Creation vs. Evolution: my thoughts

This is a touchy subject. A lot of you will be horrified by what I say. But nevertheless, in light of the recent debate with La Sierra University at the core, I decided I would share my thoughts regarding Creation and Evolution.

First, let me state what I believe. Then I will explain.

1. I believe in six consecutive, twenty-four hour periods of work, followed by one twenty-four hour period of rest in which God shaped the blob of matter He that had just created into the planet that we call Earth.
2. I believe that these one hundred and sixty-eight consecutive hours occurred approximately six thousand years ago.
3. I believe that God created all the base forms of life, the unique ancestors of every genus that we see on this Earth today.
4. I do not believe that certain forms of evolution are impossible, and I do not believe that God created every species that we see on this Earth today.

Yes, I believe in certain kinds of evolution. But before we continue, let me settle this little semantic argument. Evolution is a notable change observed over a period of time. It could be anything ranging from laptop computers to the myriad species of Galapagos Finches (one of the most commonly cited examples of evolution). In organisms, evolution is what we could call in music Variations on a Theme. The original species still survives (unless it has become extinct), but there are numerous variations within it.

Let's take a look at domesticated animals: dogs, cats and horses. Each kind of animal has a common ancestor, and yet there are many different breeds with unique characteristics within each. I have heard that some people who disavow evolution believe God created every sort of animal we see today. While I don't doubt that God designed for things like crossbreeding, God did not create Labrador retrievers as Labrador retrievers. He did not create Tennessee Walkers as Tennessee Walkers. Those are human-supervised variations in species due to selected breeding. This form of evolution has been going on almost as long as history has been recorded. It is documented, proven science.

Another form of evolution that is documented, proven science is something called adaptation. This is variation in species due to environmental factors. The aforementioned Galapagos Finches display numerous variations in beak size based on diet. This is due to inherited changes brought about by environmental factors. Natural selection plays a big role in survivability: if an organism simply cannot adapt enough to survive in an environment, it becomes extinct. However, if an organism can adapt enough to survive, it survives. I do, however, doubt that God makes these natural selections completely random. He designed the food chains and the systems of adaptation to be self-sustaining, much like the systems that make up any living organism.

One prime example of adaptation is people of African ancestry. They are primarily dark skinned (though still humans; I hate to use "race"), and the obvious reason is that the people that migrated to the deserts of Africa needed darker skin to avoid many of the problems associated with overexposure to the sun. This variation was inherited and is still seen today. I don't think it was a random mutation, either. It was God saying, "This is what they need to survive. Make it so, Number One."

Any demonstrable natural evolution is driven by the Divine hand. Similarly, any demonstrable unnatural variation is driven by human hands. It is not random mutation that gets the job done; if left unchecked, nature on this sinful Earth would be devoid of beauty and filled with chaos. The fact that a flower blooms is evidence that somebody has His hand in the harmony of the universe.

AN ARGUMENT OF ORIGIN
Now, shall we discuss the biggest argument between creationists and evolutionists? Yes, let's. The two biggest complaints Creationists have with the Theory of Evolution are abiogenesis and the common-ancestor theory. Abiogenesis is the formation of life in the primordial sludge of the young Earth, and the common-ancestor theory states that every form of life (at least within the animal kingdom) has a common ancestor in that primordial sludge. The most notable series of evolution are that of the horse and that of homo sapiens.

Let's start with abiogenesis. When you mention it to a run-of-the-mill evolutionist, you receive flack; they state that "Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis! It has to do with how life has changed over the years!" Oops, problem. You see, when a run-of-the-mill creationist thinks of Evolution, they automatically think of the old-style theory that contains abiogenesis, billions of years, asteroid impacts that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, etc., placing a heavy emphasis on the notion that God does not exist and had nothing to do with the origin of life. Current evolutionary theory, according to those I've spoken with, has almost nothing to do with origins and more to do with non-theoretical evolution such as intraspecies variation. Why, then, are people so vehemently opposed to teaching intelligent design in schools? Could it be that they are in the business of teaching things like adaptation, things which are not theories, but science? My biggest guess is that the reason ID is never really even brought up is that people automatically think "YOU'RE PROSELYTIZING OUR KIDS!" That, and they misrepresent ID as an explanation for our current variations rather than an origin theory, which is what it is. They make the same mistake Christians do in thinking that Evolution, which itself has evolved since Darwin's time, is an origin theory and not an explanation for the variety we see in life today.

