Prayer

Reading Jill Carattini over at A SLICE OF INFINITY today reminded me of the importance of prayer and how I so often fall short in this area. There, in her article, she also posted a C.S. Lewis poem that I had seen before. It is simply entitled, "Prayer."

Master, they say that when I seem To be in speech with you, Since you make no replies, it's all a dream —One talker aping two. They are half right, but not as they Imagine; rather, I Seek in myself the things I meant to say, And lo! The wells are dry. Then, seeing me empty, you forsake The Listener's role, and through My dead lips breathe and into utterance wake The thoughts I never knew. And thus you neither need reply Nor can; thus, while we seem Two talking, thou are One forever, and I No dreamer, but thy dream.

Prayer is one of those things that still perplex me when I really stop and think. I know it is vitally important, but I also know that God knows my very thoughts before I even utter them, so I am constantly mulling over how God works in and through prayer, and whether my prayer really moves the heart of God, or is God moving me through this "medium" of prayer? As I revisit Lewis' Poem above, I'm reminded of another quote from John Bunyan, "When you pray, rather let your heart be without words than your words without heart." What are your thoughts on prayer?

"America's Pastor," 'fundamentally' wrong

Popular author and pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in the Saddleback Valley of California south of Los Angeles warns of a terrible danger lurking right around the corner in the 21st Century. Warren is quoted in an Interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century." "Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other."

I suppose Rick Warren reads a lot of Wikipedia. It is the first part of Wikipedia's definition of "fundamentalism" to which Warren appears to be appealing. Dr. R. Albert Mohler states the following on his Blog

Equating Christian fundamentalism with Muslim fundamentalism is both wrong and dishonest. This falls right into the hands of those who argue for a phenomenological definition of "religion" that includes "fundamentalism" as a general reference to any person or movement that refuses to accept the basic worldview of modernity. Adding the therapeutic category of "fear" just adds to the confusion. The motivation of fundamentalist Christianity is fear of Muslims and Jews?

As if there isn't enough confusion and misunderstanding about Christianity and faith in the world, now Warren is lumping in Muslim fundamentalists with those Christians who hold to the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. If you notice the Wikipedia definition and description of Christian Fundamentals references a work describing the fundamentals as "The Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection, sinless life of Christ" and things of this nature, in other words, the things that make Christianity distinct and true and, well, Christianity. I'm not sure what Warren is trying to accomplish by making such murky statements, but, as Mohler states, "This approach [certainly] doesn't help."

Alito, A Good Judge

Oh to be a Supreme Court Nominee....I've never understood the line of questioning that comes up during these Judiciary Committee hearings. It seems to me that the questions that are asked, such as, "Where do you stand on abortion," or "How would you rule on a case involving abortion," or "will you vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade" are missing the point. Is being a Supreme Court Judge simply about A woman's "right" to kill her baby? This whole process is irony at its best. The liberals fear in a "conservative" judge the very thing they laud in a "liberal" judge. However, the conservative judge would answer exactly as Alito has thus far. He argues for precedence and weighing the evidence on a case by case basis, impartially. Isn't this what a judge should do? But, as is evident in recent years, this is far from what liberal judges have done. We have seen legislation from the bench due to these types of liberal judges who are joining countless others in revising and rewriting not only our laws, but even our history. Here is an excerpt from a Washington Post Article:

But Democrats often portrayed him as too eager to side with the police, the president and corporations in disputed matters. They chafed at his refusal to wholeheartedly embrace or flatly disavow several contentious memos and speeches he wrote in the 1980s as a Reagan administration lawyer. Saying he would keep "an open mind" tells people nothing, said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), because no nominee would be foolish enough to say his mind is closed.

Well, thank you Mr. Schumer. What an astute observation. If you know this going in, then one wonders why you even ask the question. Do you think it would make Mr. Schumer happy if Alito said he was in support of abortion and would never overturn Roe vs. Wade regardless of the merits of the case? Is that really the answer he is seeking? It seems to me that a good judge, the kind we should be seeking to be on our Supreme Court, would answer just as Alito has answered. This will all be forgotten soon after Alito, perhaps one of the more competent judges that will be confirmed in recent memory (along with Roberts) is at work with the other Supreme Court Justices and the Looney Left stops their ridiculous fabrications in an attempt to keep him from being confirmed. I'm for you, Mr. Alito, and may God use you as you make those all-important decisions in your new role as Supreme Court Justice. I believe you will make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.

Earliest Philistine Artifact Mentions Name Goliath

Yet another Archaeology dig has unearthed evidence of the historical veracity of the Bible. While this should come as no surprise to the Bible-believing Christian, it helps solidify the story of David killing Goliath as a historical fact rather than some sort of allegory or myth that, as many claim, was written down and made up many years later. This is one of the things that makes Christianity different from other so-called religions. It is built on and revealed in history. God has worked and moved throughout history, creating time and space itself, and reveals Himself through history. We cannot know God apart from his intervention in history, the greatest of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ! As other historical events are corroborated by Archaeology and other areas of discipline, may we use these events to share God's message of Salvation, knowing His Word is, indeed, true. You can find the following article HERE

Friday, November 11, 2005 JERUSALEM (AP) — Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine’s name, a find they claimed lends historical credence to the Bible’s tale of David’s battle with the giant. While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath’s existence, it does support the Bible’s depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation. “What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath,” he said. “It shows us that David and Goliath’s story reflects the cultural reality of the time.” In the story, David slew Goliath with a slingshot. Some scholars assert the story of David slaying the giant Goliath is a myth written down hundreds of years later. Maeir said finding the scraps lends historical credence to the biblical story. The shard dates back to around 950 B.C., within 70 years of when biblical chronology asserts David squared off against Goliath, making it the oldest Philistine inscription ever found, the archaeologists said. Scientists made the discovery at Tel es-Safi, a dig site in southern Israel thought to be to be the location of the Philistine city of Gath.

Worldview Conflicts Part III

Just because I think your arguments are deeply flawed, ignore basic science, and possibly heretical too ... doesn't mean I think God didn't create the universe.

Heretical? How so? What basic science am I ignoring? How are my arguments flawed?

Mike, no where did I deny the existance of a "designer" as you call Him (I prefer calling Him "God", but that's just my preference -- I think it's less "cute" than the frankly disingenuous "Intelligent Design" language, and "Our Designer who art in Heaven" sounds a little clunky to me.

How is it disingenuous to call God the designer? Obviously I believe the God of the Bible to be the Designer of the universe. I prefer calling Him God as well, so I don't know what that little fit had to do with anything. However, since this discussion was borne out of thoughts concerning science, nature and logic, that is how the discussion has formed. I can't very well just begin by saying, "Well, God just is and always has been. I believe it and that settles it." Well, my faith has a little more reason to it than just blind belief, Alan. To explain that to someone like Jim who is questioning, first, if there even is a god, and second, that if this god exists, can we even know him/her/it then the discussion has to begin at a more foundational, philosophical level.

Apparently to you, asking any question about God constitutes a lack of faith on my part. Or perhaps the real issue is that *my* asking *you* any question about God somehow constitutes a question of your authority or something. In any event, I'm not sure why you assume every question I ask is a challenge.

I haven't seen you ask any questions about God, Alan. However, the neo-Darwinism you seem to support does, indeed, raise questions about the existence or need of a god.

I'm not sure how you get beyond an idea like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which has a great deal of experimental observation to back it up. Do you see quantum mechanics as an inherently anti-Christian theory because of its emphasis on probability distributions?

No. Alan, I'm not Anti-Science. I just do not believe that good science is going to refute God, nor can it. What we're really talking about here in neo-Darwinism is not empirical science. It is a philosophy of science. Supernaturalism is not counter to science. Non-naturalism is counter to Naturalism. Naturalism is counter to Non-naturalism and Supernaturalism encompasses both. I believe that science will do nothing but continue to reveal how God has formed/is forming the world around us, or how it is decaying. As far as the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, probabilities are not a problem for me. As I stated, I'm not anti-science nor am I "Anti-probability" if there is such a term. With the Quantum Mechanics theory still being developed and incomplete, I don't suspect any earth-shattering blows to Biblical Christianity. Even in experimentation of the Uncertainty Principle we see certain laws extant.

Also, Stephen Hawking has shown, using wavefunciton equations, that matter can in fact, come from nothing. He has even gone so far as to calculate a 98% chance of our present universe occuring by "chance" alone. His theories are not universally (hee hee) accepted however, but stranger ideas have come from quantum mechanics.

Well, as I stated, Quantum Mechanics is far from a complete theory. Hawking has already been shown to be mistaken on his hypothesis of matter or information being completely destroyed by black holes (he had a lot of disagreement on his thoughts any way) and, obviously, this went against the established Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the First. Neither can it be actually shown that information or matter can be formed from nothing, and I would expect the established laws to hold up...even with Stephen Hawking attempting to debunk them. Obviously, Quantum Mechanics is not something I read and study a lot in my spare time or fill my head with just before bedtime :) but I'm somewhat familiar with it and fascinated by these theoretical thinkers. They are much smarter than I, that's for sure. Let's not kid ourselves, though. Hawking is an Atheist. He starts with that bias, just as I start with my own bias of believing in a Creator. It is disingenuous to imply that Hawking arrives at his opinion free from bias and arrives at his view purely from an empirically scientific standpoint.

