Secular Humanism ... Or Not?

Recently I was asked for my thoughts on an article about the goal of secular humanism (transhumanism in particular, though the points I brought up are common to secular humanism). You can find the article here if you are interested in reading it for yourself. My thoughts are *somewhat* extensive on the topic, but the lack of backing on the philosophy may surprise you.

Because most atheists I talk to will call themselves humanists, I found it rather interesting to see the overall strategy of secular humanism. I did find a number of fatal flaws with their arguments, however. First, they stated that humanism rejects "deities, faith, and worship, instead basing a view of values and meaningfulness on the nature and potentials of humans within a rational and scientific framework." All throughout the entire article, it speaks of abandoning faith. I found that rather interesting, considering that humanism is based in the philosophy of evolution (referred to as "scientific framework" in the quoted section above), which is at its core rooted entirely in faith. Humanism assumes no God exists, since it's purpose is a world without the belief in God. Any atheist today will freely tell you that they cannot prove that God does not exist (they would have to be everywhere at the same time in order to prove this). Therefore, this atheistic quality of humanism is entirely founded in faith. It doesn't even have truths from which to go by to determine the nature of God's nonexistence. It is a baseless assumption. So, in essence, humanism is simply another philosophy that is based only in faith, and blind faith at that. It rests on atheism and evolution, both of which have no evidence supporting them. For evolution, I'll give an example from a book called Darwin's Demise:

"Distinguished chemist and physicist Dr. John Grebe explains how remote is the possibility that functional DNA itself — let alone a functioning cell — could randomly come together on its own: 'The 15,000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assemblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by the evolutionary theory, would go together in any of 10⁸⁷ (1 in 10 to the 87th power) different ways.' In other words, there are trillions times trillions times trillions of different ways that a single gene could have come together. Yet only one way would lead to a functional DNA molecule. Evolutionists claim the universe is about five billion years old. There are less than 10¹⁷ seconds in 20 billion years. Therefore, even if a trial and error combination occurred every second from the beginning of time until today, the odds still appear hopelessly high against the natural assembly of even this single molecule.…the remaining 'odds' are 1 in 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,900,000,000,000,000,000. This means that the odds of a single functional DNA molecule coming together at random are about the same odds that you could fill a billion universes with golf balls and put a small red dot on the bottom of one ball and somehow a blindfolded baby could find that ball while rummaging through the hundred billion galaxies on the very first try."

(Photo courtesy of Answers in Genesis)

It's pretty incredible, especially when it is considered that this is just the DNA molecule, let alone all the other complex machines of a "simple" cell. There are so many things that these odds don't include, yet just the atoms of DNA coming to be by chance are vanishingly small odds, to the point where it is not even logical to assume that it did under favorable conditions. This is why I say humanism sits on top of faith rather than "rational and scientific framework" as the article stated.

In quoting the statement again, "Humanism is a eupraxophy or philosophy of life that rejects deities, faith, and worship, instead basing a view of values and meaningfulness on the nature and potentials of humans within a rational and scientific framework." I found that to be incredibly interesting, since humanism has not provided a substitutional standard with which to judge what meaningfulness is at all. For example, if we are the result of complex chemicals coming to be by natural means, and are all in a struggle for existence by means of natural selection, what good would helping out a fellow human do? In fact, it would hinder evolutionary progress if anything, since it doesn't allow natural selection to act as effectively. What I also found interesting with this statement is that humanism (along with other "non-religious" philosophies of life) "is concerned to create or increase meaningfulness through a philosophical framework," but the standard with which they judge meaningfulness is not provided. What let anyone know that humans have intrinsic value and that helping another one was "meaningful"? Since evolution is based on natural selection, meaningfulness would seem to be the opposite of helping out a fellow human. It would seem to be letting the weaker suffer in order for natural selection to weed them out of the gene pool and for the stronger to remain and reproduce. Instead, this standard seems to have been "borrowed" from Christian morality, which states that all humans are intrinsically valuable since they were made in the image of God (they scratch off the last part though, because it has to do with religion, which they doesn't fit into their worldview). Scripture also teaches that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, which sounds a lot like the "reasoning" of the humanist movement. Humanism is said to embrace human reasoning, but consider this: some tribes that have no communication with outside civilization engage in the practice of cannibalism. Why do they eat other human beings? Perhaps because they don't see the value of human life, or that they see the need for food greater than the value of human life. This, I would like to point out, is based on their own reasoning, for why would they do it unless they had a reason to? Thus, cannibalism is based on some mode of human reasoning. Humanism is also based on human reasoning, for which they say no God or supernatural entity is needed. However, those who state this have been exposed to some form of Christian morals and happen to include such into their philosophy. So basically, while they claim to have no need of the supernatural, they borrow the standards of Christianity in order to justify their position.