Now let's talk about the common-ancestor theory. The theory that hominids share a common ancestor with apes is a subject of much debate since the Bible says God created man in His image. The Evolutionary Theory states that apes and humans are two different evolutionary paths of the same organism. This I must disagree with. Humans are the only sapient creature on the planet Earth. There are, I would argue, other sentient creatures, but as intelligent as they are, they still don't have the ability to philosophize. I think apes probably do have a common ancestor, but they do not share it with humans. I've heard people talk about the upright-walking gorilla Ambam as evolving before our eyes. I can't agree with this, though; his standing upright is obviously imitative of the people he sees at the zoo every day.

I could go for pages and pages about the reasons I don't believe in as broad of a common-ancestor approach as the evolutionists, but I think I've covered the topic well enough. I believe that God created life and the base forms of all organisms. I also believe that God set in motion processes which allow organisms to adapt to their environments. All the animals we see today are descended from versions of themselves, be the evolution divinely supervised or the cause of human intervention. Burn me at stake all you want; that's what I believe about the origin of species.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

What About Foul Language?

I recently read the Sermon on the Mount again. It is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. One segment jumps out at me every time, and it's not because it's confusing or especially great, but it was one thing that I always thought was really strange in the way people used it:

³³You know that our ancestors were told, "Don't use the Lord's name to make a promise unless you are going to keep it." ³⁴But I tell you not to swear by anything when you make a promise! Heaven is God's throne, so don't swear by heaven. ³⁵The earth is God's footstool, so don't swear by the earth. Jerusalem is the city of the great king, so don't swear by it. ³⁶Don't swear by your own head. You cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷When you make a promise, say only "Yes" or "No." Anything else comes from the devil. (Matthew 5:33-7, CEV)

Every time I've heard somebody use this text throughout my years, it's been in reference to foul or vulgar language. But the passage is clearly not talking about the usage of foul language. The verse that always made it sound weird to me was v37: "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No'. For whatsoever is more than these is from the evil one." This verse has nothing to do with "swearing" as we use the term today. Taken out of context, and especially if one omits v37, this passage could be used as a prohibition on such intensifiers as "Oh crap!" But including v37 makes the passage about trustworthiness, which is ever-important in the life of a Christian.

So if this passage doesn't place a ban on vulgarity, what does? I think something that would be more conducive to the ends of the misquoters is Philippians 4:8: "Finally, my friends, keep your minds on whatever is true, pure, right, holy, friendly, and proper. Don't ever stop thinking about what is truly worthwhile and worthy of praise" (CEV).

In order to understand why we should stay away from foul language, we sometimes need to understand its origins. Here are three "bad" words that are in the Bible: hell, ass and damn. Why, then, are they considered to be foul language? Well, let's start with "damn".

To damn is to condemn, or to curse. The Bible says that only God has the power to judge, and therefore we should not condemn people or things. The word's use as an intensifier is probably more common than as a curse today: "Damn, that was close!" is just one example. An acceptable alternative would be, "Wow, that was close!" but it does lose some of the intensity that the less desirable word adds to the sentence. It can also be used as an expression of disdain, which is closer to a curse: "Damn, I was hoping that would have worked out."

The usage in the expression, "Damned if I do, damned if I don't," for expressing an impossible and undesirable situation is perfectly legitimate and is not foul or vulgar in the least. It's another way of saying, "Either way, it will end in ruin for me." The only thing is that since the word "damn" has been added to the list of foul words, all instances of it are barred from modern "polite" conversation.

Many words have come to replace "damn": man (as an intensifier), blast, curse, etc. But are we really avoiding a certain series of muscle movements, or are we avoiding the actual curse itself? We as humans naturally want to curse things undesirable. If not, why would Jesus have warned us to "judge not, lest ye be judged" (Mt 7:1)? Blasting is a form of condemnation; cursing something is a form of condemnation; everything we replace "damn" with means essentially the same thing. We have no reason whatsoever to judge something because we are not perfect, and we will not be until after we ourselves are judged.