Perhaps I'm just still not understanding what you actually believe about the Biblical creation stories: a 6000 year old creation? A 13-15 billion year old creation? Something in between? Genesis chapter 1 vs. Genesis chapter 2 (ie. were humans created first or last?), etc.

I believe the Biblical account is not just a story. I believe (I'm certain I'll be mocked for this :) that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days. As I view the creation account and the language used, I can arrive at no other conclusion. I don't want to rehash the old Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2 argument here, but suffice it to say that I don't see them as contradictory. Certainly, I can go deeper into that subject, but I'm sure you've been through all that before. I will leave you with a quote/excerpt from one of my favorite thinkers, C.S. Lewis:

If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists... as well as anyone else. But if their thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist.... Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

Worldview Conflicts Part II

Post Reply: You assert that I.D. satisfies Occam's Razor as the simplest explanation. However, you overlook the vast complexity you assume when you posit something capable of that level of creation. Assuming the supernatural to explain the natural is MORE complex than only assuming natural causes.

At the very basic level, when we see design, it implies a designer. You are jumping ahead in the argument. Either the natural cause has always existed, or the supernatural Designer has always existed. Which is the first, or the uncaused cause? Science itself teaches us that the universe had a beginning, this is not at issue, so the former is less likely to be true. In addition, the fact that it has a beginning would also imply that it had a beginner which supports the latter argument of a Designer. Certainly a supernatural Designer would have unfathomable and unimaginable power, about this I do not disagree.

Chance is an 'input' to evolution, but things evolve because of natural laws that result in a selective bias, where non-beneficial chance occurrences are weeded out, or at least don't accumulate, but beneficial chance occurrences tend to accumulate over time.

I've stated that a design implies a designer. Even given your example of magnets and pennies in a shoebox....attempting to illustrate chance one would ask, who made the pennies? Or the shoebox? Or the magnets? And who is doing the shaking? Secondly, notice your choice of words in the above excerpt. You use terms like "natural laws," "selective bias," "non-beneficial" or "beneficial" chance. Laws? How did these laws come into being without a law-giver? Selective Bias? Who is doing the selecting, or how could a selection possibly be made by chance? A selection implies a Selector. Who decides what is beneficial and not beneficial? Is "chance" capable of choices now?

If there is a god that created this universe, then it seems to me that he most likely created the Universe with a "big bang" and ever since then has chosen to have all of his interactions with the universe be so subtle as to never leave a definitive mark that can be observed by many independent observers.

This astounds me. Creation is anything but subtle. You can refuse to see the design and detail if you wish, but to state that intricate and detailed design in nature is not a definitive mark of a Designer is perplexing.

One could even believe that the authors of the Hebrew Bible and The New Testament were 'inspired' by God, but wrote within the constraints of the world views accessible to them at the time. I honestly am puzzled why so many theists reject this world view.

Theists reject this world-view because it is contrary to Scripture itself. We believe that men are not the authors, but God Himself. If God gave us His word with constraints for the time period in which it was written, then it would have little to say to us today, and would be just like any other book. The Bible itself is astounding in that it was written over thousands of years, prophesying things that would happen thousands of years in advance. It is not some half-witted diary written by a Nostradamus-type figure that gets it only partially correct. When we say that we all "evolved" from one single life form, it is contradictory to what Scripture tells us about how life originated. When we contradict Scripture, we contradict God therefore making the two views incompatible. One is correct and the other patently false. We have chosen opposing answers.

Worldview Conflicts Part I

Recently, in one of my posts, a dialogue was started with a gentleman named Jim. Here is part of the exchange we’ve had thus far:

Jim stated: When you say that "Evil is present in this world" I just don't get it. I'll be frank: it feels to me like anthropomorphizing, even superstition. Mike stated:I apologize if I distorted your intent. The above quote gave me the impression that you don't believe Evil is real, and then you turned around and stated that people do both good and evil. It seemed like a contradiction to me. I do agree with you in regard to "things" in and of themselves not being evil (i.e. your gun example above). I will comment more later regarding evil and "The Devil." Yes, I am familiar with Occam's Razor. Briefly I will state that Christianity and the Bible seem to be the simplest answers which I will address later also. Give me time!Mike | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 12:50 am | Jim Stated:With all of that being said, I have to comment on your mentioning the "tried and true teachings of scripture". You may have resolute faith that the teachings are true, and there may be hundreds of millions of people who share your faith, but that in and of itself does not make the scriptures True. Mike Stated:I agree with this assessment as well. I will be sure to address it in my posts to come concerning our dialogue. I don't claim or believe the Scriptures are true simply because there are hundreds of millions who believe it, but because evidence points to it being true as much as anything can be proven to be true. But again, I'll give more detail soon....Mike 08.27.05 - 10:33 pm |

It is here that I will attempt to delve further into this discussion. I will use part of other discussions I’ve had recently pertaining to worldviews and the ideas of Theology, Philosophy and even Biology. I begin with a story.

I was walking along in the woods one day and happened upon a log cabin. I was a bit surprised at finding the log cabin as the ranger had told me the forest was uninhabited. I noticed how smooth the logs were and how well built the chimney! I pondered how lightning must have struck several trees in the area and knocked all the bark off. I recall seeing a tree struck by lightning in my younger years and the smoothness of the tree as a result. In any case, I figured that a strong wind must have, over time, blown these trees down. I’m certain they were dead from the lightning strikes, so it would have been easy for a good gust of wind to blow over the trees. The wind was such, over time, that all these trees fell neatly on top of one another, forming the bulk of the cabin I saw before me. On the end was a chimney with rocks shaped just so, that they didn’t need mortar, as they fit together so perfectly. I posited that surely there was at one time a rushing stream nearby that, over time, sorted out the rocks according to their size and left them deposited ever-so-perfectly one on top of the other to form the chimney I saw before me. Isn’t nature wonderful! I was amazed at the power and precision which was evident in all the natural forces that had formed this log cabin before me!

Of course, any sane person would agree that this story is ludicrous at best. And, it is obviously is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. This story illustrates the idea behind the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. It simply states that “every design has a designer.” We see this every day in the buildings that surround us, cars, utensils, pens, billboards, etc. For instance, if you were on a desert island and found a watch, you would automatically assume that someone had been there before you. Why? It is because the design of the watch, with its intricacies and detail, assume and imply an intelligent designer. In the 19th Century David Hume attempted to refute this idea since “machines and nature are completely different,” meaning, in his estimation we were comparing apples and oranges. However, as Science has pressed on, discovering things like DNA in 1953, the idea behind man and nature as machinery has taken on a new light. In fact, man is much more structured and built for far higher processes than anything humans have ever come up with! DNA is full of information, a code for the very building blocks of life. DNA is built and created by no less than 20 different proteins, but all these proteins work under the direction of DNA. As we look at this idea that neither exists without the other, as we follow the logic back to a beginning, it is implied, since each relies on the other for its existence, that these had to come into existence simultaneously. This implies a designer/creator. Using the idea of Occam’s Razor so often used by Atheists, it seems that the simplest explanation for life and design is that there was an Intelligent Designer behind it all. neo-Darwinism would have us believe the incredible that chance after chance after chance to the Nth degree has happened to bring us to where we are today. Which is the simplest explanation for a design? A designer? Or a random string of occurrences (like the Cabin Story) taking place to create the detailed and logically ordered world we see around us every day? In my mind, and in the mind of anyone who is intellectually honest I believe the answer is very clear.

PostModern Wacko Story of the Day

I found the following AP story very humorous. Do we need any more proof that PostModernism is off its rocker? "Nevermind the truth. Just make me feel better." This could very well be the PostModernist mission statement or motto, though, of course, PostModernism itself refuses to be defined....naturally.

ROCHESTER, N.H. -- A doctor's warning that a patient should lose weight has backfired, with a woman filing a complaint with the state saying he was hurtful, not helpful. Dr. Terry Bennett said his lecture to an obese patient about her weight drove the patient to complain. ''I told a fat woman she was obese," Bennett said. ''I tried to get her attention. I told her, 'You need to get on a program, join a group of like-minded people, and peel off the weight that is going to kill you.' " He says he wrote a letter of apology to the woman when he learned she was offended. Her complaint, filed about a year ago, was investigated by a panel of the New Hampshire Board of Medicine, which recommended that Bennett be sent a confidential letter of concern. The board rejected the suggestion in December and asked the attorney general's office to investigate. Bennett rejected that office's proposal that he attend a medical education course and acknowledge that he made a mistake. Neither Bruce Friedman, chairman of the board of medicine, nor Assistant Attorney General Catherine Bernhard would comment. The board's website says disciplinary sanctions may range from a reprimand to the revocation of all rights to practice in the state. ''Physicians have to be professional with patients and remember everyone is an individual. You should not be inflammatory or degrading to anyone," said board member Kevin Costin.