(Photo courtesy of Answers in Genesis. )

This cartoon shows how atheists attempt to create arguments based on their own misunderstanding of Christianity, thus attacking a straw-man. This is called the straw-man fallacy.

The article asks the question, "Why does religion persist?" and provides this answer: "Religion is (a) a pre-scientific system of explanation and technology; (b) a source of meaning, direction and emotional expression in life; (c) a means of social control; (d) a means of coping with uncertainty and death." To say that religion is pre-scientific is rooted in ignorance of what the Scriptures teach. Though the Bible is not a science textbook per say, it is accurate in scientific matters whenever it refers to such. It has been proven time and time again, and has yet to be proven false. Things the Bible said thousands of years ago are just beginning to be uncovered by the scientific community. And, what people ridiculed about the Bible has almost all so far been shown to be perfectly accurate in terms of history and scientific matters. I believe the reason why so many assume it to be anti-science is because it is not compatible with the evolution theory, which has been labelled as science, when it is no more than an unproven (and even disproven) hypothesis. While the Bible was written before science made much of any progress, it cannot be labelled as a system of explanation and technology before science brought the "correct" explanation. This shows how much people are willing to deny the Bible without even reading it to find out if the popular accusations are true or not. The explanations put forth in the Bible are found true by science (science as in true science, and not the hypothesis of the evolutionary ideas). Perhaps religion still exists because it has been proven true and provides the most logical explanation to the origin of life and the universe. After all, when we mention anything about God being responsible for such, they assert that we are inserting God into the gap. By this, they verify that even science has a gap in its knowledge. Perhaps the reason why God fits so nicely into the gap is because He was there in the first place! Without God, we are left with nothing but blind chance. But chance is not a process nor a force. It is merely a measurement mathematical probability. Chance cannot account for producing everything we see today because chance has no power.

Pertaining to point (b), I would like to ask why humans search for meaning, direction, and emotional expression in life at all if we are the by-product of evolution? Who, of all human beings, hasn't asked themselves what their purpose is on this earth, what happens when they die, and what the meaning of life is at all? Instead, it appears that this is programmed into humans to ask these questions. Everyone arrives at the answers they most feel gratifies what they are searching for, some to religion (or belief in God) and others to meaninglessness and atheism. Everyone thinks these questions are rational, since all attempt to answer them. To then say that the answer to these meaningful questions is meaninglessness is to simply evade the issue. Those who find meaningfulness in a higher power are merely providing the most rational answer to these questions that is the most logical. Specified complexity such as the universe and life itself is clearly a design, thus must have had a Designer. This Designer then must have had a purpose in His design, and likely set some boundaries for those whom He created, since we clearly have the freedom of will, whether to choose between good and evil. And, as His creation, we would be expected to obey these rules. Clearly, Christianity does not exist because humans seek meaningfulness, but because it is the only meaningful explanation to the questions that we already ask.

Point (c) is quite interesting to me, because it doesn't seem even rational to think that Christianity is a means of social control. While we are to submit to authorities put over us, we are to "obey God rather than men," as the apostles stated when questioned by the authorities for not obeying their command to not share the gospel (Acts 5:29). If religion works so well for social control, why did Stalin and Hitler follow an entirely different route for getting control (Stalin was an atheist, and Hitler was a Nazi)? Why did they use force when they could have used Christianity to get the people in subjection? The reason is that Christians recognize that they have freedom in Christ and will not be servants of the state if it means going against the teachings of God's Word. However, I think the author may be referring to the fact that Christians, because of their faith in Christ, are less likely to commit crimes against the laws of the state. While this is true, this doesn't account for why religion persists. What motive would anyone have of keeping around a teaching that, if humanism is true, has no backing and merely prevents humans from gratifying fleshly pleasure? It seems that it would be the first out the door instead, since it limits mankind to only doing that which is good, without always receiving recompense on earth for their deeds (if Christianity were false, there would be no recompense in heaven either). The motive for Christianity would then seem to be pure selflessness rather than selfishness. This then doesn't explain why it persists, but provides more of a problem for its persistence.