Now let's look at "hell". The only reason that word is considered a bad word is that we hate to talk about the ill fate of the wicked. In many Christian circles, Catholic and Protestant alike, Hell is described as a place where the wicked and sinful will feel the wrath of God for all eternity. It is a place of torment and of suffering. Sounds like a nice vacation, doesn't it? Of course not! Nobody wants to think of this as being anybody's fate, and it was (and still is) often used as a scare tactic. "If you don't repent, you're going to hell!" say some ministers. "Gays will burn in hell!" says Fred Phelps and his thralls. Hell this, hell that: everybody that isn't perfect is going to burn in hell. The Bible teaches something else, though: the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). With one notable exception in Exodus, in every instance throughout history, fire consumes. It consumes the wicked, for that is the only way they will have peace. Ellen White explains that the destruction of the wicked is an act of mercy, not of anger or hatred. Those who hate God and are beyond his grace (due to a little thing called free will) would find every day in the Kingdom of Heaven to be as torturous as the traditional definition of hellfire. They would want to be destroyed, and so God will give them what they want, that they would suffer no more.

Now let's get into the modern usage of the word "hell" in a more conversational setting. Often, people say, "to hell with it," which is essentially the same thing as saying, "damn it." A more kosher way of putting it is to say, "forget it," though more common is, "screw it." But the usual usage of "hell" is in an exclamation of confusion and surprise: "What the hell?" This is, of course, short for something along the lines of, "What in (the) Hell is that?" Similar utterances include, "What on Earth is that?" and "What in heaven's name is that?" They fulfill the same function while avoiding the usage of the undesirable word. "Hell" is not really a bad word; it's just something we don't like to think about, so we've ousted it from the "proper" speech.

Finally we come to the word "ass". This is an old English name for equus africanus asinus, the common domestic donkey. Never in the King James Bible would an ass be referred to as a donkey because the word simply hadn't been invented. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "donkey" originated in 1785: "originally slang, perhaps a dim. from dun 'dull grey-brown,' the form perhaps influenced by monkey. Or possibly from a familiar form of Duncan (cf. dobbin)." I myself have used the word in my poetry, referring to myself as stubborn. And that's exactly what calling somebody an ass used to mean: stubborn. And they're not necessarily known for their intelligence, either. Again, this is not a bad word. Likening someone to an ass is no worse than saying they're stubborn, thickheaded, and so on.

There is, however, a text that advises us against doing such a thing, found in Matthew 5:22: "But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a fool, you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell" (CEV) Since asses weren't good for much more than being pack animals, calling somebody an ass is essentially calling them worthless.

I won't get into some of the less desirable language. Some of it was created as profanity, so naturally it doesn't fall into that which is good, pure, praiseworthy, etc. Let's instead have a look at what swearing used to be. Nowadays, it means anything that includes foul language. But in the past, when you swore, you made a promise. It was the equivalent of signing a contract nowadays. You would swear by something you cared about: a parent's grave, the Bible, the rising of the sun, etc. Taking that last example, you could say, "I swear by the rising of the sun that I will repay you," or you could say, "As surely as the sun rises, I will repay you." They meant the same thing. Jesus cautions us against these things, for if we make a promise that is as binding as the rising of the sun, then we are bound to it. Circumstances beyond our control could get in the way and prevent us from fulfilling the contract. It could keep on like that for years, for all we know. Instead, Jesus, in his usual habit of uncomplicating things, said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No' be 'No'." If we were trustworthy, which we should be as Christians, then nobody would need proof of our word in the form of an oath. Our word would be enough for people to have the comfort that we would fulfill our end of the bargain.

That is not to say that all oaths are evil. I have sworn two oaths (other than contracts, license agreements, and so on) in my life: one of allegiance to the United States of America and the ideals of her Founding Fathers, and one to God. And my pledge to the USA has never been concrete. It's been contingent on whether or not I agree with her values, which are growing increasingly counter to my own in recent days. My oath to God, however, is simple: I will serve Him no matter what trials and hardships come my way. I didn't have to make any complicated promise held in place by some truth; it was a simple answer to a simple question. "Will you serve Me?" "Yes." My word is bond. And that's how it should be.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

My Thoughts Re: the King James Version

The King James Version. Many herald it as the only true and Divinely inspired English translation of the Bible, while others see it as antiquated. I myself find it as hard to read and understand as Chaucer, and I much prefer the Clear Word paraphrase, the New International Version, or the Contemporary English version. I still think it is viable, but I also see that changes in meaning and construction, as well as other vernacular idiosyncrasies, have made the KJV into what I believe is not the ideal Bible for today's English-speaking people.