I ask you, Which is more loving? To tell the person the truth to save their life, or to make them feel better about themselves as a person? While this article and the tone thus far may seem a bit whimsical, there is an important truth at the heart of it all. When we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God unto salvation, it may offend, rather, more than likely, will offend a lot of people. Should we buy into the postmodern mantra? Whether it offends or not...whether we are labeled as exclusivist or intolerant, the truth still remains. The lost are like this obese lady. Telling them the Truth can save them, though they may fight you for the sake of their self-esteem and feelings every step of the way. The Truth, indeed matters and the Truth can save you!

How, Then, Comes Holiness?

Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." I Peter 1:13-16 NASB

Obviously as Christians we are commanded to be holy. The verses above are but one example of a call to be prepared to give a defense of the Faith. The KJV translates verse 16 "Be Ye Holy as I am Holy" as though it is a command for righteous living. This is not the case. The better translation is found above by the words, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY" indicating that the holiness comes from God Himself. The statement presumes that a change has already been made in our very nature by the power of God. (see 2 Corinthians 5:17) The question is, do our actions make us holy? Or are our actions meant to reflect the holiness that is already present as God gives us holiness? I would suggest that the Bible teaches the latter. As we read on in I Peter 1, in verses 17-25 we see that, indeed we were "born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." You see the Christian life is not up for the asking. God imparts His Spirit to us. God, through His grace saves us. It is God who "begins the work" and God who effects the work in us. We are unable to come to God on our own. Why then, even after we're born again do we think that our actions can/will make us more holy? If we have been saved, "born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable....through the living and enduring word of God" then we know that holiness, too, comes from God. Then one says, "What about our actions? You "show me your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith by my works" as stated in James 2:18. Even in context, here in James, we see that the works are a natural outpouring of the faith that was God-given. The works are not "worked" to prove faith or to attain faith or salvation, but the faith is evident through the works that are performed. (without faith it is impossible to please God) We are incapable of doing good works apart from faith, and that faith is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast! I will post more on Christian liberty later as it pertains to holiness and being mature in our walk with Christ, but for now, let's thank God that as a born-again believer, God has empowered us through his gracious gifts of eternal life, salvation and holiness to live a life that reflects His glory and brings him honor and we don't have to work to retain our salvation any more than we could have worked to attain it in the first place!

The Character of God Part 3. . .God is Good

Yesterday I saw something I hope I never see again. We have just returned from a week of Revival Meetings in Missouri. After Sunday night church, we went to a 4th of July gathering of about 150 people. We enjoyed the food, fellowship and the fireworks! As we were traveling home late Sunday night, the alternator in my SUV decided to stop functioning. Here we were in the middle of nowhere, with a truckload of kids and the vehicle just stopped. No lights. No power. And, of course it wouldn't start. Luckily, I had my cell phone. I was able to call a friend and he came to see what we could do to get us home. By the time he arrived, we had pushed the SUV (Ford Expedition) a couple of hundred feet down the road and off onto a side road. As he pulled up, I was able to start the truck again. He then led us all the way home while I drove with no headlights. We all made it safely. I thank the Lord for good friends and for His watchcare over us. So, naturally, my 4th of July started the next morning by installing a new alternator. Another friend of mine went by the parts store and picked it up for me; and since he had just replaced his alternator in his Expedition the month before he was a great help in getting mine installed. After this we jump-started the truck and let it run. Finally, we could go on with our plans for the 4th! We met this same friend at the Swimming Pool where both of our families enjoyed some play-time together. After a couple of hours it was decided that he and I would go back to his house, meet another friend of ours and then drive down into Tennessee to purchase some fireworks for the evening. While he was getting cleaned up and I was nearly dozing off on the couch, there came a frantic knock and ringing of the doorbell. I thought it was our friend coming to pick us up and that he was just goofing around by knocking and ringing so obnoxiously. As I opened the door, I quickly realized that something else was going on. There was a man whom I had never met yelling at me to get out of the house! As I walked outside, my friend came around the corner in the hallway. We both walked outside to find his SUV burning in his driveway near the garage. Within 30 seconds, the SUV was engulfed in flames that were so large that the heat was unbearable and they were melting the vinyl on the soffit of the house, as well as scorching the garage door. We could hear the sirens, and it seemed as though the firemen would be there any second, but even just a few seconds later it seemed as though the fire had doubled in size and would soon be using the cab and rear of the truck for fuel, not to mention the fact that the roof of their brick home could soon be engulfed in flames as well. The front tires exploded as a neighbor tried to use a garden hose on the flames. A few seconds later the fire trucks pulled up and they worked quickly to get the flames extinguished. They had the fire out in mere seconds, but the great damage had already been done. The hood of the truck was gone. The only thing left in the engine compartment was the engine block. Everything else, including the drivers side front wheel was melted or disintegrated. The steering wheel and dash were melted, the windshield had shattered from the heat. The firemen placed a powerful exhaust fan in the garage and pushed a huge amount of smoke out of the garage and attic. Thankfully, the rest of the house was not damaged. We stood there in disbelief. I still can't get the picture out of my head.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with the character of God? One of the most difficult things to understand, perhaps.....the idea of Theodicy, or the existence of an omnipotent God while there is evil present in the world. In other words, the age-old question, "If there really is a God then why is there suffering and/or evil in the world?" As we accept the idea of God as He is revealed through Scripture, we accept that God is bigger than time itself and, as stated previously, he has always existed. It is with this understanding that we see God knowing the beginning from the end, or seeing the "big picture" as it were. Evil is, most certainly, present with us on planet earth. The philosopher in me says that we could not know "Good" unless there was "Evil." Thus, God, though not the Author of Evil, can, according to His will "work all things together for the good..." He sees the big picture. We try to understand from a human standpoint (now we see in a glass dimly) and have difficulty sometimes reconciling the idea of evil existing alongside an omnipresent, omniscient God. Would it help to tell you that my friend and his family had planned to take their SUV to Orlando the very next day and that this could certainly have happened in the middle of nowhere, or on the side of a highway hundreds of miles away? Did God know this? Certainly, the God of the Bible knew that this could happen, and, in fact, knew precisely when it would happen. Bad things happen, but not everything is from God. However, we can rest assured that nothing takes God by surprise. As we encounter the difficulties of life, the trials and calamities, we can trust that God can and will "work everything together for the good, for those who love God and for those who are the called according to His purpose." Could it be that God allowed this small calamity to avert an even bigger tragedy about which we will never know? Such is the will of God when compared to the minds and experiences of men.

The Character of God Part 2

One of the most difficult things to comprehend about God, Who is, admittedly, incomprehensible, is His "self-existence." There is a wonderful term for this as I have learned recently. It is called aseity. This simply means that God exists uncreated; He had no beginning and will have no end. Once you can accept this attribute of God the rest just falls into place. I remember as a child wondering where God came from. Mind you, in my thoughts as a child I always supposed there was a God or a "higher power" or whatever you want to call it. It is rare when it is otherwise with a child. But I always wondered, nonetheless, how God came to be. Recently in our Church's Vacation Bible School children began to ask a similar question. Along with questions like, "What color is God?" or "Why were 'they' so mean to Jesus?" One child asked, "Who created God?" When the answer came back that God was not created and has just "always been." You could almost hear their young minds plim as they took in this idea of God. It is beyond human understanding. We tend to think of things as finite. Everything we see, typically, has a beginning and an end. From the TV programs we watch to vegetables we grow in the garden, our work-day, our very lives. As humanity is absolutely constrained to being finite, God certainly is not. He is infinite. It takes an infinite God to be able to rise above the constraints of time and humanity...to be able to see "the beginning" and "the end," as it were. This, of course, proves to be quite the stumbling block for people. For the scientific mind, it is almost impossible to grasp since it is neither provable nor disprovable. For the Philosopher, it provides a lifetime of ponderability and what-ifs. For those whom God gives faith to believe, through Jesus, His Son, it is but another glimpse of his ineffable depth and glory. What a great and awesome Being our God is! His ways are beyond our ways, His thoughts beyond our thoughts. As we weigh this attribute of God, we must exclaim, as 1 Corinthians 2:9 does: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him!" Ian B. Johnson put it this way,

"Behold the magnificence of God. He exists in himself. He exists apart from his creation. But he simultaneously exists at every place and at every time within his creation, having no need to go from place to place or from today to tomorrow. He is still at the beginning of time. Yet He is already beside me, and on the farthest star, tomorrow, next year, and at the end of time. Praise his name!