Another point I would like to make is that, why would humans even have an uncertainty and fear of death if they were merely the result of natural selection? It would seem that this is a preset mode of thinking that would fit nicely into the fact that God created all humans and wants all to trust Him before death so that they can abide with Him forever, rather than spending eternity in hell. If evolution is true, your death means more chance of the stronger surviving and your death is merely as the result of natural selection. So then, why wouldn't death be looked forward to since it aids in the development of life? Perhaps because what is programmed into our DNA is not a love for the furtherance of natural selection, but the concern for being made right with God before we stand before Him. It simply makes the most sense.

Then why does religion persist if these objections provide no answer to its persistence? Perhaps because it has some truth to it. While there are definitely false religions, the existence of God cannot be overlooked as a filling in of a gap, because everything in life points to such a One's existence. The article afterwards states that, "faith, in the pertinent sense, means a fixed belief which persists in the face of contrary evidence." I could not disagree more. The only reason the unbelieving world came to the conclusion that faith is the belief in something without evidence is because they do not believe that the existence of God has evidence. The assumption is baseless and is coming from the standpoint of one who argues that God does not exist, for which no evidence is available. This then, must be what *blind* faith really is. Faith is, according to Scripture, the "substance of things confidently expected, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). It is not believing in that which has no evidence, but believing that God will act just as He has said He will *because of* the evidence and because of the knowledge that He has never contradicted His Word. I believe based on the evidence, and where I don't yet see the evidence of Him working, I believe that He is *because of* the evidence that He has never contradicted His Word. Faith must be employed in every aspect of life. When we turn on our faucet, do we have faith that water will come out? Do scientists have faith that their training was one based on facts and not that of assumptions? Of course they do, and that's based on the evidence, not on the lack of it (with reserve to certain aspects of scientific reasoning such as the evolutionary hypothesis).

One last think I want to point out, is that while it is good to find out how others believe and what backing they use to further their ideas, we should always keep that in perspective of the truth that we are searching for. For example, humanism is based on the idea that religion was merely an invention of primitive people before science came along. This is, of course, the idea of atheism, which is maintained by those who say they "don't have enough evidence to believe in God." Therefore, if we see proof of God's existence, these arguments from a lack of knowing the facts hold no rationality over the evidence that points toward His existence. Suppose someone wrote a book denying the existence of gravity. I might be curious to see how they reached that conclusion, but it will never detract from the evidence in support of gravity that I have already experienced or seen. All it takes is one look at the facts of one's existence to be able to throw away all the arguments denying the existence of it based on a lack of evidence. A brilliant professional debater I came across sometime ago, named William Lane Craig, stated concerning those who attempt to argue that there isn't evidence for God's existence, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." How true that is! And, to go a step further, he explained the evidence there is for His existence. Once this has been brought up, the argument for lack of evidence falls.

Do You Have the Original?

It doesn't even need to be said that I'm a huge fan of the Monster Energy Drink. The stuff is so good, I try not to have any more than one every other day (and I might add that I fail miserably on certain days...).

When I first has a can of Monster, I was impressed by its power, though not so much its taste. Considering the price, I thought I'd keep it in mind for emergencies when I just needed that serious kick. About a month later, I tried another one...this time I thought it tasted better, though I still wasn't convinced it was worth it for such a high price. But that's when I found it! A no-name brand of the same product--for a third of the price! This stuff tasted exactly the same, and I started to become a regular customer. (I know you're probably confused where I'm going with this, so just hold on...) But one day, in a rush, I grabbed a Monster. I immediately noticed the taste was a tad bit more real than the no-name brand product...but the price still just wasn't completely worth it to me, so I stuck with the other product.

Fast-forward a bit, and I found a great deal on a large pack of Monster, so I splurged. A few weeks later, and half-way through the pack, I was given the mimic product. My complexion changed instantly after the first sip. "This stuff tasts like CARDBOARD!" I reluctantly finished the can, because it was all I had for energy. I realized that Monster tasted a LOT different, and that product was just an unconvincing mimic.