Some Terminology
If I remember my classes correctly, a Version is a translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by a group. Similarly, a Translation is a translation from the original manuscripts by an individual. Lastly, a Paraphrase is a re-jiggering, for lack of a better term, of an existing English version such as the King James Version.

A lot of times, we ask, "Which version of the Bible do you use?" Sometimes in the response, we don't think of which Bible is which, and we seem to treat them all as equals. While all of them are Scripture, not all of them are directly translated from the original manuscripts. For instance, The Message and The Clear Word are both paraphrases. They are reconstructions of older English versions that feature more modern English. Many take these with a grain or two (or in the case of the Clear Word, several tablespoons) of salt. Many accuse paraphrases of being twisted to fit a particular denomination's doctrines and message. This may appear true in some cases, but it's often baseless conjecture and conspiracy theory. I see paraphrases as no greater or lesser than direct translations, for, as the Scriptures say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2Tim 3:16-17, KJV, emphasis mine).

Why the KJV is GOOD
The Authorized King James Version is the oldest commonly used English Bible, completed in 1611. Due to the Puritans' despair at a lack of good English translations (most of them had been translated from Jerome's Vulgate), King James commissioned this Bible for the Church of England. Almost fifty scholars took part in translating the Bible from the original languages, and painstaking care was taken that the translations were accurate.

The KJV was further edited in the 18th century, with its final edition being standardized and published in 1769. This is the version that we see today, wholly unchanged.

Why the KJV is BAD
As a publication of the Church of England, the KJV was translated, as ordered by King James, to conform to the ecclesiology of that denomination. The biggest criticism of the Clear Word is that Adventists have changed the wording of some texts to conform to their ecclesiology (despite the fact that the Clear Word is neither produced nor published by the GC, and that the GC does not endorse it specifically). This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. To get the purest words of Scripture, one must go back to the original manuscripts, and not everybody is fluent in classic Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Perversion concerns aside, the KJV is just plain hard to understand. Yes, you can take all the "thee"s, "thou"s and "thine"s and interpret them as "you"s and "your"s. But what may have been clear usage in the vernacular of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is confusing and obsolete in the vernacular of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The whole point of translating the Bible into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian (and I can go on for years) was to give the people the Word of God in the vernacular language, not some high and mighty Latin (or Early Modern English) that requires a college degree and a dictionary to understand. For that reason alone, I think the Authorized King James Version, which reigned as the chief English Bible until the 1970s, is outdated and is more useful as a history book than something "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

About Other Versions
While, in my experience, many concerns about versions other than the KJV are unfounded, illogical and alarmist, many of them make me raise an eyebrow to certain versions. For instance, the Revised Standard Version could be used by those who don't believe the literal six-day creation week as outlined in the KJV. In the poem that makes up Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2, the RSV refers to "evening and morning, one day" and then to "evening and morning, a second day", and so on and so forth. This seems to have been adjusted to conform to the theory that the days of Creation Week were not necessarily one after another, and could have been millions of years apart. (In my belief, that theory is a major cop-out to seem more conforming to "science" being lorded over us. In reality, we have no hard number for the age of the Earth, but a young Earth makes much more sense. More on this later.)

My favorite versions are the NKJV, which takes the text in the KJV and makes it a little bit more contemporary; the NIV, which is a new translation that is slightly easier to understand than the NKJV at times; and the CEV, which is even easier to understand than the NIV, yet is closer to the KJV than the Clear Word. Not once have I found in any of these translations anything that seems to contradict what is said in the KJV.

About the Clear Word in Particular: answering criticism
http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
This page, an article from the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchman Expositor, treats the Clear Word like a Bible put out by the GC. It is in reality the contrary: the CW is an interpretive paraphrase, a devotional exercise by Dr. Jack Blanco. It is not endorsed, not produced, and not published by any Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Similar to my embarkation on translating the Bible into Hra'anh, a language that I am in the process of creating for my science fiction stories, this takes an extant version, such as the KJV and records Dr. Blanco's interpretation. This alone answers for me any criticisms of the Clear Word paraphrase.