The Character of God Part 1

God is "holy, yet loving; the love not interfering with the holiness, nor the holiness with the love." --- Horatius Bonar

I used to say something to the effect, "holiness is one of my favorite attributes of God." I was wrong in stating it thus. Holiness is not merely an attribute of God, but encompasses all His attributes. His love is a holy love; His mercy a holy mercy; His justice a holy justice; His wrath a holy wrath. Holiness is something which, truly, is beyond human comprehension. If we look in the Scriptures at the instances when God truly begins to reveal His holiness to His servants we see a recurring theme. In Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees God in his brilliant, holy splendor and replies in verse 5, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." In Luke 5 as Jesus, showing His power on the boat with Simon Peter, commands them to "put out into the deep water" after a night of catching no fish, the crew, including Peter, pulls in a catch that nearly sinks the boat. Peter, after witnessing the holy power of God manifested in Jesus Christ falls at Christ's feet and utters the words, "Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!" In Matthew 17, as Jesus leads Peter, James and John up on a high mountain, Jesus is "transfigured before them." As Peter contemplates building tabernacles for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, signifying for all the importance of Jesus in history, a voice booms from the heavens proclaiming, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!" At this the disciples fall face down to the ground and are terrified." God's holiness is powerful. It illuminates all that is dark around us. It sheds light on the sin and iniquity in our hearts. It brings to the light the deceitfulness and uncleanness of our tongue. It is God in all that He is; His awesome power! When I merely begin to understand His holiness it is then that I am overwhelmed by His love! God is Holy! But God is love! These two, seemingly contradictory, attributes are but a taste of the glory of God and the depths of His riches and wisdom! It is quite sobering and humbling to me that this thrice-holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God has an interest in "little-old me." This Great Creator and Powerful God is still a personal God that we can know intimately through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. What a high and holy honor to be called a child of God!

The Great Filibuster Debate

I'll be honest. I haven't been following the whole Filibuster debacle very closely up until now. I happened across an article on therealitycheck.org today and started looking into the "Great Compromise" that has been reached in the Senate. Again, the media, along with Harry Reid (D Minority Leader) has misrepresented what is taking place. Reid has been arguing that the Constitution is under attack as Republicans have threatened to do away with the Filibuster. (The Filibuster is, basically, a way for a minority to stall and block nominations.) However, it is not a Constitutional Right. The essence of the Filibuster is "minority rules." It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. What Republicans were threatening was to do away with the Filibuster by voting it out of existence. This did not mean changes to the Constitution, just changes in the way that the Senate did business. This compromise amounts to a victory for the liberal left. Yes, Bush gets some nominations through now, but the Dems reserve the right to Filibuster in the future. The majority that voted Bush into office, and voted out people like Tom Daschle, the majority that overwhelmingly voted and supported the conservatives in the last election are being silenced. It doesn't matter what the people think any more. It's all about the politics. It is apparent that the left will stop at nothing to continue to push their agenda, even though they are in the minority all around, both in votes of the American people and their representation in the legislative branch. When they are in the minority, they simply legislate from the bench (judicial branch) or they invoke a filibuster. What about America, Dems? What about the people? Hopefully, one day, the conservatives we elect and place in office will get the backbone they need to stand up to the Loony Left and show us that the faith and trust that we place in them is not unfounded.

The Church and Politics

Permit me to think aloud (or at least silently while typing my thoughts for all to see) today. This morning I read of a Pastor in North Carolina who is leaving his congregation due to a bitter political battle in the church. Chan Chandler resigned as pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church after his congregation was "split" over his recent comments from the pulpit. Allegedly, Chandler challenged his congregants from the pulpit stating, "If you plan to vote Democrat you should either repent or resign your membership." Bold, eh? Though many of those who were put off by these remarks stated that they agreed with the pastor's position on abortion and other so-called "hot-button religious topics," they draw the line at the application of these beliefs and principles to any candidate. Here are some quotes from the above-mentioned article:

"If we wanted politics, we would stay home and watch it 24 hours a day on TV," said Charles Gaddy, 70. "I like Chan. He can preach a good sermon. I just wish he would keep some things out of the church." Frank Lowe, 73, a leader of the members who left the church in opposition to Chandler's leadership, said, "I think his duty was to preach God's word and let the people sort out what they want to do." Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.

As I read these quotes, I have to think that both sides of this schism are showing naivety...though they approach their naivety from different points of view. The division here seems to be extant at many different levels. There's the age/generation division, The political Republican/Democrat division, the New Believer/Old Believer division, The Activist/Pacifist division (I think you get my point). I believe these divisions, more than likely, exist in every church to some degree. On one hand, as is the case here, there are those who hold to the philisophical and Biblical truths, but yet are, for some reason, afraid to allow these truths to guide them in their every day lives, specifically, in this instance, in applying them to how they would vote. In the minds of these people, anyone would be wrong to stand up and tell someone how to vote, or to point out where candidates stand on the so-called "religious hot-button issues." In other words, they might say, "It's okay for you to believe that way, just don't force your belief on me." On the other hand, we see the young, new believers making statements such as Rhonda Trantham above, "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached." One might wonder where in the Bible it tells you to vote either Democrat or Republican (would that life was so easy). It is likely that these new believers that make statements such as this are idealistic activists that only wink at the potential consequences (See the IRS) of making statements like this from the pulpit. In 1954 the IRS laws to which we are bound today were put into place. At this point, I must point out the obvious double-standard that exists pertaining to churches and politics. Many churches have the actual candidates come and speak at their church. More than a mere endorsement from the pulpit and the pastor, the actual candidate comes and gets to speak and campaign. Is this courtesy extended to all politicians? Possibly, but it seems to be more prevalent that the Democratic candidates make the rounds in churches with little or no challenge from the likes of the ACLU or anyone else and little or no "fallout" for the church. One wonders what would happen if my own church were to have had George W. Bush speak and campaign from our pulpit.....my question, where are all the usual suspects? Where are all the "Separation of Church and State-ers" when it comes to Democrats and the Church? This double-standard has always been quite perplexing to me. While I believe the aforementioned problems in the church can be attributed to many things, I will concentrate on two areas in my forthcoming thoughts. First, I cannot help but lament the fact that so many Christians today separate their beliefs from their practices. While this is somewhat of a natural outcome from societal pressures of our era, (see Restoration) it is bothersome that there can be so many undiscerning believers. If I were to form a creed concerning this type of believer, it would go something like this: "A Faith worth having is a Faith worth living out; A Faith worth believing is a Faith worth practicing." I've been around people like this in every church of which I've ever been a part. They attend services with acute asceticism and consider themselves pillars and protectors of the church, and yet suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to "the rubber meeting the road," so to speak. "A Faith worth having is a Faith worth living out; A Faith worth believing is a Faith worth practicing." Second, lest the laity think I'm just picking on them, I must decry the lack of discernment on the part of some of our church leaders. While in spirit I agree with this dear brother; Our scruples, principles, faith, or beliefs should certainly dictate and be lived out in our actions and, consequently, in our vote, there still needs to be an air of patience and tact on the part of church leaders. I'm not certain that this was the case at Waynesville, but why is there always a rush to put the newest church members in the frontline of the fight? Yes, perhaps there has been some excitement in your congregation...you have a young new pastor who has a flamboyant personality....people are naturally attracted to him and now to your church. There has been a wonderful infusion of youth into your church. "Now, finally, we can begin to plan for the future!" some would say. The problem I see that is so widespread, is that some pastors in this circumstance will now create a division that they themselves would never want to have! They feel they have enough "support" from this new infusion of youth to institute "changes" in the church. There is an immediate dissension in the fellowship once this stance is taken. Could this be what the Bible refers to when speaking of sowing discord among the brethren? Yes, part of our duty and calling as preachers of the Gospel is to equip believers both young and old. But can we not allow the Lord to build the church? Why must we put new believers or new members immediately into a war or, for that matter, immediately into leadership positions? What kind of impact will such division have not only on the local congregation, but the community? In this case, it made the USA Today! Is God's kingdom furthered by such nonsense? Is God honored and glorified by ridiculous infighting over something that wasn't in the Bible to begin with? Is God honored when we put His local congregation in jeopardy with the law? Shame on us! "A Faith worth having is a Faith worth living out; A Faith worth believing is a Faith worth practicing."

What We Really Need is Restoration...

"To make Christianity a private affair while banishing all privacy is to relegate it to the rainbow's end or the Greek Calends." --C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

We live in a time where sin is being exalted and Christianity is systematically being attacked. While unrighteousness is coming out of the closet, society and (now) government are beginning to force Christianity back into the closet. Some movements tell us that what they do with their private lives is of no concern to the public, all the while bringing their fight into the public arena. These same crowds would tell us that Christianity, the same Christianity upon which our country was founded...the same Christianity that pioneered modern science....now has no place in the public arena. They say We shouldn't have a voice or say in our government; we shouldn't be allowed to speak publicly in opposition to unrighteousness because it is "hate speech." Could we not apply the same expected standard to those in opposition to Christianity?

In 1947, the ACLU created the present-day idea of "Separation of Church and State." This erroneous doctrine has led to many other bad decisions, and we are now at the point where 67% of the American public actually believe that the words "Separation of Church and State" appear in our Constitution when, in fact, no such phrase appears. I wonder, What is to be feared from Christians being involved in govermnent? What is so scary about people believing in God? As Christians, we are not in pursuit of a Theocracy, so why all the paranoia and hysteria regarding Christianity? In my mind, this only serves to further demonstrate man's sinful state and the fact that we are at enmity with God.

