CYOB

This started as an extended rabbit trail from my Why I support the Iraq war blog. I got worked up and excited about how irritating I find certain liberal points of view in their fairy tale world that they want to make policy.

I am reminded of an interview on Oprah (yea, I get that bored) which she was interviewing the Queen of Jordan. It struck odd when the Queen said the most important thing she wanted to raise her son was, “the idea that we are a world and too look out for everyone”. I am not so callous as to say it is completely stupid and a terrible mindset. I think it is a very happy view to approach the world with, but I do have this question in my mind. If we are always looking out for other nations who is looking after our own nation? Where does the authority over other nations come from?

The best answer in today’s world would either be the European Union or the United Nations. As I recall both are voluntary organizations which truly hold no valid authority over a sovereign nation. As noted with Iraq in 2003, the most the UN can do is ask, and it takes the agreement of the individual nations to take action to enforce agreements made. I have a hard time containing my laughter when people accuse the United States of violating international law; I simply ask to whom did we submit our sovereignty or what law did we break? If the Geneva Convention is the law, it is clear that the United States is practically the only country which actually follows it; it doesn’t count for a pacifist nation to cry about the horrors of war.

I have come to believe the liberal platform of foreign policy does not have the American people in their best interest. It seems in order for any foreign policy to be made they need the reassurance of the UN, NATO, or several other nations as if they have interests for our benefit. This goes with my disdain for the European Union as well. I believe the duty of a national leader is to look out for the people whom reside in the nation they represent and lead.

The introduction of the euro for instance, it has wreaked havoc upon the German economy, so why in their right mind would the leadership approve such an awful thing to their economy? For the good of the world? Well I like to be optimistic and think happy thoughts and all, but when push comes to shove the French government will not look after the Germans, nor the Italians or anyone else in the EU. I know this selfish political ideology is very American, I think it is for this that draws a great divide between European and American mindsets. We are very selfish and we look out for our own interests. Is that such a bad idea? I would like to think the world powers will rush to stop injustice at a moment’s notice simply because it is the “right thing to do”, but then we see events like Darfur…Sadly, when push comes to shove people look after their own interests.

In the spirit of happy thoughts I also wanted to comment on those who claim we no longer need a military, nor maintain military strength as a world power. First, I must say how on Earth does one believe our status as a world power was established? The US arose from the rubble of WWII as the world super-power; it was from our military strength which directly lead to the conclusion of the WWII in the first place. It was from WWII the US got out of the Great Depression. Once we became Top Dog in the world it is through our military's presence and ability that we were able to secure it.

Everyone knows whoever is on the top has the furthest to fall. Top dog also the most people who would like to see them fall from glory too. Though our political and diplomatic methods are greatly valued, I believe it is the ability to topple governments and overwhelm a country with military force which gives backbone to diplomacy. Talk is cheap; if we don't have any bite to backup our bark, then how could we be more than a diplomatic chihuahua?

On the personal level, it is far from the lifestyle I live to intimidate but as a body that represents millions of people and their interests, why would I have any interest in helping another country at such a cost of my own people? I am not opposed entirely to social programs to assist people in hard times, but when there is a way to help there is also a will to slack.
I think for a good portion of my high school days I was closer to a social conservative and a economical liberal, well from the last evaluation’s of where I stand I am almost completely conservative. It is more important to pay off our own debts, get rid of poverty within our own borders, before we spend fair portions of our budget to assist others. This is not to be selfish, but I believe in the long term if we can secure our own economy and stability we can be more helpful to those around. It isn’t too much to ask to be fiscally responsible before we are fiscally generous. For example, the last pie chart I saw noted the federal budget the interest paid on the national debt took up close to 30% to pay off the interest rate! Almost 1/3 of our tax dollars doing nothing but keeping us in the yellow. It is plain to see from any financial perspective that is extremely poor management.

I find it rather interesting with some simple comparative analysis; the liberal political view is very close to modern communism. For example, some points of similarity are universal and government provided healthcare and education. Being a Creationist I have strong objections to what is labeled “science” in the majority of public schools when it comes to the teaching of origins. Although I think many people do benefit from government provided healthcare I think it can be done much better in the public sector. It would be nice if everyone could have healthcare, but it is not a right, if it really was it would be named in the Preamble with the other unalienable rights granted to us.