How true that is for us as Christians! We have our own perception of who we think God is, we read a little about Him occasionally, and we fill in the details with our own reasoning. Yes, we acknowledge the power of God, but we see Him through our fleshly-minded lens. We often wonder if knowing Him fully is worth the price to be paid--to be holy as He is holy. We save God for our emergencies, those times "when we need Him." Then we fall for the alternative products, religion of our own making. To us it tastes the same, looks the same, and is easier to come by. But until we taste the true presence of God, and until we find out who God really is, we will think our religion is gospel-truth since it is the very lens with which we view God.

II Corinthians 13:5 says, "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? --unless indeed you are disqualified." The only way we can be sure we are in the faith is to compare our perception of reality with reality itself--the Word of God. Most often we will find our perception of the original to be nothing more than a cardboard-tasting mimic. If we are rooted in the truth, we will notice the other products for what they are--counterfeits and impostors, demonic spirits masquerading as spirits of light. I John 4:1 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets [impostors] have gone out into the world."

Equal Opportunity?

Some basic thoughts of mine on the topic of homosexuality:

According to the Bible, both homosexuality (Romans 1:26-32) and stealing (Exodus 20:15) are condemned as sin. One may argue that to speak against homosexuals is judgmental, since they have "needs," and that they deserve equal opportunity. However, according to that logic, I also can argue that to speak against stealing is judgmental, since thieves also have needs, and they deserve equal opportunity as well. Wouldn't it only be fair to leave one of your windows open at night, with a ladder reaching to it, to allow for the needs of the thief to be met, and to allow equal opportunity for them? Allowing for unlawfulness is not equal opportunity at all, but rather a provision for wickedness to exist. The difference between what God says is evil and that which man decides is evil, is that man judges based on that which he thinks would harm him as an individual, or what would collectively harm that of which he is part of. But God judges evil based that which goes against His law, that which harms mankind both physically and spiritually.

A Name Change? Your thoughts...

I guess I haven't exactly been active on this blog as I thought I would. Though I love the combination of topics and the name of it, I'm thinking about changing it to be mostly Christian apologetics stuff (don't worry, I like shorter articles) with a twist of the current topics like energy drinks, metal, dirt bikes, and fun stuff...that ought to be interesting! I'm not sure exactly how I'll combine the different aspects, but I was considering revamping the site and calling it "Undying Truth" like my twitter username. I have been writing some short and interesting articles that I've been posting to Facebook, but I think it would be better on this blog. So that's my idea. Any thoughts? What would you think about the change?

The Parable of the Talents

I recently was asked to write a short devotional for a good friend, and I wanted to share a version of it with you all.

Forgiveness isn't something that our weak flesh finds itself doing automatically. We would rather see justice done in the situation before we let off our hard feelings toward the person who wronged us. In Matthew 18, Peter asked Jesus a question that we all have wondered: How many times must we forgive? Part of Jesus' answer was the parable of a servant who couldn't repay his master 10,000 talents, and was about to be sold until he could repay the debt. I am always intrigued by the amounts used in parables, since they are representative of reality. According to People's New Testament Commentary, 10,000 talents is worth 7.5 million dollars in today's money! Not only that, but 10,000 talents is (according to Adam Clarke's Commentary) the "highest number known in Greek arithmetical notation"! Even working for his entire life as a slave with his whole family, he wouldn't be able to begin paying that back, since the average worker made the equivalent of about 14 cents a day! (Source: Albert Barnes NT Commentary) Still think he could have paid that back? Yet, the master forgave him the entire debt, which caused the would-be slave to be free. But when the servant saw one of his fellow servants, he remembered that he owed him some money, 14 dollars to be exact (or 100 days wages), and had failed to repay. So he sent him to prison, until he could pay him back, regardless of the servant's plea for mercy.

Remember also, that it is true that the man owed him 14 dollars and he hadn't paid him back. This to any person would seem like a legitimate reason for punishment or at least unforgiveness. However, when the master heard of this, he put that servant in prison until he should repay the enormous sum of money. Christ ends the parable with these words: "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses" (Matthew 18:35). It is interesting that Jesus applied the highest number known in Greek arithmetical notation to our debt that we owe God for breaking His law. Every person has broken God's law in one part or another, and we are to be given the highest punishment for it--eternal death. Yet, Jesus already paid this debt for us, if we only believe! But when we see one who did us wrong, it only seems justifiable to hold it against them. But God looks at this as holding 14 dollars against someone, since He already forgave us the largest debt that we could have. If we hold this against our brother, God will hold against us our sin as well. We must be willing to forgive always no matter how many times we have been wronged so that we can experience Christ's forgiveness for our enormous debt of sin.