Type in "Founding Fathers Christianity" into Google, and the first several links you see will be revisionists trying to erase the Christian-ness from the founding of our country. The fact remains that while there were some of our Founding Fathers that were not Christians, there were many who were Christians. As a matter of fact, 27 of the 56 who are considered "Founding Fathers" held Christian Seminary Degrees. One need only look at the Mayflower Compact to see our Christian Heritage at the humble beginnings of our country. (One has to wonder To Whom are they referring when they used "year of our Lord?" in so many documents) (To see many more quotes and statements of belief by the original 55 delegates, click here)

I'm reminded of II Chronicles 7:14 which tells us "(If) My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land." You see, this, too, is Spiritual Warfare. This is not a political battle, but a battle between Good and Evil for the hearts and souls of individuals and the Heart and Soul of a nation. If we as God's people are to see God in His splendor and wisdom winning the heart of a nation, we must, in humility, pray and seek after the One True God, and repent of our own sin and wrong. As we do so, God, who "cannot lie"(Hebrews 6:18 and Titus 1:2) will hear and forgive and heal as He promises. Christian, are you listening???

The Makings of an Assault...

As my Brother-in-Law sent the G.K. Chesterton Quote of the Day (above) to me this morning, he also wrote a paragraph relating to the filibustering going on in the senate right now over judicial nominations. It is interesting to see the division that seems to be presenting itself in this country. As evidenced by the filibustering, it would seem that the heart of the differences lie much deeper than that of politics. Richard, my Brother-in-Law, (also a Prosecuting Attorney) offers the following insights:

Have you been following the Senate much regarding breaking the filibuster on Bush's judicial nominations? The previous Sunday was "Justice Sunday," and I heard Al Mohler speak. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've not been all that concerned about the assault on Christianity that actually is more pervasive than I wanted to believe. When you hear about some of the questions (I use that term loosely) being asked of particular nominees there is no doubt that there is indeed a particular prejudice not just against conservative (social) issues but against Believers in general or at this point, at least, the Believers who are attempting to be a part of the political system. Many talk about a "litmus test" that must be passed in order to obtain consent by the Senate. Apparently, there is a litmus test and Christians need not apply.

Perhaps the time is fast approaching when Christian persecution will increase exponentially here in America. Let us remember to pray for our National Leaders, interceding on their behalf for wisdom....true wisdom that comes only from The One who rules and reigns from On High! There is no debate or filibustering in His Courtroom!

An Ongoing Struggle...

"Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism." --C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Spring-boarding from my previous post, we continue to look at the ever-present struggle that goes on within the heart and life of the Christian. As we saw last time in Romans 7:14-25, oftentimes we give in to our carnal, human self when, in fact, what we desire is just the opposite. From where does this inner-struggle come? What causes it? Why do we continually have to battle something (sin, unrighteousness) that Christ has overcome for us? From where does this "desire to do the opposite of what we're doing" come? Again looking at the Romans 7:14 passage, we notice that in verse 21 Paul states, "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good." Here, Paul continues to describe the struggle....we know from whence the carnal, sinful side of the struggle comes....we are born with it....so what is it that "counter-balances" these battles? As we read on into Romans Chapter 8, Paul gives tells us plainly in verse 2, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." It is the Holy Spirit that enables us to overcome temptations and enables us to defeat the sin and unrighteousness in our lives. C.S. Lewis states, "Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism." A Pastor I served under used to say, "The same Spirit that indwells us when we are born-again also continues to teach us." Just as we are "born" with our carnality, unrighteousness and sinful nature, we are "born-again" as the Spirit of God indwells us forever changing us and, along life's way, teaching us, forming us, and making us more like Christ. It is this Spirit of God that counter-balances our struggle. While, as Paul says, the struggle is ever-present, it is this Spirit of God alone that can "train our emotions" so we are "empowered against the animal organism." Who is winning your battle??? Thanks be to God, for His unspeakable gift!

Do Unto Others...

"This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people." --C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

The Golden Rule. (as it's called, though you won't find these words in the Bible.) Isn't this what C.S. Lewis is getting at? The failure to practice this simple statement given by Christ (in effect, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...") is what leads to those outside the faith screaming, "Hypocrite!" and never darkening the door of a church. Yes, our reply is often, "There are hypocrites at the mall or at the ballgame and you don't seem to let the hypocrites keep you from attending those places," but this tends to shift the focus back on the one screaming, "Hypocrite!" rather than cause the introspection that it ought to produce. While the latter statement is true and should cause the one leveling the charge of hypocrite to, perhaps, look more deeply at why they do not attend church or why they are anti-God or anti-Christian, should we not take to heart the fact that someone sees hypocritical actions in our lives? This is a subject that requires a delicate balance in the Christian's life. On one hand we must realize that sin is an ongoing battle for us. One might call to mind the bumper sticker that reads, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." We will always struggle with our sin nature. (see Romans 7:14-25 for Paul's treatment of the old vs. the new nature.) While it is important for people to understand this, it is even more important that we "Die to self daily" and allow the work of Christ wrought in our hearts to do its efficacious work and demonstrate its power in each of our lives. As God continues to work and shine in our lives, perhaps the charge of hypocrite will thus carry much less weight in the argument of the unbeliever's heart and we can then witness and cut to the heart of the matter: Our inherited sin and it's effect on the brotherhood of man, and the only answer for it....Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross. Put more succinctly, Practice what you preach!

Changes at The Mind of Mike

You'll notice the new look on my blog. Many of my links will be re-added soon. Also, I just switched from Blogger commenting over to Haloscan, so the comments have been lost from previous posts. I have copies of them and I'm trying to figure out the best way to get them reposted to their correct places...Patience.... Trying to update my look a little! Tell me what you think!

Additions, Quotes and Popes

Hopefully you've noticed the new quote section at the top of the page. Richard Hicks will be contributing to my blog providing some of G.K. Chesterton's pithier quotes. I will continue to work on the presentation of quotes (pretty lame right now I admit) but I hope you enjoy the content. In wrestling with these blog templates perhaps some more changes are imminent in the aesthetics of The Mind of Mike. Hopefully after Richard contributes several quotes I will be able to setup a random quote generator that will display several of Richard's contributions. I am looking forward to hearing more from Richard.

On a separate but related note (in light of the quote of the day for today) I wanted to iterate a converstaion Richard and I had concerning the election of the new Pope yesterday. As you may know, Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope yesterday at the Vatican. He has taken the name Benedict XVI. Ratzinger was a confidant of John Paul II, and is viewed by most as a proper successor to the departed, beloved Pope. It has been widely reported that in the days following the death of John Paul that there was a desire to see someone become Pope who was just like him. However, many, in saying this, also mentioned that perhaps the next Pope could be a little more lenient pertaining to things like abortion, homosexuality, etc. Ironically, it was the strong moral stands made by John Paul II that endeared him to most people. Even if/when they disagreed with him, he was a rock upon which the Church could lean providing a bastion to protect the Church from the evils of society and immorality. Myself, while disagreeing emphatically with the great majority of the doctrinal teachings of the Pope and Catholicism in general, still have/had great respect for the way in which John Paul II stood for morality.

Which brings us to the election of Benedict XVI. It is believed that Benedict will follow in John Paul's footsteps. However, as has been reported, his age is of some concern to many Catholics. Ratzinger is 78 years old. As Richard and I discussed this, we arrived at the following conclusions: The election of Ratzinger serves two purposes. First, it immediately appeases the more conservative leaning Catholic faction. Second, and this is, obviously, the speculative portion of our discussion, the election of an older man instead of a younger, accomplishes at least a couple of things. Electing Ratzinger honors John Paul in that the Church will have a Pope that leads and believes much in the same way John Paul did. However, with Ratzinger being 78, it also stands to reason that he will not be able to serve as long as did John Paul and will not be nearly so beloved by or endeared to the people of the Catholic Church. Thus, the next Pope, in turn being elected in a relatively short time, could be more liberal (not having the "ghost of John Paul" with which to contend) and appease the other faction; those of a more liberal theological stance. We concluded you could almost call Benedict XVI the "Interim Pope." From a polity standpoint (though I disagree with the reasoning) this could turn out to be a shrewd play by the Vatican. It will be interesting to see what happens in the not-so-distant future as these things play out. We're not Catholic, mind you; but we are purdy smart......what are your thoughts?

Haiku

Haiku is one of my favorite forms of poetry. The haiku typically has 17 syllables in it. It traditionally follows a 5-7-5 style, meaning 5 syllables in the first line, 7 in the second and 5 in the last. I thought it would be interesting to post a couple and see who could/would respond with their own haikus in the comments section. I suppose they could be about anything. I will get you started with a couple! Please keep them clean!!!! Kansas Jayhawks Roy got his trophy! How ironic for KU, they lost in Round One!

Evolution Evolution, huh? You say we came from monkeys? I say, "There's no way!"

Evolution Part III

In the third installment of our brief look at the theory of evolution, today, I offer the Earth....(as taken from equip.org and Hank Hanegraaff's book, "The FACE that Demonstrates the FARCE of Evolution.") Again, you will see the precision and design that is evident in creation for which evolution simply cannot account. Again, we are asked to stretch our beliefs and believe that mere chance could effect such an event as the creation of our intricate, complex earth! Again, be sure to read the bibliography at the end for even more eye-opening information concerning the problems with the theory of evolution.