Here is a thought; if people had to pay for their healthcare would they stop some of their regular destructive habits? I make an attempt to take care of my body because I have seen what can happen if I don't, many people don't think about such decisions on a regular basis. In fact, one sign of a developed nation, deaths from disease are from preventable diseases, verses those who die from unpreventable causes like infections, disease and the sort.

In Acts 5 the early church had a system similar to communism if not a communistic type of community with other Christians. I have heard of modern communities who continue to live in such a way. However, in Acts 6 Ananias and Saphira, two people who expressed their greed within the Christian community. Oh yea they were also the last people in scripture to be directly killed by God. I happen to think communism is a great idea in its purest form, but the only places one can find pure communism working successfully is either in someone's imagination or a book. Like most good-idea social experiments, as long as humans with a sin nature wander the Earth they cannot and will not work. There are many organizations that in their purest of forms are wonderful things, but when you add people we have this certain ability to mess it all up with very little effort.

If real life doesn't teach this I know the Army has certainly taught me this, cover your own butt. When stuff hits the fan make sure you are taken care of. I would like to be able to watch out for people all the time and put myself last but doing so is not in the best interest of my survival. I think this basic tactic should be applied to politics. This life philosophy takes an interesting turn with my theology. After all, how do I look out for number one and at the same time submit my life and desires to God? This is the balance I am learning with my experience here.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told to stand up for myself and not let other walk over me. I do not think people take me for being weak, but I have come across as a pushover. I look at it as making a fuss about trivial matters. Often it is easier and more beneficial, I believe especially to my testimony, to submit and get the job done. The bad part, often those forget what I do believe, forget I hold and do not move. I take stands on important matters. If I honestly believed by me not talking crap, I was a weak person, I would talk back. If I believed taking a few dead arms made me a wuss, I would hit back. I believe when push comes to shove, I can carry out my duty to the best of my ability and with a clear conscience because I do not do it for selfish reasons.

When You Believe in Miracles

This one was just randomly inspired while I was doing my monthly shave and the Prince of Egypt soundtrack started to play. It is a lovely sounding sound I think its message is somewhere along the lines of if you believe anything can happen. Knowing my style I doubt the song was hardly taking it so deeply. I am reminded of several of the books I have read in which it addresses logical arguments Humanists use to dismiss the evidence and arguments for our faith. I think it is fair to expand this to a good deal of ancient historians who deny the ancient manuscripts that currently makeup the Bible as historically authentic. The common denominator between the two parties, as to why one group denies the possibility of God and the other of historicity is their disbelief and outright denial of miracles.

David Hume is one of the most notable philosophers who argues miracles are non-existent. From face value it is one of those claims that one does believe in miracles would likely exclaim such a suggestion is outrageous. The funny thing though, in Hume's premises, what is believable is normal or natural occurrences. Things which do not repeatedly occur or cannot be repeated should not be taken into account as having happened. With such premises it is plain to see why the presence of miracles is denied. The nature of miracles defies nature and cannot be repeated upon command. If they could be repeated in nature there would be nothing special about the event, if they could be repeated upon command it would not be forces from beyond this natural world. The "logical" method of philosophy to argue against miracles stands at eliminating their possibility in the premise to arrive at a conclusion which does not include anything beyond nature. It is like asking you to persuade me to vote for a candidate with the premise that the person does not exist. The argument is dead in the water against such bountiful premises. This is the same issue with the Problem of Evil, yet another philosophy question which attempts to disprove the existence of the supernatural using false premises. Then again, this argument is not as ludicrous as Hume's.

The plausible deniability used in philosophy is similar in the historical analysis of the ancient manuscripts we call the Bible. Many historians dismiss those manuscripts, being in greater volume and number than any other manuscript used to figure out the ancient past by more than a thousand fold. The reason they deny the historicity is because they do not believe in miracles, and if the manuscripts, which dictate as something to be literal include miracles then that poses a problem for the "enlightened" ones. Andy Stanley has a good 3 part Sermon series about the reliability of the Gospels called Verdict. Then again, Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Norman Giesler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, and Ravi Zacharias' Jesus Among Other Gods, all contain powerful points about the reliability of the scripture as historical documents. I am very tempted to throw out a few of the tip bits about how much ancient manuscripts there are in comparison to other ancient documents, but I encourage you all to read the books for yourselves cause it will stick much better than, "oh I read it in this guy's blog".