I love the Clear Word because it is Scripture. But I don't use it for my primary Bible; I much prefer the CEV or NKJV. I use the Clear Word for commentary's sake when I don't want to sift through the walls of information in the SDA Bible Commentaries or my NIV Study Bible, which has commentary in footnotes and countless cross-references in the margins. Yes, the accusation that the commentary is written into the text is true. But honestly, most of the condemnations are nothing but semantic arguments, which are some of the weakest arguments that aren't outright fallacious. And the others are countered by the CW's origins: an interpretive paraphrase by an individual and published through an Adventist publishing house.

In Conclusion
Never have I seen a Bible, KJV or otherwise, that preaches that the wicked will burn forever. Never have I seen a Bible that preaches the deprecation of Saturday Sabbath. All of these concerns about versions other than the KJV are baseless. And when I don't understand a text, I read it over several times, cross-check with multiple versions, and even dissect and diagram the sentences! The Bible is made to be understood by everybody, and English has changed so much in the last 300 years that it can be almost impossible to understand the KJV.

The position that the KJV is the only true English Bible is more a matter of taste than theology, especially since the KJV was translated carefully enough that it conformed to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. In that light, I would almost rather trust the NIV or CEV since both are new translations! Just as I use the Clear Word primarily for commentary purposes or pleasure reading, I use the KJV only when I want to have a look at the older translation. I own three physical Bibles, and none of them are KJV, which shows how often I use it. The bottom line is that I think this generation deserves a much clearer translation than this three hundred year old relic.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Unpacking Galatians 3

When asked for Biblical evidence of the sacredness of Sunday as opposed to Saturday, many Christians come up dry, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that there is no Scriptural evidence for the change. But the one verse I hear cited most often is Galatians 3:23-25, which states that the Law was as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. In verse 25, it states that since Christ fulfilled the Law, it is unnecessary. This is, however, a passage that is very frequently taken out of context. In order to truly understand it, one must read the entire chapter of Galatians 3.

Paul begins this section of the epistle by admonishing the Galatians' thinking that salvation was by works and not by faith (also one of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses). He asks repeatedly whether they had received the Spirit by "the works of the law" or by "the hearing of the faith". He then goes into a complicated series of explanations about how the Law is impossible to follow, and yet must be followed perfectly in order to receive eternal life:

¹⁰ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” ¹¹ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” ¹² Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” (NKJV)

To paraphrase, because the Scriptures say that everyone who does not follow the Law is under a curse, then everyone is under a curse (cf Deut 27:26). But because the just shall live by faith, nobody can please God simply by keeping the Law (cf Hab 2:4). Then, as the CEV states in v12, "The Law isn't based on faith. It promises life only to people who obey its commands" (cf Lev 18:5). This duality between the requirement to fulfill the law and the impossibility to please God by following it can be quite discouraging and frustrating if taken out of context, but v13 brings encouragement:

¹³ Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), ¹⁴ that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Yet another example in the Bible of Christ, perfect and sinless, dying for us and taking our place so that we could be saved. There are those that would argue that Christ came as an example, to show us that we could live sinless lives, but that negates the need for a Savior and highly emphasizes what Paul has said here is patently wrong: that the Law can grant salvation. In fact, because it is impossible for us to keep the Law perfectly, it required the Lamb's sacrifice. In order for us to receive redemptive grace, Perfection had to take our place.

In v15-18, Paul explains even more how the Law does not beget blessings; it is instead our unchangeable covenant with God, the original promise to Abraham.

¹⁵ Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. ¹⁶ Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. ¹⁷ And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Verses 17 and 18 especially important; they reinforce that Abraham's blessings ("inheritance") came over four hundred years before the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai. And if the blessings come from the Law, then what good is the blessed Promise that God would deliver the land unto Abraham's Seed (cf Gen 12:7; 13:15; 24:7).