Jammin' to Red!

Just yesterday I came across the song "The Outside" by Red on my mp3 player and decided that I NEEDED to learn how to play that song! :) It was about 2 hours later that I finished figuring it out, so I thought I would show you all what it ended up like. It's not without mistakes, but this is one of the more complex songs that I've learned. I also hope to do more covers in the future! :) So check it out and give me your thoughts!

A Little Overboard?

You already know I love caffeine! More specifically, I'm a huge fan of nearly every energy drink that I can get my hands on. But when I piled together my empty cans for the past few weeks, I started wondering if I was going a little overboard...

I was also shocked when my small energy drink/caffeine storage began to overflow...it only has 5-hour energy shots (I love those!), Monster, Monster Hitman, Amp, Rockstar, Energy 2000, Energy Mints, Crave Energy Drink, and NRG (a cheap energy drink powder).

Although I love energy drinks so much, I am seeing the need to limit my intake of them a little more. :P What are your thoughts? Are you an energy drink addict, or do you have a suggestion for another energy drink that I haven't yet tried? ;) Let me know!

Questioning the Faith of Atheism

Most people consider their opinion as the truth. However, their opinion may change, but the truth never changes. I wrote this essay about atheism based on the book by Ray Comfort called "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof the Atheist Doesn't Exist" (creative title, don't you think?). I reference page numbers in case you want to verify the information. I will admit the essay is a bit long, but if you would take the time to read it, I think you will find it very interesting and full of valuable information. =D I don't go into a lot of detail, but I give the gist of the inconsistencies with atheism as presented in the book. Please give me your thoughts!

Questioning the Faith of Atheism

“It has been rightly said that the ‘atheist’ can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman” (God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, p. 15). Admitting the existence of God is automatically admitting the requirement to obey His commands. Not only is the belief of atheism an inconsistent argument, but no atheist can possibly exist. With evidence of design all around us betraying the idea of God’s nonexistence, the only logical conclusion would be that God does exist, and that we have a responsibility to do what He says.

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. However, disproving the existence of an entity such as God, requires of the atheist both omniscience and omnipresence. Every person knows that he does not possess even a small percentage of the world’s knowledge. He is not familiar with every grain of sand across the earth and he can’t tell you the exact number of water molecules in any given cloud. Thomas Edison once said, “We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything” (p. 14). Therefore, wouldn’t it be possible that, in the large percentage of information the atheist doesn’t know, there could be all the evidence to prove God’s existence? Ray Comfort used a great analogy: to say there is gold in China does not require all knowledge. One merely needs to know that one article of gold exists somewhere in China. However, saying that there is no gold in China requires absolute knowledge of every tiny part of China. The only thing needed to disprove that statement is one gold earring or one pebble of gold underground (p. 15). Similarly, to say that there is no God, one would have to possess all the knowledge of the universe and simultaneously exist everywhere in the universe—thereby being God. The atheist can only truthfully say that, because he does not know everything, he believes that God does not exist (p. 15).

Since atheism denies God’s existence, evolution is the only other alternative for answering the question of our origin. However, we would find it absurd to believe that any man-made object arose by chance. For example, if you see a painting hanging on a tree in the forest, you automatically know that it had a painter, even though the painting is made up of earthly elements (p. 5). Every aspect of creation shows evidence of design—from the apple that gives you its luscious flavor and produces apple trees from the seeds in its core, to the banana that is color-coated to give you an indication of when it is perfectly ripe, too early, or too late (p. 18, 19). The human hand, for example, is obviously designed for holding. The human lungs are designed for filtering air with its 300 billion capillaries (p. 32). Even without seeing the wristwatch’s designer, no one would question the fact that it was designed, and that it didn’t evolve by chance. Even if we never saw the builder of a building, we know he exists because of the building we are looking at (p. 20-21). How could we want better evidence for the Creator than the creation right in front of us?

Every creature is programmed with information that it couldn’t have put there itself. For example, whenever we sneeze, we automatically close our eyes. Chance can’t account for why the hair on our head is different from the hair on our eyebrows. Imagine if both grew at the same rate! Even though a baby snail has a small shell, as the snail grows, its shell becomes larger. He never discards it for a new one (p. 31-32). How could creatures have programmed information if they were just the product of chance?