I think this kind of ties to CYOB. People get so much of their life views in unrealistic illogical happy thoughts, such as how they want to live and believe what they want to because it is more comfortable. Then in order to secure their comfort, because deep down (Romans 1:18-21) they know there is a Truth they convince themselves there is no Truth. I am in awe constantly every time I read Romans to see how much it completely applies to our current cultural climate. Hopefully you are either familiar with Romans 1 or you looked it up to see what I was talking about, but I would like to conclude this one with a couple choice quotes that I think add to the points I made rather eloquently.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

“Unless we are born again we cannot see the kingdom of God. A man once stood on a soap box at Hyde Park Corner pouring scorn on Christianity. “People tell me that God exists but I can’t see him. People tell me that there is life after death; but I can’t see it. People tell me there is a heaven and hell, but I can’t see them…” He won cheap applause and climbed down from his “pulpit.” Another struggled onto the soap box. “People tell me there is green grass all around. But I can’t see it. People tell me that there is blue sky above, but I can’t see it. People tell me that there are trees nearby, but I can’t see them. You see. I’m blind!” – David Watson, My God is Real

Why I Support the Iraq War

This one classifies as an op-ed political type that doesn't have too much bearing on my recent activities but something I thought I should share with you all (y’all is not a legitimate word). I write this from the eyes of someone that has not yet had the chance to do my part in contributing to the resolution of this conflict but I look forward for my chance to go. One of the reasons I joined the Army was because I wanted to be a part of this. I realize these words come from one whose best idea of war is described by those who have been, and I am speaking about something I have yet to have firsthand experience about.

I read an op-ed a few months ago I think was one of the best pro-war op-eds I have read in a long time. It was Right Invasion, Wrong Explanation, by Jonah Goldberg. Many of the author’s points brought up in the op-ed I agreed with, but I had some of my own thoughts and elaborations I thought I would like to share. I wanted to start off to acknowledge I personally do not care nor have I ever cared about the notorious WMD's. I don't care the President's State of the Union mentioned the "16 words" that supposedly rallied much of the support for the initial action. Actually, I have seen some interesting new articles which obviously were not widely circulated throughout the media showing the alleged WMD's were present up to a week before the beginning of the invasion and Russian Special Forces moved them to neighboring Syria. I don't think that was made public because it was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the public’s eye, in addition to allege Russia having something to do with working with the former Iraqi regime would be such a blow to our foreign relations with Russia it was not worth it to pursue. In addition I am inclined to believe that certain methods of gathering such evidence were better off not mentioned.

This is regarding the recent article published by the NY Times based on classified documents (This is the closest I could find).  For those of you that know what part of the Army I serve, you know that I know about the protocol with such information. The very definition as pertains to the US government and classified documents is quiet self-explanatory, in fact if anyone wants to read AR 380-5, it lays it all out there, but I warn you it is deathly boring to read. The definitions of the following levels of classification are: “Secret” if it can do danger to the United States if the information is revealed. “Top Secret” is differentiated that the information can do grave danger to the United States. For news organization to spill the beans and publish such material is what I consider espionage and or sedition. Well, that is what we call it if one person delivers the same material to someone from another nation who does not have the clearance to view such information.

The NY Times in my eyes committed the worst form of espionage, they made it open source, available to the general public. Those who argue the information in itself does not directly endanger the US have no clue what they are talking about. The content of the information is not always the important part; it is how it was collected. That being said, I think it would be perfectly legal and completely appropriate to charge the NY Times editors and journalists that were associated with the leak of information.

