions about the whole Covid panic.  My problem is that I am a skeptic, even when I see things that I like . So I put on my thinking cap and looked at this.

First of all I’ve seen enough memes that are obviously false that attribute their source to a known entity, such as NBC, that I don’t automatically assume that it is an honest attribution.  Most of the time when you see something like this, the news that is attributed to them is so ridiculous that it is obvious that it is intended as humor.  I have no problem with that.  This was not presented as humor.  This was presented as a scientific breakthrough.  Did they really get it from NBC or is it Photoshop?  I have no way of knowing.  Strike one.

Secondly, the 95% is a meaningless statistic unless you know how big the sampling was.  If your sample was 100 children, it’s pretty meaningless.  If it was 10 children, it’s even less meaningful.  Not knowing that basic fact makes the 95% questionable.  That’s the way it is with statistics.  You have to be very careful about what they say and about what they don’t say.  Even if the 95% were accurate, you have no idea what it means.

Thirdly, I am guessing that most children who attend public school were forced to be vaccinated.  We all know, or we should know, that even the best vaccine is going to have some people that are still going to get sick.  I don’t know of any that give 100% guarantee except for the guarantees of politicians regarding the Covid vaccine.  For some people, the vaccines are just not going to take.  Since we’re talking about public school children, you need to understand that they are in incubation heaven.  Being in a public school classroom is like being bacteria in a petri dish.  You’re surrounded by disease and it’s gonna get you.

Fourthly, the main body of children that would not be vaccinated would probably be homeschoolers.  One thing about this is that they are not in the petri dish.  The chances of them catching measles would be much lower than their public school contemporary.  That would have a big influence on whether they catch measles or not.  Secondly, homeschoolers tend to be off the radar.  It’s possible that the children in the homeschool situation had measles and just didn’t report it.  We know how to treat measles.  I had measles when I was a kid and I don’t know that I was taken to a doctor.  They kept me in a dark room and whatever else, that’s all I remember, they knew how to deal with it.  I know that I’ve heard of homeschoolers having what they call “chickenpox parties” where if someone has chickenpox, you have a party and try to expose everybody else while they’re young and it’s not going to be a big deal.  I don’t know if they did that for measles.  I don’t actually know of any who did it for chickenpox, but it was one of the things they talked about.

So, is the meme accurate?  I want it to be.  That doesn’t meme anything.  I want to be skinny and good looking too, but I haven’t noticed any big changes overnight.  I’m more concerned with being honest and truthful that I am with being considered right.

Don’t be a cynic.  Be a practicing skeptic.  Seek truth no matter where the path takes you.  It will produce a better world.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-407: Data Processing

I find myself listening to more and more podcasts and watching more videos.  This kind of surprised me when I realized it was happening.  I’ve always avoided them because it takes so long to listen to something that has commercials, long introductions, and people who think they are funny not being so funny.

I think one of the things that is driving me to this desperation is the lack of integrity in the news media and the Clickbait.  I find it somewhat amusing reading the headlines of the different YouTube videos.  I automatically eliminate anything that has extreme adjectives such as “the funniest”, “the ultimate”,  “This will make you laugh out loud” or “Charlie Kirk destroys….”

What I find myself looking for are actual interviews between two people who can put two thoughts together and listen to another person who has a third thought.  Even then you need to be careful because often times it’s someone else parsing what was said, and trying to convince you of their point of view.

The same principal applies in my reading.  I find that I’m less and less willing to take someone’s word that they are quoting accurately.  Many of the great truths that are being quoted are readily available if we want to take the time to read the primary sources.  This is obviously demanding and time-consuming.  I think it’s necessary.  Where am I going to find the time?  I have no idea.  Can I stay awake long enough to finish a boring passage that actually bears some truth?  I have failed many times.

But I continue on the quest for accurate information and hopefully some foundations that will get me to truth.  The only source that I have no doubts about at this point is the Bible and even there I often will question the translation and compare what different versions have said in order to get it the truth.  Commentaries are just some guys opinions.  Sermons are the theoretically inspired interpretations of theoretically born again individuals.