In fact, nature itself reveals the unlikelihood of the transitional processes required for evolution to occur. Blood clotting, for example, is a twelve-step process, every step of which is needed to occur—in that order. However, the first creatures would have bled to death, if blood clotting had evolved over time (p. 33). Even the eye cannot be reduced to anything less than it is, making its evolution impossible. This fact Charles Darwin himself recognized: “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (p. 34). If a tornado went through a junkyard, we know that a fully working airplane would not be formed (p. 35). The chances of such mutational advancements by transitions are countless times less than the chances of an impossibility.

Atheists also have trouble accepting the existence of God simply because His existence is not able to be disproved. However, one’s perception of God does not give any credibility to his viewpoint. Simply because it appears to the atheist that some prayers are “unanswered” and that answered prayers could have been coincidental, they say that God does not exist. On the other hand, inability to contact the manufacturer of a vehicle does not prove their nonexistence. Someone’s perception that the sun does or does not exist has no effect on whether or not it really does (p. 46). In the same way, God’s existence cannot be disproved by one’s perception of whether or not prayers are answered.

Regardless of your viewpoint, statistics show that you have a 100% chance of dying sometime in your lifetime. Whether or not you believe in God, you will face death. Consider this analogy: a plane was secretly hijacked during flight. The pilot quickly wrote a note telling the passengers to put on the parachute under their seat, since he knew that if the White House did not give in to their demands, the hijackers would force everybody off the plane. As the note was passed along to each passenger, some refused to believe that there was a parachute under their seat. Some considered it a joke that the plane was hijacked, and others that the plane even had a pilot in the first place. But some put on the parachute, knowing that the least they could lose was their pride at the possibility of saving their lives. Finally, when everybody was forced off the plane, only those who had parachutes survived (p. 47-48). By not taking heed to the instructions of the Pilot, you are risking your eternal future. Even if you don’t believe there is a Pilot, reality is not changed by your belief. By not believing that there is even a parachute, you are deriding the One who wants to save you. The Law that will judge you will not spare you unless you have “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14). You will fall to your death if you do not accept the reality of Jesus as your Savior.

“This life is the shadow of death” (p. 58). In other words, our whole life is leading up to our death—it is in death’s shadow. Think of how much you would sell your eyes for. Would even a million dollars be worth it? If your eyes, the “windows of the soul,” are priceless to you, then think about how important the soul is that sees through them. Jesus is offering eternal life for you, yet many hold back because of earthly pleasures. For some, their stumbling block is money. Others hold back in fear of what others will think about them. Still others think that they are “good enough” to enter heaven. Nonetheless, God’s standard is so high that He sees hatred as murder and lust as adultery. Perfection is His standard, and Jesus is the only Man who ever was without sin. Therefore, the only way to be free from eternal death is to accept Jesus—the Source of eternal life.

In summary, the faith of atheism is a self-destructive argument based upon the nonexistence of God. As an absolute negative, it cannot be substantiated. Evolution, the backing force of atheism, is an improbability that can be discredited simply by the evidence of design in the world around us. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that there is a God, and that we must find out what He wants us to do—to accept the free gift of the Savior Jesus Christ, who alone can save us from eternal death.

A Quote on Atheism

Check out this very interesting quote by C. S. Lewis on atheism:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis

Complete Obedience

You ever find yourself reading the Bible and applying it to everyone else but you? Who doesn't find themselves doing that at one time or another? Check out this verse:

"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4

Notice that it says for "our" learning...not "their" learning. It is each of our responsibility to compare ourselves with the mirror of God's Word. Now that you know where I'm coming from, check out this passage:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" --'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" Matthew 15:1-9

When I would read this passage so many times over, the first thing that came to mind was, "Yup, the Pharisees were doing something wrong again..." But, since we know that it was written for OUR learning, we must find out what God is telling US through this passage.

You probably see it as a big deal for the Pharisees to make up an exception to God's command, and rightly so. But do you ever check to make sure you aren't making exceptions to God's Word? For example, the Bible says that all liars will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. But, sometimes we think that if we are telling the truth in just a slightly deceptive way, then it's somehow ok. Or even the example presented in the text itself: "Honor your father and your mother." We think that if they aren't treating us the way they should, then it's justifiable to dishonor or disobey them (although, if a command is directly contrary to God's Word, that is the one exception based on God's Word). Or what about if we "borrow" something, and don't return it. We don't always believe that is as bad of an action as outright stealing. Yet, that is merely OUR exception to God's rule--not one He gave to us.