Earth

Like an egg or an eye, the earth is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance. Astronaut Guy Gardner, who has seen the earth from the perspective of the moon, points out that “the more we learn and see about our universe the more we come to realize that the most ideally suited place for life within the entire solar system is the planet we call home.”28 King David said it best: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Ps. 19:1-4) Let’s take a few minutes to explore the miracles that demonstrate life on earth, which a benevolent Creator designed and which could not be directed by blind chance. First, consider plain old tap water. The solid state of most substances is denser than their liquid state, but the opposite is true for H20, which explains why ice floats rather than sinks. If water were like virtually any other liquid, it would freeze from the bottom up rather than from the top down, killing aquatic life, destroying the oxygen supply, and making earth uninhabitable.29 Furthermore, ocean tides, which are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, play a crucial role in our survival. If the moon were significantly larger, thereby increasing its gravitational pull, devastating tidal waves would submerge large areas of land. If the moon were smaller, tidal motion would cease and the oceans would stagnate and die.30 Finally, consider the ideal temperatures on planet earth — not duplicated on any other known planet in the universe. If we were closer to the sun, we would fry. If we were farther away, we would freeze.31 From the tap water to the tides and temperatures that we so easily take for granted, the earth is an unparalleled planetary masterpiece. Like Handel’s Messiah or da Vinci’s Last Supper, it should never be carelessly devalued as the result of blind evolutionary processes. Yet, tragically, in an age of high technology and supposed scientific enlightenment, many are doing just that. Consider the following introduction to “The Miracle of Life,” an Emmy-award-winning PBS NOVA broadcast on evolution: Four and a half billion years ago, the young planet Earth was a mass of cosmic dust and particles. It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began….The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms….From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth. (emphases added)32 CHANCE DOESN’T HAVE A CHANCE

The real miracle of life is how so many people could stand for such nonsense in the twentieth century. First, how could the protozoa be the first form of primitive life if there were already organisms such as bacteria in existence? Molecular biology has demonstrated empirically that bacteria are incredibly complex. In the words of Michael Denton, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”33 Furthermore, far from being primitive, the protozoa that were thought to be simple in Darwin’s day have been shown by science to be enormously complex. Molecular biology has demonstrated that there is no such thing as a “primitive” cell. To quote Denton again, “No living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”34 Finally, as Coppedge documents, giving evolutionists every possible concession, postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speeding up the rate of bonding a trillion times: “The probability of a single protein35 molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10161 using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began…..For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10119,879. It would take 10119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes.”36 To provide a perspective on how enormous a one followed by a hundred and sixty one zeros is, Coppedge uses the illustration of an amoeba (a microscopic one-celled animal) that sets out to move the entire universe (including every person, the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, millions of other galaxies, etc.) over the width of one universe, atom by atom, at the slowest possible speed. (The universe is 30 billion light-years in diameter — to calculate the number of miles multiply 30 billion by 5.9 trillion.) The amoeba is going to move one angstrom unit (the width of a hydrogen atom — the smallest known atom) every 15 billion years (the supposed age of the universe). Obviously the amoeba would have to move zillions of times before the naked eye could detect that it had moved at all. At this rate the amoeba travels 30 billion light years and puts an atom down one universe over. It then travels back at the same rate of speed and takes another atom from your body and moves it one universe over. Once it has moved you over, it moves over the next person until it has moved over all five billion or so people on planet earth. It then moves over all the houses and cars, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the millions of other galaxies that exist in the known universe. In the time that it took to do all that, we would not get remotely close to forming one protein molecule by random chance.37 If, however, a protein molecule is eventually formed by chance, forming the second one would be infinitely more difficult. As you can see, the science of statistical probability demonstrates conclusively that forming a protein molecule by random processes is not merely improbable but impossible. And forming a living cell is beyond illustration. As King David poignantly put it, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1). Finally, it should be noted that philosophical naturalism — the world view undergirding evolutionism — can provide only three explanations for the existence of the universe in which we live. One: The universe is merely an illusion. This notion carries little weight in an age of scientific enlightenment. As has been aptly put, “Even the full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.” Two: The universe sprang from nothing. This proposition flies in the face of both the law of cause and effect and the law of energy conservation. It has been well said, there simply are no free lunches. The conditions that hold true in this universe prevent any possibility of matter springing out of nothing.38 Three: The universe eternally existed. This hypothesis is devastated by the law of entropy that predicates that a universe which has eternally existed would have died an “eternity ago” of a heat-loss death.39 There is, however, one other possibility. It is found in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In an age of empirical science, as in any age, nothing could be more certain, clear, or correct

28The Wonders of God’s Creation: Planet Earth, vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody Institute of Science, 1993); videotape. 29Ibid. 30Ibid. 31Ibid. See also Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 71. Huse lists numerous other sensitive design parameters. See also J. P. Moreland, ed., Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 160–69. 32NOVA, “The Miracle of Life,” photographed by Lennart Nilsson (Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 1986 [Swedish Television Corp., 1982]); videotape. For a brief discussion, see Johnson, 123. 33Denton, 250. 34Ibid. 35Coppedge writes, “All known life on the earth consists largely of these giant molecules. ‘The chemical basis of all life,’ says the Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘is protein in a watery medium.’” Coppedge goes on to point out that the hemoglobin molecule, the most important protein molecule in blood, has 574 amino acid links and 10, 000 atoms. In addition, there are some 280,000 hemoglobin molecules per red blood cell. Insulin is the smallest molecule qualifying as a protein. Even it, however, has fifty-one amino acid links in two chains — one with twenty-one and the other with thirty amino acids. The two chains are joined together by sulfur bridges. The length of the average protein in the smallest known living thing is at least 400 amino acid links, containing more than 7,000 atoms. (Adapted from Coppedge, 98–102.) 36Coppedge, 110, 114. 37Discussion adapted from Coppedge, 119–24. Evolutionists sometimes make the accusation that this type of argumentation does not correctly represent the evolutionary paradigm. The more sophisticated evolutionists admit that the notion that chance alone is responsible for life is at best far-fetched. They suggest that rather than chance acting unilaterally, natural selection or some other unintelligent nonrandom mechanism was involved in the process. Perhaps beneficial molecular change effects are accumulated over time while natural selection weeds out negative mutations. For one thing, it should be noted that there is no evidence that suggests information in the genetic code is increased in this manner. Nor are there any known physical laws that can be invoked to account for the extremely high information content of genetic material. Furthermore, it is simply a logical fallacy to say that an accumulation of beneficial changes will produce an improved overall design — those individual changes must also harmonize together in order to improve the overall design. Finally, those capable of scaling the evolutionary language barrier realize that this is little more than using the phrase “natural selection” while pouring the meaning of intelligent design into the words. (See Nancy R. Pearcey, “DNA: The Message in the Message,” First Things, June–July 1996, 13–14; and David Berlinski, “The Deniable Darwin,” Commentary, June 1996, 19–29.) 38Besides the preponderance of empirical evidence that indicates that something does not come from nothing, the simple laws of logic require that nothing cannot produce anything — for nothing is not anything. It is a violation of the law of noncontradiction, which says that A is not non-A, to say that nothing can produce something. Since nothing is not anything, the thing said to be produced would have had to either create itself, or it would be an effect without a cause. If it created itself, it would have to exist prior to its existence in order to do the creating, which means it both exists and does not exist in the same way and in the same respect, which of course is a violation of the law of noncontradiction. But if nothing caused it, it is then said to be an effect without a cause. Not only is this impossible by definition (since the definition of an effect involves a cause), but also it is impossible conceptually. In other words, it is absurd to say that nothing causes something because we cannot conceive of how nothing (that which does not exist in any sense whatsoever) can do anything at all, since it would have to exist in order to do anything, let alone create. Now, it is possible for something to exist without being an effect, but in order for something to exist and not be an effect, it must be eternal (i.e., something that did not come into being, but always existed). God is such a being. But this fact in no way helps the case for an uncaused effect. Either way, it violates the most basic laws of logic to say that something comes from nothing. If the laws of logic can be violated, then reason and communication are absolutely meaningless. (See Sproul.) 39Since the laws of thermodynamics remain unquestioned, we know the total amount of energy available to do work in the universe is not self-replenishing but is running out. (We can assume that the total available energy in the universe is finite, since current cosmological models suggest this state of affairs.) Furthermore, we see that work is still being accomplished in the universe at this moment, which means we have not yet exhausted our finite supply of available energy. Since the universe in this respect is running downhill, and there is only a finite supply of available energy, then the amount of time the universe has to exhaust all its available energy is finite. But if the universe eternally existed, then an infinite amount of time has already passed. Infinite time would have consumed our universe’s finite energy in the infinite past — there would not be enough energy left in the finite time available to our universe to last through an infinite past. Since we are still here, the universe could not have had an eternal past. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Evolution Part II

Welcome to part 2 of this brief look at the Theory of Evolution. You will find many degrees of "belief" in the theory of evolution.....ranging from the staunch atheist to the theistic evolutionist (i.e. God used evolution to set the creation process in motion). These ideas are covered more adequately here, here and here. Suffice it to say that the claims of evolution, when viewed objectively indeed stretch the mind's credulity to the breaking point. As more evidence has poured in over the last couple of centuries since Darwin's theory was proposed, the "black boxes" (as Darwin saw them) have been opened and we now see even more intricacies and detail in nature (atoms, the eye, zygotes, etc.) than Darwin himself could even have imagined. The aim is to see that it does, indeed take an amount of "faith" to buy into the theory of evolution...and as proposed by many (click the title of the post to read more) evolution stands diametrically opposed to the existence of God. Today, I offer the Egg....(as taken from equip.org and Hank Hanegraaff's book, "The FACE that Demonstrates the FARCE of Evolution.") Be sure to read through the brief bibliography at the end of this post as it contains more valuable information.