In all things ask questions.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-392: Filling in the Blanks

I found myself reading through Samuel and wondering about the ages of Samuel when his mother left him at the house of God and later when he was called by God and kept waking Eli up.  I’m going to look again, but I don’t think it tells us.  It came to my attention that there are a lot of things that God does not tell us, but being inquisitive troublemakers, we tend to want to know.  Think of the questions that you keep asking.  You started with your Sunday school teacher in second grade.  You may be asking the same questions of your pastor this week.

Where did Adam and Eve’s children get their spouses?

Who were the Nephilim?

Where in the Bible does it use the term “penal substitutionary atonement?  I know atonement is in there, but I don’t know about the rest.  While we’re on that topic, why do people keep trying to say that there was no forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament when “atonement” is used time and time again?  Don’t they know what atonement means?

We can go on with all kinds of questions, but you get the idea.

Why does God leave these blanks in the biblical record?  I would respectfully suggest that maybe He knew that these were details that we didn’t need to know and He was working with a medium that can’t just swap out memory every time things start overloading.  He was working with parchment and stone.  They didn’t even have paper in those days.  Yes I know about papyrus.  It was not paper.  It was also expensive.  He had to economize on what we needed to know, and I can’t think of any better editor than God himself.

Some people think that allows them to speculate and come up with theories that have the power of inspired scripture.  I don’t think that’s why God left it out.  I don’t think He knew that He would have frustrated authors who couldn’t get published needing to express their ideas.  Well actually, He knew it, but He didn’t care.  We do not have the right to go out and just make up our own theology based on the need for system.

One of my paths of investigation is separating out the traditions of men from the word of God.  It’s not easy.  We have so many built-in traditions we don’t even think about that tailor how we look at what God tells us.  Some of those traditions are harmless and might even be helpful. Sitting in pews facing the front where we’re not distracted by the dandruff on our neighbors shoulder or the baby in the back row could be a good thing, but it is a long way from the house church concept that is explained in Acts.  Sometimes basic understandings that large segments of Christians believe are clearly not taught in scripture.  When you look at the TULIP theory and start analyzing such things as the limited atonement, all you have to do is read John 3:16 and see that that doesn’t work.  Yet it is part of the foundation of many churches.

Learn to tell tell the difference between the traditions of men and the doctrines of God.  Base your life on the latter.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-314: Read with Your Eyes Open

I had two experiences this week separated by a couple of days.  The first took place on a zoom call.  We’re a bunch of us old guys were talking about whatever came into our heads.  Israel and its current crisis came up, and of course, that brings out the eschatology geeks who tend to think that they have it all figured out.  I didn’t bother putting my two cents worth in.  There are certain questions which can stop the discussion in its tracks, and they were having so much fun, expressing their views that I didn’t want to ask them in light of Romans,

Romans 11:26 (KJV) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Just who is Israel?  Who is a part of Israel?  Another way of saying it is, “Who is a Jew?”

Then this morning I was reading in Jeremiah and I came across one of those passages which the eschatology nuts just love to ignore and act like they don’t exist.

Jeremiah 44:27-28 (KJV) 27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them. 28 Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs.

If you take the time to read this, you’ll notice, there are two statements which cannot both be true.  The first one says that all the men of Judah will die.  The second statement is it a small number will escape.  Now either Jeremiah had an editor who was drunk that day and didn’t see the discrepancy or we’re talking about hyperbole and other types of literary devices.  You see logic says that if everyone is killed there is no one left to escape and conversely, if there’s someone left to escape everyone is not killed.

This is just one of many places where we see this kind of thing in scripture.  We need to start off with an awareness that the people who wrote this knew what they were writing and, not being stupid, they were aware of the discrepancy.  They also were aware that if they saw an angry father chasing his child across the yard, yelling, “I’m going to kill you”, he didn’t mean it.  He knew he didn’t mean it.  The kid knew he didn’t mean it.  All the bystanders knew he didn’t mean it.  They didn’t have to write an explanation. They just knew what was obvious.