Check out that last part of the Scripture: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me..." That's a strong statement! Doesn't that sound a whole lot like the average American Christian? God's telling us that is useless to worship Him in word but not in deed--such as by making your own exceptions to His law. How can you really believe something if you don't fully act on it?

Beginning to see how this passage pertains to you? Just because something is the way you, or even your church, has always done it doesn't make it right. Jesus is warning us (not just the people of the past) that we can't let tradition get in our way of obeying His Word. If something goes against the word of God--even if it's tradition--we must adjust OURSELVES so we can daily look more and more like Christ as we look into the mirror of His Word.

My Baby

Summer is here!! Well, almost. I finally pulled my bike out and started cleaning it up for riding. Here she is!

It's not the most powerful dirt bike in the world, but it certainly is a good-looking bike! :) This is one BIG reason I love summer! Isn't she amazing?

A Book About Forgiveness

Ok, so I do read books. That is where me and the average teenager don't always go together. What shall I say, reading books is kinda cool! :D

So I was recently offered this book to review titled "How I Forgave My Molester" by Melinda Todd. For a short, easy-to-read book, I was quite impressed with its content. Not only is it well-written, but it gets you very interested in her story of how she learned to forgive. What I love about the book is that it really gets down to the root of the issue, with Scriptural advice on forgiveness. It doesn't leave you feeling like this is a story of someone else, but rather that we all must learn to forgive.

I also loved the fact that the book gives a number of specific Scriptural points through which you can battle unforgiveness. It even provides Scriptures pertaining to the topic that you can print out and place around the house to keep God's Word in front of you.

What's my opinion of the book, then? It is an excellent book, especially if you are dealing with unforgiveness. It is short enough to read in one sitting, and it contains some valuable Scriptural principles on the topic. I highly recommend it! If you want, check out Melinda's website here.

This site will not be held responsible for any material on websites that are cited in this post.  Click at your own risk.  All opinions are completely mine.  Although I am not compensated for my reviews, I sometimes receive products free for the purpose of reviewing.

What Lights Your Fire?

So tomorrow is the first day of spring after a long, hard winter! You know what that means? Motocross season is almost here! I am a huge motocross fan and I love riding my dirt bike!

Here are a couple of things that really get me enthusiastic about the time of year:

You know all those presents you got on Christmas that you couldn't use till summer? Well, that's kinda what that second thing is. It's handle-guards for my dirt bike that I got in the middle of winter. :P

So what's something that really gets you excited about this time of year?

Introduction to Metal

Ok, so I know most of you are really skeptical of metal. The metal kind of music, that is. Well, about this time last year, I felt the same way. Roaring to the music just seemed kind of, I don't know, overkill. After all, why can't you just sing to the music? Well, I heard music from a band called Demon Hunter, and I only liked one song: "Not Ready To Die." After listening to it a few dozen times, I ventured to hear the rest of the album...and then the rest of their albums...and then other Christian artists of similar styles. Now, as a metal fanatic, I can tell you that it definitely has an acquired taste.

The thing that I like so much about metal, is that it is highly influential. The lyrics are screamed, making them quite effective in getting to the listeners. Not only that, but Christian metal is an effective outlet for fans of secular metal artists to hear the truth. Of course, I am not supportive of the artists that claim to be Christian without reflecting it in their lyrics.

Now that you've heard my propoganda, here is my favorite song ever! "Not Ready To Die!"

For Your Inner Energy Crave

If you have been paying attention, you probably know of my love for obsession of caffeine. I am a regular at taking energy drinks and other energy products such as energy mints or energy shots. Well, I recently discovered Crave Energy Drink, a caffeine drink mix in powder form. I must admit that the packaging really pulled me in with this one, with its attractive green and black colors (favorites of mine--if you already didn't know that from the theme of my other blog). :)

What's cool about Crave, is that it comes in powder packets that you can easily carry with you while traveling. It's much easier than bringing a can of energy drink with you. You can just mix right in your water bottle!