Egg In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe further notes that there are black boxes within black boxes. As science advances, more and more of these black boxes are being opened, revealing an “unanticipated Lilliputian world” of enormous complexity that has pushed the theory of evolution beyond the breaking point.17 Evolution cannot account for the astonishingly complex synchronization process needed for, say, the shell of a developing egg to form from the calcium that is stored inside the bones of a bird’s body.18 This shell not only provides a protective covering for the egg but also provides a source of calcium for the developing embryo and a membrane through which it can breathe.19 Furthermore, evolution cannot account for the complex synchronization process needed to produce life from a single fertilized human egg. “The tapestry of life begins with a single thread.”20 Through a process of incredible precision, a microscopic egg in one human being is fertilized by a sperm cell from another. This process not only marks the beginning of a new life but also marks the genetic future of that life.21 A single fertilized egg (zygote), the size of a pinhead, contains chemical instructions that would fill more than 500,000 printed pages.22 The genetic information contained in this “encyclopedia” determines the potential physical aspect of the developing human from height to hair color. In time, the fertilized egg divides into the 30 trillion cells that make up the human body, including 12 billion brain cells, which form over 120 trillion connections.23 In Darwin’s day, a human egg was thought to be quite simple — for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today we know that a fertilized egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think that people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance. As Dr. James Coppedge, an expert on the science of statistical probability, puts it, “Chance requires ten billion tries on the average in order to count to ten.”24 In an experiment using 10 similar coins numbered one through 10, chance will succeed on the average only once in 10 billion attempts to get the number one followed in order by all the rest. Coppedge explains that if a person could draw and record one coin every five seconds day and night, it would still take over 1,500 years for chance, on average, to succeed just once in counting to 10.25 He goes on to demonstrate the difference intelligence makes by documenting that a child can do in minutes what chance would take a millennium to do. “Chance doesn’t have a chance when compared to the intelligent purpose of even a child.”26 Even more revealing is the fact that a child playing with the party game Scrabble can easily spell the phrase, “the theory of evolution,” while chance requires five million times the assumed age of the earth to accomplish the same feat.27

13Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 18. “Black box” is Behe’s term for a device that accomplishes a purpose but whose inner workings remain mysterious. For the average person, computers are a good example of a black box (p. 6). 17Behe, 8–9. 18Coppedge, 216, citing T. G. Taylor, “How an Eggshell Is Made,” Scientific American, 19 March 1970, 89–94. 19Christopher Perrins, Birds: Their Life, Their Ways, Their World (Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest Association, 1979), 118–19. 20The Wonders of God’s Creation: Human Life, vol. 3 (Chicago: Moody Institute of Science, 1993); videotape. 21Ibid. 22A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Costa Mesa, CA: T. W. F. T. Publishers, 1981), 82. 23A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Origin of Life, vol. 3 (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications, 1983); videotape. 24Coppedge, 50–51. 25Ibid., 51. 26Ibid., 53. 27Ibid., 52. Coppedge explains the problem of trying to produce such a phrase by chance. The phrase, “the theory of evolution,” contains 23 ordered letters and spaces. Thus, we need to randomly pick in an ordered sequence 23 specific objects out of a set of 26 letters of the alphabet and one “space.” That means for the first “t” in our phrase there is a one out of 27 chance of drawing it. The same holds for all the other letters in our phrase – each has a one in 27 chance of being drawn at any given time. But since we need the letters and spaces to come in a sequential order, we must multiply their separate probabilities. Since there are 23 letters and spaces to pick, and each has an individual probability of one out of 27, we must multiply 27 by itself 23 times (i.e., 2723), which means we would expect to succeed in spelling our phrase by chance only one time in over eight hundred million trillion trillion draws. Now, suppose we use a super computer to produce a billion draws per second. At this incredible rate we could expect to find only one successful spelling of our phrase in 26,000,000,000,000,000 years. This number of years is five million times as long as natural science estimates the earth to have existed. (Adapted from Coppedge, 52.) If chance is so unproductive at producing such a simple phrase as “the theory of evolution,” it is just inconceivable to think that chance could have produced something as organized and complex as a single cell, let alone the unfathomable, organized complexity of the human brain.

Evolution Part I

Is Evolution Credible? Today I post the first in a series on the theory of evolution, and "The Origin of Species," Darwin's work on this theory. These articles are taken from equip.org and are helpful in sifting through information when weighing the validity of evolutionary claims. I would add that this and the next 2 posts can be found as originally published in an excellent book titled "The FACE that Demonstrates the FARCE of Evolution" by Hank Hanegraaff. You can view each of the articles in its entirety by clicking the title of the post above.

Eye

In his landmark publication, The Origin of Species, Darwin avowed, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”8 He called this dilemma the problem of “organs of extreme perfection and complication.”9 Consider for a moment the incredible complexity of the human eye. It consists of a ball with a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. The eye contains a fantastic watery substance that is replaced every four hours, while tear glands continuously flush the outside clean. In addition, an eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist, and eyelashes protect it from dust.10 It is one thing to stretch credulity by suggesting that the complexities of the eye evolved by chance; it is quite another to surmise that the eye could have evolved in concert with myriad other coordinated functions. As a case in point, extraordinarily tuned muscles surround the eye for precision motility and shape the lens for the function of focus.11 Additionally, consider the fact that as you read this article, a vast number of impulses are traveling from your eyes through millions of nerve fibers that transmit information to a complex “computer center” in the brain called the visual cortex. Linking the visual information from the eyes to motor centers in the brain is crucial in coordinating a vast number of bodily and mental functions that are part and parcel to the very process of daily living. Without the coordinated development of the eye and the brain in a synergistic fashion the isolated developments themselves become meaningless and counterproductive.12 In Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe points out that what happens when a photon of light hits a human eye was beyond nineteenth-century science. Thus, to Darwin, vision was an unopened black box.13 In the twentieth century, however, the black box of vision has been opened, and it is no longer enough to consider the anatomical structure of the eye. We now know that “each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes” that demand explanation.14 Behe goes on to demonstrate that one cannot explain the origin of vision without first accounting for the origin of the enormously complex system of molecular mechanisms that make it work.15 Phillip Johnson, author of Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, has aptly summarized Darwin’s dilemma regarding the eye: “Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation.”16

8Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, chap. 6, “Difficulties of the Theory,” sect. “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication,” in Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., Great Books of the Western World, vol. 49, Darwin (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 85. 9Ibid. Of course, Darwin’s life work intended to show that all biological organisms, with their attending “organs of extreme perfection and complication,” were indeed formed through natural selection. 10Eye description adapted from Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 101–2. 11See ibid., 98–103. 12See Coppedge, 218–20; Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), 332–33. 13Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 18. “Black box” is Behe’s term for a device that accomplishes a purpose but whose inner workings remain mysterious. For the average person, computers are a good example of a black box (p. 6). 14Ibid., 22 (see 15–22). 15In ibid., 18–21, Behe describes the biochemistry of vision. 16Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 77.

Terri Schiavo and Darwinism

I have included below an article from James White from Alpha Omega Ministries. You can view this article in it's original setting/context by clicking the title of the post above. Mr. White echoes my long-held beliefs and sentiments concerning Darwinism (evolution) and the now-prevalent "Culture of Death" that has been the obvious result from years of teaching a chaotic theory. Woe unto the USA! May God grant us repentance and revival!