So when you get involved in these kinds of discussions, have a good time.  Stick a broom handle in the spokes.  Be the odd man out.  Who knows, maybe you’ll get them to think a little bit.  Who knows, maybe you’ll learn something.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-302: Who not How

Days are not the issue.

As I was sitting and meditating on chapter 1 in Genesis the issue of creation versus evolution has a way of always creeping in.  In this case, my thoughts went to the real issue.

Young earth creationists get all hot under the collar when someone challenges the idea that God created the world in six 24 hour days.  In doing so they miss the whole point of the controversy.  The key difference between evolutionist and creationists is not the time involved but the cause.

I submit that if in someway the entire six days of creation were removed from the Bible, and we just went from verse two down to man being created in God’s image, we would lose nothing of significance as far as Christian theology goes, and the big gap between us and the evolutionist would still be there.

The difference is not the steps, the methods, the theories, the order of creation or anything else in those verses.  The controversy is in verse one where we claim God did it and they say there is no God.

I would suggest that you stop wasting your time arguing about whether it’s six days or 16 billion years.  The difference is not between six and however many days that would be.  The difference is between one or none.  The Gap between those is bigger than any gap that could be established within the realms of time and space.

Relax.  God created the universe.  God inspired the Bible.  Good science and good theology will always go together.  If there are bumps then buckle your seat belt and keep going.  You have nothing to fear.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-291: Always Question

In church Sunday a man shared something that was going on in politics, and offered us a ray of hope.  He maintained that our state legislature had taken a bold step forward.  It sounded even better when he quoted the Constitution in support of what they’ve done.  I was impressed.  We were all impressed.

As I got home and reflected on what he shared it just didn’t seem like it was seamless.  I wasn’t familiar with the part of the Constitution that he had quoted so I went to the trouble of looking it up.  So far, so good.  This is what we should do.  Check our sources.  Check our facts.  Check our friends as well as our enemies.  Just because people are friends and are on our side doesn’t mean that they always get things right.

In this case I remembered where he said it was in the Constitution, so I was able to locate it and read it.  I read with anticipation.  Suddenly a wall of water washed away my enthusiasm.  What I read was almost the exact opposite of what had been quoted to me.  I read it and reread it.  I guess if I wanted to, I could warp it enough to justify the enthusiasm he was sharing, but no one who is objective would buy it.

I hope to see him and ask him about it in the future.  Maybe I heard him wrong.  Maybe I had my reference wrong.  Maybe the Google AI has rewritten the constitution in my computer.  And of course, maybe he was wrong.  Those are all good things to check as long as they are done with courtesy and respect, but the most important thing for us to do is to check.  Just because we like what we hear, doesn’t mean that it is correct or true.  That is a hard lesson but a very important one.

Keep in mind that we are on the side of the angels and the angels don’t confuse their sources.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-191: The Impossible Dream

Will we ever be able to penetrate the time barrier?  I would ask, “How do you know we haven’t?”  This is one of the themes that science fiction writers have played with.  When you cross the time barrier and, say, go back in time, you’re very presence changes what was there.  It may just be the butterfly-causing-a-tornado effect, but those changes may make it so you never discover how to go through time again.  That way the discovery stops itself.

Eventually, science will reach a point where a scientist can pursue his dreams no further.  I don’t know where that is.  I don’t know if we’re even close to it now.  It does seem that the theories that the scientist keep coming up with are more and more bizarre and less and less realistic.  They are based less and less on facts, experiments and real science, and more on speculation and dystopian fiction.

Does God have a barrier in mind?  Will He keep changing that barrier?  If you don’t believe in God, then just fill in whatever it is you would substitute.

If there is a barrier, whether it’s God created, or just the limitations of possibilities, how long do you keep bloodying your head by pounding against that wall and when do you change direction and start looking for other approaches?