Many argue we did not do enough peace talks to find out if Iraq had complied with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War in 1990. Well, for me I think we did more than enough, in fact, the UN proved itself to be impotent in my eyes and I favor withdrawing from the organization altogether. They are not worth the billions we spend to be in the council and I do not believe they act in the best interest of Freedom and Justice. I remember watching the clips from the UN meetings when the US appealed to the UN asking for action. It went like this: they agreed Iraq was not in compliance with the original resolution which ended the first Gulf War, in fact they had been in violation of that resolution for over 10 years; after agreeing Iraq was in violation of their resolutions with another resolution, a resolution for military action was proposed and failed.

I am not one to jump the gun on important decisions, but, I think that was a clear example of refusing to solve the problem. If I make a deal with someone and the conditions of the deal are not honored then either the conditions prior to the resolution ought to be reverted or the agreed penalty for violating the resolution should be paid. In my opinion, military action is the reasonable and logical course of action, it was deemed appropriate in 1990 as a result of the invasion of Kuwait, from which the Allied forces were about to overtake Iraq after liberating Kuwait but it was that same resolution which halted the coalition forces in 1990.

One may ask how Iraq violated the resolution from 1990. Although the politicians focused on the unaccounted chemical agents and equipment possible for making WMD's I think they left out a major detail when considering invading Iraq. Since the conclusion of the Gulf War one of the conditions was a no-fly zone the United States and other countries were to patrol. For the entire duration of the patrol it was common for Iraq to fire missiles at the military jets. Correct me if I am wrong but, when one country attempts to shoot down another military’s aircraft that is an act of war? There was never an instance when a coalition warplane was ever shot down in that duration, but it does not excuse being shot at without retaliation.

I am curious as to why there are so many people against the war at this present time. I know the American people are fickle and loose interest in things that last more than a month. I find it rather sad the change in popular support of the war. The initial invasion in 2003 there was close to 70% support for the military action, after the lack of discovery of the WMD's the public support was around 50%, and now it is somewhere in the 30% range. Many people attacked President Bush for his action on what was believed to be correct intelligence, but since everything didn't go as planned, the majority of the initial support has left the cause. I am most perplexed by those who advocate instant withdrawal. Did they not understand what happened in Afghanistan? The Soviets took over the region, essentially conquered it and then left with the fall of the Soviet Union. Upon the exits of the previous government the Taliban took control of the nation. Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it; I didn't think 20 years was that long to remember.

Epilogue: This was interesting to read so many years later. I do not think at the time I considered the differences in types of classified information leaks, that or these statements were made prior to my embrace of certain Libertarian sentiments. For the sake of Liberty, I find criminal acts like those of Snowden, were not done in malice but from a patriot’s heart. Given that the Director of National Intelligence outright lied to a Congressional Oversight Hearing, I have a hard time explaining how Snowden was not vindicated by that overt act of deception.

I truly wish the post war plan was conducted better, not by the military but the State department. The de-bathification policy was the most disastrous policy that directly lead to the less than satisfying conclusion.

In light of the Syria mess, who knows where Assad got his chemical weapons?

Also, note that in 2006, it was easy enough to predict the rise of an organization like ISIS from nothing more than a history lesson.

Dating, or Lack Thereof

Note: Actual date written is unknown, my best guess is sometime in the Summer of '06 since other accurately dated blogs referring to this one start as early as Sept 06.

It is true. Never in my life have I ever dated and it is likely for the next few years I will yet to date. I think I should start with what I mean by dating because as many of the relationships I have seen with friends at church, they did not follow traditional dating as American society has portrayed it to be. Based on observations and talking to people around me, society as a whole believes dating is appropriate and initiated when an attractive person clicks or finds a minor connection, most likely physical connection to start. From that point a series of dates takes place and a couple's relationship carries on from there. Some win, most don't. I think you all understand what I mean by that form of courting. Through seeing its holes is how I have come to my beliefs about this topic.

The primary problems with the way dating is conducted is it lacks knowledge about the each other, focuses too much on the physical, and it is usually done too quickly. Mind you this is the initiation phase. Whether there is communication, trust, or other issues are more generalized once the relationship has some time to develop. I am tempted to say that dating people you don't know is the wrong course of action to getting to know someone.

I think it is best to get to know people in social environments such as parties, activities, classes, and the casual “hanging out”. Through those interactions a familiarity could build and turn to friendship. This is where many people go whoa; hold on, are you saying to date only friends? Well, yea. Friends are people who know you for who you are. They are not people who know about you or have seen you around, they have direct knowledge about you. With such a foundation of understanding we can know enough about each other and assess who we are compatible with.