31 March Charles Darwin Killed Terri Schiavo I have not addressed the Schiavo situation over the past number of months, not because I have not been watching the situation with great interest, but because everyone else has been saying almost everything you could possibly say about it. Now that Mrs. Schiavo has been put to death in the most inhuman possible way (who can argue otherwise? We show more mercy to mass murders and rapists than to those whose brains do not function "up to par") through the actions of a godless judiciary and an adulterous husband who is living with another woman and has already fathered children with her, there will be no end to the commentaries and discussion. So I wish to look at the foundational issue that will not be discussed at all in the MSM (mainstream media): the culture of death that has blossomed in Western culture. First, I truly believe the speed with which Western culture has embraced a view of mankind that is utterly opposed to God's truth is a mark of His judgment coming upon a culture that has shown its deep hatred of His law and His rulership over mankind. God's wrath is being revealed against all the ungodliness of man who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), and that wrath is becoming clearer and clearer in its impact to anyone who has eyes to see it (eyes that require a mind enlightened by God's Word). Those who hate God's law will be given a darkened mind, and that mind, devoid of God's light, will become more and more opposed to His truth and more intent upon self-destruction. Since the reprobate mind hates God's truth, the fact that man is created in God's image will be one of the primary things suppressed and attacked. And the past history of Western culture is replete with evidence of the accuracy of this observation. Next, I have titled this short entry "Charles Darwin Killed Terri Schiavo" simply to make one point: when culture as a whole embraces the idea that man is merely an animal, the random result of the chance toss of the cosmic die, a purposeless biological accident without any meaningful superiority to an ape, a dog, or a microbe, no firm basis can be provided for a culture of compassion and life. The natural realm is a savage place, and there is no reason, within an evolutionary framework, to seek such things as compassion, tenderness, or mercy. We are seeing, especially in European culture, but more and more in the United States as well, the long-term impact of a belief in not the theory of evolution, but the religion of evolution. The impact of religious naturalistic materialism is tremendously clear as we see the judiciary abandoning the rule of law (especially as law reflects God's creatorship and sovereignty) and issuing edicts that treat man as a mere animal, or worse (in the case of Terri Schiavo). Given that the evolutionary worldview cannot provide any basis for morality, the moral fiber of the culture is collapsing into a mass of internal self-contradiction due to the fact that forces of evil cannot immediately wipe out all monuments of our past recognition of God's law. God's grace continues to produce people who will not shut their mouths about the fact that we are created in God's image, and the result is seen all around us. Terri Schiavo is gone, but the forces that killed her are not only still with us, but they are now setting their sights upon doing more and more to continue to suppress the truth of God in culture.

Purpose Driven Life

Though the following excerpt from Larry King Live leaves out the phone calls taken in which Warren dealt with some very difficult topics, I thought it was wonderful to see Warren be able to have the time he had to talk about God, Sin, and God's Purposes for us. Enjoy the following:

(CNN) -- Ashley Smith said she read to murder suspect Brian Nichols from a book called "The Purpose Driven Life" while held hostage Saturday in her apartment northeast of Atlanta, Georgia. The book's author, the Rev. Rick Warren, appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live" on November 22. Here are excerpts from Warren's appearance: LARRY KING: What led to writing [the book]? WARREN: I just think, as I speak with people, there's a fundamental need. It's like -- this is the basic question of life. Why am I here? Why am I here? Actually it comes out in three questions. Existence -- why am I alive? It comes out in purpose -- what is my purpose? And it comes out in significance -- does my life matter? I think everybody at some point kind of lays their head down on the pillow and goes, what's this all about? KING: Did it take off right away? WARREN: Yes, it did. It actually -- we actually pre-sold half a million copies before it hit the market. KING: Was it originally considered the Christian book sales? WARREN: Yes, that's a big surprise. ... You know, I'm a pastor. And so I thought I was writing for church members, Christians, things like that. This book has enormous crossover, and everybody's reading it. Lessons but not self-help KING: Does that mean that a Jew, a Muslim, an agnostic, an atheist could benefit from this book? WARREN: If that's the question, sure. Anybody can benefit from it. In fact, the other day I heard about a story of a lady who was at a Little League game. She was Jewish and the lady sitting next to her was a Muslim. The Jewish lady was reading "Purpose Driven Life," and the other lady next to her said, "What are you reading?" She said, "I'm reading 'Purpose Driven Life,' " She said, "I'd like to read it, too." She said, "Well, take mine, I'll get another copy." And I thought, "OK, here's a Christian pastor writing a book that a Jewish lady is passing on to a Muslim lady." KING: It is not, you have said, a how-to book this, right. What is it? WARREN: Well, it's not self-help. Self-help ... KING: It's lessons though. WARREN: It is lessons. It's helpful. The bottom line, if I were to hold up an invention and I were to say, what's the purpose of this? You'd never seen it before. You wouldn't know what its purpose is. The only way you'd know the purpose is to either ask the inventor, who made it, the creator, or you read an owner's manual. And I think the same thing's true with us. I think everybody wants to know their purpose in life. If you read most self-help books, they fundamentally will say things like, "Make up your purpose. Figure out your purpose. Look for your purpose." And the big one is, "Look within." It's kind of like -- "Trust the force, Luke." You know, "Look within." When I looked within, I didn't like what I saw. You know, I just got confused. The truth is, I didn't create me, so I can't tell me what my purpose is. KING: How do you know who created you? WARREN: Well, I believe God created me. KING: You believe that. How do you know it? WARREN: Well, you know, I have to say that I first accepted it on faith. And then I went through a doubting period where I really doubted, do I really believe in God? And then now, first my own personal relationship, the experiences I've had, and then seeing it happen in literally tens of thousands of other lives. KING: Why do you believe that God is a Christian God? WARREN: Well, the question, the bottom line is this -- every religion is mutually exclusive. The problem today, Larry, is not unbelief. The problem is today everyone wants to believe everything. They want to believe it all. I want to believe in reincarnation and heaven. Those are mutually exclusive things. I want to believe in Elvis, and I want to believe in Jesus -- those are mutually exclusive. And the truth is, it is all matter of faith. At some point you have to step. KING: There's a leap. WARREN: There is a leap of faith. And I just wish somebody had told me when I was younger that I could have doubts and still believe. This is a big deal. That I didn't have to have all my doubts resolved to believe. I have to say there's a story in the Bible where Jesus is walking down the street, and a guy comes up to him, he's got a daughter who's sick. And Jesus goes -- he goes, "I need you to heal my daughter." And Jesus said, "Do you believe I can heal her?" And he goes, "I want to believe. Help me with my doubt." And Jesus goes, "That's good enough," and he heals his girl. So, to even say to God, "OK, God I want to believe." You know what -- I've been a pastor now, Larry, for 25 years. There are still things in the Bible I can't figure out. I look at them and go, "Why in the world did God do that?" You know, it doesn't make sense. Charges of commercialism KING: There are some critics of you. WARREN: Sure. KING: One accused you of commercializing Christianity. A Time magazine article quoted fundamental Bible church pastor Dennis Costello who said, "The purpose-driven ministry is a marketing strategy. We believe the Bible tells us to present the word of God without packaging it for contemporary cultural context." ... How do you respond to that? WARREN: Well, first place, I don't even know this church. I mean, you know, you can find a critic anywhere. But I liked what The New York Times said about me. It said, you know, marketers create a message in order to market. Warren creates tools in order to create a message, in order to propel a message. And that's it. If you talked about getting the message out, I'm going to use every way possible. Because I really do believe that we have a positive message. There's a lot of negativity in the world. I mean, we've been through this [presidential] election, the nation's divided. And I just think that the positive message that you're not an accident. I don't believe anybody's an accident. I believe that everything on this Earth has a purpose. Every rock, every tree and every human being. If your heart's beating, you've got a purpose. Now, there may be accidental parents. OK? But I don't think there are accidental kids. I think that there is a God. And I think that that God even takes into account our mistakes, our errors. KING: Is he judging you, too? WARREN: Even our sins. God sets the rules. But God also forgives. And that's what the whole good news is about. The good news is that heaven is a perfect place. And that means only perfect people get to go there. Well, I stopped batting 1.000 a long time ago. Like, year one. The worst sin KING: You believe in sin? WARREN: Of course I do. I do it all the time. KING: Is a gay person a sinner? WARREN: I think a gay person is a sinner just like I'm a sinner. I don't think ... KING: No different from your sin? WARREN: Oh, I think the worst sin is pride. In fact, the Bible says it. The Bible says that pride is the worst sin. It is, as the Bible says, it's the sin that got Satan kicked out of heaven. It's the sin that caused Nebuchadnezzar to lose his kingdom, and King Herod and a bunch of others. Pride goes before destruction. Because pride is basically saying, "I'm in charge." The middle letter of pride is I, and the middle letter of sin is I ... One of the things ... is we're in a narcissistic culture, that basically says, "It's all about me. I need to do what I want to do. I want to have what I want to have. I want to be what I want to be." It's a very self-centered culture. And that's why I think one of the things about the book that took off, it's kind of a slap in the face, because the first line of the book says, "It's not about you." Now, I don't know a self-help book in the world that starts with, "It's not about you." But every other book on self-help will basically say, "It's all about you. It's all about your needs, your dreams, your desires." KING: Is organized religion part of the problem? WARREN: Well, it certainly can be. I think anything organized can get -- at our church, we have disorganized religion. I'm not that organized. But a lot of things again are done in the name of religion ... that are not -- have -- don't have anything to do with Jesus Christ. OK? And don't have anything to do with faith or forgiveness or all these other things in life. You know, everybody's life is driven by something. That's why I called this book "The Purpose Driven Life." Some people are driven by fear. You know people like this. They are driven by the opinions of others. They live for the expectations of their parent or husband or boyfriend or something like that. Some people are driven by worry. They're driven by guilt. They're driven by shame. Some people are driven by loneliness. And I don't think God wants any of our lives to be driven by these things. I think the bottom line is that we were put on Earth for a purpose. Part of that purpose is to know God and then part of that purpose is to help other people. ... God and the needs of people inspired me to write the book. It took me about seven months. And between December of 19 -- excuse me 2001 -- and July of 2002, I spent 12 hours a day in a little room writing. I'd get up at about 4:30 in the morning and work to 5 the next day. And I only spoke twice in my church -- I did Christmas and Easter -- and really focused on the book.