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-190: Starship Troopers and Creation

Years ago I read the science fiction novel Starship Troopers.  To be honest I don’t remember much about it but I do remember enjoying the story.  They made it into a movie, which I did not see.  I generally would prefer to read the book than see the movie because I can use my imagination in the book.  I could also stop and take a nap when I want to.

I recently read that they are going to remake the movie.  I don’t have much of an opinion on that.  Since I didn’t see the first movie, I probably won’t watch the second, but I might see if I can get a copy of the book and read it again.

I thought of this as I was contemplating Genesis 1:1, and genesis 1:26. The first deals with God createing the universe and the second with the creation of man in His image.  As I was contemplating on these awesome events, my eyes ran down the verses in between.  In the course of the rabbit trails that occur in my mind, I thought of all the criticism that comes out about the creation account, and I asked myself, “Self, why don’t you ask the modern critics to do a remake?”

So I ask of you who criticize the creation account, how would you present it if you were writing it?  A couple parameters are necessary.  First of all, you’re limiting yourself to a page or two, you have to write it with primitive tools, on primitive paper, with a primitive language.  Keep in mind that the people you would be writing to had no idea about what a big bang was.  They did not know anything about the speed of light.  I would challenge you to find a word in an ancient language for relativity.  So not only do you have primitive tools, but you have to deal with a primitive language.  And you also need to get it on just a few pages.

When you get to the part about how life was created remember you have to explain to them what amino acids are.  Good luck on finding a word for Neanderthal.  Keep in mind that they were not stupid, just primitive.  

I anxiously await the product of your creativity.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-181: Who Defines Whom?

Anytime you read theology or commentaries you come across big words that people like to throw out.  This morning I’ve been thinking about the immutability of God and the sovereignty of God.  I could add to the list I’m sure.  I think you get the idea though.  The key point I am making is that these are words that we make up or develop in order to try and grasp truths that are beyond our comprehension.

On one side that is healthy.  We look at something we don’t understand and try to find ways to grasp it.  Perhaps it requires a different angle.  Perhaps it requires a deeper dig.  Perhaps it needs more meditation and contemplation to get closer to what the actual truth is.  This is at the root of the scientific method which is given its foundation in the character of the God of the Bible.  It also has its place in the areas of study that deal in deeper truth than science can touch.

One side of that is sick and manipulative.  There are people who like to make a big words because they can then throw around their jargon and confuse the issue.  When I was teaching, I ran into this all the time in education.  They love their jargon.  They love to make up words.  They love to take old words and put new meaning on them that no one would suspect.  They love to change the meaning without telling you.  I expect that in a discipline that is so rooted in pagan values.  I watch it dread in a discussion of the Bible and theology.

Take the idea of immutability. What it really means is unmutable.  And what that means to most people is unchanging.  There is a very real sense in which God is unchanging.  There’s also a sense in which a rock is unchanging.  The two are not the same although the Bible does refer to God as a rock.  God is unchanging in His character, which would be defined in such phrases as, “God is love”.  It does not mean that God is not capable of responding to the free will choices of human beings.

God does not change the physical laws He laid down when He created the universe.   Gravity does not go away.  If He has a need for a miracle, He’s quite capable of stepping outside those laws, but I personally believe that most miracles are worked by God emphasizing different aspects of the laws of nature, and bring you about what looks like to us a miracle.  He does change His response to human beings based upon the free will choices that we make.  I love reading about Moses talking to God and supposedly convincing Him to change his mind.  We see numerous cases of this in the Bible, where God responds differently based on different situations.

Does that mean that God is fickle?  Is God capricious?  Heaven forbid.  It means that part of God’s character is a reflection of personhood.  He is not made up of blind equations and mindless formulas.  We may not understand the nuances but rest assured that they exist.  If a theologian tells you that God is unchanging then ask yourself, “Why does the Bible have Him repenting of making man?”  