I think society has a problem with this because friends are too hard to make and take too long to find. Mind you I am not talking about a common acquaintance I am talking to an actual friend. At the very least someone who shares similar values, beliefs, and interests. After all, who do people most often end up talking about their relationship issues with and why? It is always a friend. Now if relationships were built on a friendship which entailed knowing each other, perhaps certain issues could be better worked out when they come up. Maybe, this is the rougher areas of my theory because most people I present this theory to are so flustered that I am still talking about friends being the best candidates to date. At the very least someone should know more than the basics of a person, such knowledge requires moderate effort of being interested in a person as another human being. I have not yet decided if this will overflow into another blog which might be closer to a rant about how people are too preoccupied over physical attraction.

Another red flag usually rises when I tell people my stance is with the whole “what if you break up and then you can't be friends anymore or you lost a friend?” Well, this theory doesn't exactly allot for failure, that's one of the main points for knowing someone very well before you start a special part of human interaction. I believe the more honest someone is as a friend the better the probable success if a relationship is to start. At the very least the other major factor is how one's behavior changes once the "dating" starts to occur. After all so far this has explained the initiation circumstances. For the most part I think the people involved should conduct themselves the same way they did while they were friends. Those details are much sketchier mainly because I have never needed to think that far into the situation. Granted you have probably already thought I put way too much thought into this.

A 5-Minute Attempt to Address the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil as stated in most philosophy classes is one of the greatest counter arguments to the existence of a good God, namely the God Christians believe in. This was the primary topic of Lee Strobel's "Case for Faith", but the book had a better explanation to my systematic mind was I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, the final contributing source to this blog is Switchfoot's The Shadow Proves the Sunshine. Ravi Zacharias very well argues peoples’ true reservations for philosophically denying God's existence is their own will to not want to have to answer for their behavior or submit to something much greater than themselves in The Real Face of Atheism, the presence and problem of evil is still one of the most popular topics of discussion.

I am writing this with an entirely different spin on the point, the "presence" of evil exists. For several years at my current point of maturity I am hard-pressed to say that I actually regret anything that I did. Not because I think I am some perfect being whose sins have not hurt or offended anyone, but because through my failures I have developed to be the person that I am today. If I had never experienced hardships, failure, and trials I suspect I would have a paper thin faith if any at all, at least on the personal level with Christ.

As I have read from several sources in addition to a number of sermons the most common answer to the problem of evil is that evil in itself does not exist. Instead evil is a description much like hot and cold. Cold is not tangible, cold by its very definition is the absence of heat. Just as the definition of darkness is an absence of light, evil is the definition of an absence of good. Philosophically it addresses the problem very well because one of the premises of the Problem of Evil as it is stated in philosophy is that evil exists. By defeating the premise, the argument is void. I think it also has the benefit of showing how we must promote and behave "good" to best combat evil. Although this reason philosophically by technicality is satisfying to some, to the majority of the population that has experienced evil, it is very unsatisfying to the heart.

My next point about the problem of evil, and why I think its feeling confirms the existence of God. People admit to themselves and others that they believe in absolute morals and therefore an absolute moral lawgiver by ones reaction to evil and pain. The best example I have is from a story about a college student and his professor. The student’s final paper was to argue for a point, any point. The student decided to argue against moral absolutism. When the student turned in the paper he was very disappointed with the grade. On the front of the paper it said "F, I don't like blue folders." The folder happened to be blue. Upset the student argued with the professor and claimed that the grade was not fair nor did it merit the F based on the color of the folder. The professor simply smiled and pointed out that, "you argued that there is no such thing as fair, moral, or right, therefore I don't like blue folders so you grade remains an F!" The moral of the story is that by the student’s reaction to injustice, his absolute belief in justice, fairness, and morality was confirmed. It is by people’s reaction to evil that they confirm what good should be.