You simply mix either part or all of one packet into water to make the drink. If you prefer a strong quality of taste, you can mix with 8 ounces of water. You can also mix with up to 16 ounces for a more diluted taste. I have found 12 ounces to be just about right for my taste preference. The taste of the drink is a bit of a mix of sweet and sour. Because it is not sweetened by sugar (it is sweetened with FOS, or Fructooligosaccharide), it is not overly sweet by any means. It has what I would describe as a lemon/lime taste with a sourness to it. Of my friends who tried it, almost all thought the flavor was superior to other energy drinks. Here is what the drink looks like:

The packet contains two servings, which I found to give a huge boost when taken at one time (even if you take caffeine regularly). If you don't normally take caffeine, one serving by itself gives a great boost. The entire packet contains slightly more caffeine than a can of Amp Energy Drink.

What's also cool, is that it only has 9 calories per serving! In addition, since it contains practically no sugar, it doesn't give headaches or crashes afterwards (I specifically noticed that). So check out the specifics of the drink:

(Click for larger viewing.)

So, what do I think of Crave Energy Drink? I think it is a great alternative to the energy drinks on the market today, and it is convenient, has a great flavor, and ACTUALLY WORKS! :) I highly recommend it!

(To find out how you can get a sample of this product, click here.)

This site will not be held responsible for any material on websites that are cited in this post.  Click at your own risk.  All opinions are completely mine.  Although I am not compensated for my reviews, I sometimes receive products free for the purpose of reviewing.

Your Opinion on Tolerance?

So what's your opinion of tolerance? I've come across many Christians who equate showing Christ's love to being tolerant of everyone else's beliefs. Is that really the case, though? What can we learn from the love of Christ? It doesn't take much reading of God's Word to see that He isn't tolerant of sin. For example, when Jesus saw the Jews buying and selling in the temple, what did He do?

John 2:15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables.

That doesn't sound to me like Jesus was being tolerant of their view, does it?! And we know that Jesus was acting in love, because He is one with the Father, and "God is love" (I John 4:8). Check out Christ's tolerance of the Pharisees' sin in this Scripture:

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Wait a minute! Jesus just told the Pharisees that they are just like their murderous father! Shouldn't He be tolerant of their beliefs even though they are wrong?

Ephesians 5:11-13 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.

God is telling us that He wants us to expose the darkness of this world. How do we do that while being tolerant of others' beliefs and without stepping on people's toes? Others use the excuse that we need to be tolerant of others because everyone is right. However, Jesus said:

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you ask me, that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for anyone else, does it? We need to be careful to make sure our opinion of any topic lines up with the truth of God's Word (Jesus, while praying to the Father, said, "Your word is truth." John 17:17).

I realize that I didn't go into a whole lot of detail, but I wanted to make that point.

Reason for Redefining Cool

Hey everyone, thanks for checking out my new blog! You probably have a few questions about this site, so I'll make it clear what it's about.

"Cool" is a term our culture has defined, and its meaning is constantly changing with use. Many sinful practices, including perversion and immorality, are now being considered acceptable by our society. As "cool" is being shifted to include the ways of this world, I want take its meaning and redefine it. In Romans, we are told not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1). My point is not that we, as Christians, should be conformed to the world's definition of cool, but that we should redefine it according to the Word of God. That is our standard for measuring right and wrong, and anything it speaks against is sin, and shouldn't even be associated with cool.
Although we are not to be conformed to this world, it is important for us to be relevant to our culture. Many Christians today seem to think that, to be relevant to our culture, we have to have "some" sin to convince others to be saved. I totally disagree. We can show the world that Christians can be cool without intermingling ourselves with sin. By the header, I don't want you to get the message that I'm cool, because that is the last thing I would want you to walk away with. I hope the title and subtitle give you my intended meaning of redefining cool with God's Word.
I decided to include this song by Lecrae, because the lyrics exactly explain my thinking.

So what am I going to write about? I'm glad you asked! In addition to writing about our culture compared with God's Word, I plan to write about assorted topics, my favorite being about anything caffeinated. Other stuff includes music I like, snowboarding, motocrossing, and other topics along the way. And, special thanks to The Other Alice for coming up with the title for my blog. It was exactly what I was looking for! Check out her blog: As In a Mirror. And thanks to those from Twitter who helped me out with a subtitle. I appreciate you all!

So what do you think about the blog? Leave a comment and let me know what you think!