Do your own homework.  Accept the words of “scholars” as the opinions of someone who has more knowledge than you do but not necessarily more wisdom or better ethics.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-159: Mountaintop Experiences

You often hear people talk about having a mountaintop experience.  As a general rule, this is considered a positive thing.  It’s a moment in life where everything comes together, and you are filled with optimism and positive thoughts.  It may mark a time where God is very close to you, or it could be a time of great family togetherness.  Overall, though it’s considered a good thing.

I was a bit taken aback as I was reading and Deuteronomy and came across the following,

Deuteronomy 32:48-50 (KJV) 48 And the LORD spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying, 49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, [unto] mount Nebo, which [is] in the land of Moab, that [is] over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession: 50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:

God told Moses to go up on top of the mountain and have a rather unique mountain top experience.  He said go up “...and die in the mount”.  This is not a message designed to make your day.  Moses was expecting it, but I’m not sure he was expecting it quite that bluntly.  At least God gave him a sneak peak into the Promised Land.  His next appearance will be on the Mount of Transfiguration when he appears with Elijah.

Be ready.  You never know when the other shoe will fall.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-065: It Wasn’t Me

How often do we see real facts in front of us and refused to acknowledge what we see?

It may be a ridiculous example, but I experienced it this morning.  I generally make my coffee in the kitchen and then carry it to different places in the house.  If I’m going out on the front porch and my route is over hard surfaces I don’t worry if I might spill a drop here and there.  It can be easily mopped up.

If I’m going over carpet, it’s a different story.  What I will do is try not to fill the cup too full, and then carry a full-size plate underneath it in case anything spills.  This morning I was going over the carpet.  I filled the cup too full.  I knew that.  I watched very carefully as I walked to the back of the house, and I felt like I had done a great job of not spilling a drop.

Fast forward five minutes.  For that matter, slow forward.

I pick up my coffee cup, and there is a suspicious ring of liquid underneath it.  How could this have happened?  I was so careful.  I didn’t spill a drop.  What nefarious gremlin has gotten into my life.  I look over at the plate and it has a small pool of coffee in it.  There was enough that it ran over the side onto a piece of paper underneath it.  How can this be?

My eyes told me I spilled no coffee.  The flat surfaces around me tell me that someone spilled coffee.  I have to make a decision.  Was it gremlins?  Did the cat sneak in and try to find a way to get back at me?  Can I figure out a way to blame my wife?

Unfortunately, I have to admit that I probably did it.  As careful as I was, as clear as the evidence was to my eyes, it happened.  I have to step up like a man and accept responsibility.  Of course I will be doing this confessing and mea culpa on the internet and not around anybody who knows me.

Maybe I need new glasses.  Maybe I need a bigger coffee cup.  Maybe I need to fill the cup less full.  Life is full of options.  Isn’t it wonderful living in a free country?

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-040: A Stolen Idea

I have looked for the source.  I can’t find it.  At this point, I doubt if I will ever be able to isolate where I came up with this idea, but it is not mine.  It stood out to me when I read it, and for some reason, I did not make a note of where I found it.

The mysterious writer said that the most important, or significant, issue in any argument is the basic assumptions you start with.  He said you can have all the right facts, have logic that is impeccable, have everything on your side, but if you start with the wrong assumptions, your conclusion is wrong.

Assumptions totally mold the argument.  Assumptions guide your choice of facts.  You ignore many things that might apply but either you don’t see them or are you downplay them.  Assumptions direct your logic.

One of my big assumptions and everything that I do, say and think is that there is a God and He is the God of the Bible.  I assume He has expectations about right and wrong.  I assume there is evil in the world and it is opposed to Him.  I assume He wants me to live in obedience.  That is the root.

So certain issues are no brainers.  Killing your baby in the womb is not an option.  Sex is reserved for marriage and the is defined as being between one man and one women.  God created only man and women, not unlimited genders based on our feelings of the day.  There is a hell as well as a heaven.  I am sure I could go on but I also assume you have a limited attention span.

Start you day with the right assumptions.  It is more important than the right breakfast.

homo unius libri