Most people will argue that because evil exists that God doesn't exist, after all why wouldn't he stop it? Well the Christian answer to why evil is in the world is because sin is in the world. Sinful people commit evil deeds on people. Even more, natural disasters are also the result of sin, perhaps not as directly as a sinful person murdering another person as being evil, but because sin entered the world at the Garden of Eden. All of creation was rocked, the world was no longer as it was meant to be, and that is the world we currently reside.

To further elaborate people confirm what right and wrong is by our reactions to wrong, is the song I mentioned earlier. The Shadow proves the Sunshine I don't think I need to go further than the title of the song for the point to be made. Without the darkness we can't appreciate the good and justness of God. After all, if there was no light how would one recognize it is dark? We wouldn't because that is all that there would be. In the same way, the existence of the shadow proves that sunshine does exist.

A Theory In Crisis, Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Many of you know how I like to argue things; I have a more distinct fervor for arguing things that I think have a connection with our faith but do not require our faith for the explanation to make complete sense. Something that occurred to me either this morning or sometime yesterday while I was almost a lone ranger on the Hard Core Christians Living Hardcore MySpace forums arguing for Creation against several advocates of evolution. I found it entertaining and somewhat challenging, not so much because they came up with new arguments that I have never seen before, but because I had to explain and come up with examples of evolution's incompleteness. It is not often that an entire debate will end in one sitting in a forum atmosphere but this one did.

I don’t want to keep this blog unreasonably long because I noticed from my previous blog I got a little too excited to dump all the arguments on the table and it only resulted in a really long blog that intellectually vomited on the reader with so many points and arguments. I found as I got to the last several points to fully elaborate would be simply too long. I suppose that is what happens when I try to summarize points made from several books and journals into such a small place like a single blog. So let's see how this one goes.

Oh before I get on with it I also want to through a shout out to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This is a very interesting book so far, I am about 1/6 of the way through it, it is through Dr. Behe's style of this read that this blog has really come to be. He does not claim to believe in Intelligent Design or Young Earth theory (the earth is 6k-10k years old) like most authors of material that question evolutionary theory as it stands today. On one hand I feel as though he is arguing for something he doesn't fully believe in, but then it hit me, he isn't really arguing for Creationism as his quotes are being used throughout the world in creation vs. evolution debates. All Dr. Behe is doing in this book, so far, is pointing out that evolution as it stands has issues that need to be addressed.

As simply as I see it in my mind right now it is that evolutionary theory has many problems within itself. So far Dr. Behe has not gotten on a soap box after exposing difficulties with the theory; he has just shown how the current theory is inadequate for what it is. These problems range from: the origin of life, benefits through mutation, irreducible complexity, explanation of the Cambrian explosion, and overall age of the earth in respect to what mutations must exhibit, and the list goes on. Each of these problems I can write a mouthful about it with my limited knowledge on the subject. I know full well I can't explain the complete difficulties and failings of the theory but I can give a good summarization of each of those issues. To get a full explanation the kind that should be the satisfying standard of the scientific world would require some serious post-graduate level explanations.

I am not saying that only people with doctorates can understand or explain the problems, just that the bases of those problems need to be explained at such a level that it takes an expert in that field of science. For example, as a micro-biologist Dr Behe listed on the molecular level a very "basic" version of how sight functions in our eyes. I know I am more current with remembering my college biology and chemistry and even that "basic" explanation had me struggling to get the gist of it. This example of the eye is just one of the many problems found within biology that will need micro-biologists to fully explain the function and possibly its origins.

I am greatly tempted to break out some of the evidence in support of creationism but that would be to miss the point that I want to really elaborate upon. Often within a debate over a controversial issue it comes down to two sides, the majority verses the minority. This is present in every debate setting, but as I pointed out in my abortion blog, there is actually a core issue within the debate. It is not given the attention it deserves instead the arguments dance all around the core topic. Abortion for example is "Is the unborn human?" simple as that. What is the core issue within the creation vs. evolution or ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution argument?

In the midst of the "us vs. them", feel of this debate I think many people over look the true stance of the ID community. It is not so much that we are pointing to evolutionists and saying "you're wrong", we are pointing to evolutionists and saying, “you got problems and contradictions within your theory." In addition we like to add "our explanation through ID fits like this..." That is the heart of the issues as I see it. I think special attention needs to be made to keep this idea in mind because it is so easy to get bogged down in so many arguments which turn into an intellectual shouting match, sometimes not always involving intellect or shouting.

Odd Assumptions and Practical Atheism

I had a fun morning today; we were destroying a big display board so we could throw it away. The best part was the conversations we had while we were working on the easy project. I found it profoundly interesting how different I really think from other people and how little faith they have in the power of faith.

It seems every time we get a chance to chat as a group of friends the subject of interest seems to always be relationships or something along those lines. I know I am naive about certain subjects and rather inexperienced in many areas of relationships but I think I am greatly underestimated in many factors of how my future will turn out. I also must say they believe far too much in human nature. According to them as soon as I am de-virginized, I will become some form of man which resembles the rest of the male population whose sole goal in life is to seek anything in a skirt. In addition, any temptation I have will eventually be given into. The most encouraging thing I heard was that the expected length of my "first" marriage was 2 years from one of my friends. I quoted "first" because I do not plan nor do I think it is a wise plan to think of marriages as first or any numerical count. The one semi-accurate thing I think is fair at the very least to consider is that I will be heart broken if/when my first relationship fails.

Oh yea, this weekend I went to a R&R resort hosted by the chaplains. We had a lesson time on Friday (it was thurs-sat), for the single soldiers we watch a few sermons out of Song of Solomon. It was a rather exhaustive approach going through each verse at a time, thus in the three hours we got to the middle of chapter two. So far I must say I that it wasn't that hot'n heavy as I have heard, then again that was just the choosing and courting parts of the book. The one bit that I really agreed with was how to find a Christian mate. The pastor in the videos said “we simply run whole heartedly for Christ and look to our right and left to see who is running next to us, at some point see if they want to run with you”. Many of the other details in the sermons mentioned stuff I have heard and or applied appropriately already, I think.

This was one of those conversations I found both entertaining and sad at the same time. It was quiet funny how they think that everyone has to through life in an aimless search to find what their looking for. Sad because I know exactly what they were searching for at points in their lives and they didn't look in the right place. I have a delicate time with deep conversations like this cause one of my friends is really sensitive to anything almost alluding to a spiritual discussion. I hope in my efforts to love and not shove the Gospel down her throat that I have not been too subtle about it. I think I valued or gave slightly more credit to this conversation for a couple reasons, first they are some of my closest non-Christian friends here, second they are all married, and third it had a certain tone of seriousness that I found rather eerie from some of the stuff they were saying.

A part of me still feels like I am not doing so good at shining bright that others will praise God (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16). That verse has been such a source of influence in the way I constantly attempt to conduct myself but yet those that verbally notice so often refer to me as being a "good" guy. It irks me so much because being seen as "good" is the exact opposite in my purpose. I know it is up to the individual to see the good works and praise our Father in Heaven, but I can't help but think that they have seen so few earnest Christians that they don't recognize that it is God in me that is so good. There is so much that I have seen that is frustrating, so many people going about their lives in search of what I have found. Yet, since I have not lived through their life I cannot know the solution to their issues.

I have been reading perhaps the best apologetic book yet, called I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist. I am almost completed reading it, somewhere one of the common themes in the apologetics I have been reading is the true answer to why most people deny God's existence. They do not wish to admit nor submit their life to God, simple as that. I have found a new conundrum, as most apologetics are addressed to atheists; what about those that calls themselves Christians. I think the world is far more populated with people that think they are Christians but live without him as an active part of their life. Not to say they are all immoral heathens that live in terrible debauchery, but take their faith to a point similar to Agnostics. The whole "big guy way up there that doesn't really care" ideology seems to me to be far more common than declared atheists. Then when they see the difference that God makes in our lives it doesn't click that our faith is what makes so much difference.

Then again what apologetics are there to logically show more about God than what is revealed through the persuasive arguments and debates? I don't think that form of ministry is a practical use of apologetics. I think conveying the personality and the express uniqueness of our God is something that only we can accomplish both by words but more by lifestyle. I am reminded of the intro to What if Stumble every time I think about that. The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny him by their lifestyle. Then to add a bit more, because there are so few Christians that acknowledge Jesus in our lifestyle it is alien to those that see it.