So if the Law does not beget salvation, then what, exactly is it? This us brings us back to the passage many misquote, starting in v19:

¹⁹ What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ²⁰ Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
²¹ Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. ²² But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. ²⁴ Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Especially because of the corruption of Egypt, the Israelites needed the Law to teach them what was right and what was wrong. They needed all those little nitpicking guidelines laid out in the Pentateuch so that they could have a structured life. They didn't have committees, juries or judges (at least, not in the modern sense). They had the Word of God and that was it. Since the shedding Christ's innocent, perfect blood eliminated the need for this tutor, this reminder of what was right and what was wrong, the Law was fulfilled. And that means all of it. Oftentimes we Adventists look at two "parts", and see the one fulfilled as being the sacrificial system. But the Ten Commandments are indeed a part of the greater Mosaic Law that was fulfilled. Before you scream, "blasphemy!", I want to point out that the Ten Commandments, the guidelines for right and wrong, have not changed. What is right in the eyes of God will always be right, and what is wrong in the eyes of God will always be wrong.

This brings me all the way back to the issue of the Ten Commandments and their fulfilled nature being cause for justifying Sunday sacredness and non-observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were a set broad and specific statements from God's own hand of what is right--honoring one's parents and keeping the Sabbath holy--and what is wrong--murder, sexual immorality (under the umbrella word "adultery"), theft, perjury, idolatry, the cursing of God (and I might add falsifying claims in His name, which is also a form using His name in vain), and the wrongful or inordinate desire for another's property (which could fall along the lines of theft as well as coveting). Due to this fact alone, they cannot change.

Finally we come to the end of the chapter. And I think I should let Paul finish out this article.

²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

A message to the Antichrist

It would seem that in today's world, so many are adamant about replacing God with science. They seem to argue that one cannot serve two masters: one cannot serve Science and Religion. But it would seem that these are just lies perpetuated by the Father of Lies himself, Satan the Great Deceiver. I have heard numerous avowed atheists and science worshipers profess that religion is outdated, archaic, defunct. They posit that Christians are lying to themselves and wasting their lives. But ask yourself this question, ideology of the Antichrist: If it's about openness and freedom, why won't you accept Christianity as viable? If it harms neither you nor its followers, then is it bad by your standards? And if we are lying to ourselves and wasting our lives for a false hope, then why should you care? What are we missing? STDs? Cirrhosis? Emphysema or COPD? Diets with too much protein and not enough carbs?

The Bible tells us how to eat: healthfully. The Bible tells us to live pure lives and take care of our bodies. The Bible tells us to love people, so why must you denounce it? Face it, you're never going to kill us. You couldn't do it physically during the Dark Ages. You can't do it mentally in the 21st century. When something has survived for thousands of years like this, there's really no hope in destroying it; it's far too powerful. We know that good will triumph and the world's problems will be solved, but until then we do what we can to make others' lives better. It's rather pathetic of you to try and crush us by calling us Fundies, by calling us closed-minded, by spreading anti-religious Marxist philosophies. Sticks and stones may break our bones. And you may crucify us. But the truth is that we're too strong to fall because all the host of heaven is encamped around us.

Try as you may, this is as wall that you cannot breach. It is a fight you cannot win. We have the victory, and every second we endure puts us one step closer to hearing those words: "Well done, good and faithful one." As it was in the days on Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. And as we trek further into the 21st century, the days of Noah are making a comeback. The knowledge of man is increasing exponentially, and so is man's wickedness. There are wars and rumors of wars. It won't be long at all before the trumpet sounds and the mountains crumble. Until then, the faithful among us are going to hold against your attacks, Antichrist. The harder you try, the stronger we get. You can do nothing to stop us.

A Man Following Christ,
Michael

Audio entry: Depression and Suicide

Audio entry because it's Thursday and I have nothing written.
http://www.mbrsart.com/audio/Depression_and_Suicide.mp3

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Sunday blurb: Time Taken

This is an age of noise. From the hustle and bustle of the streets to the constant din of our iPods, TVs, computers and cell phones. In this day and age, it is hard to take time to spend with God every day. It's all we can do to finish our studies, make enough money to squeak by, and get enough rest to fend off illness. Because of all this busyness in our lives, it is crucial to take time every day to spend with God. Look at me, telling you to spend time with God every day when I can't even find five minutes to do so myself. You see, this is why it's so important. Time spent with God is always a good investment and the more time you spend with God the better you will feel. And I know that from experience.

Tonight instead of playing computer games until it's time to go to bed, I'm going to spend half an hour or so reading in Patriarchs and Prophets, and then I'm going to spend a few minutes in prayer. Then tomorrow morning I'm going to start the day with prayer, which I haven't done once in the entire span of my memory. I'm going to do this every day. Let's see where this road takes me, shall we?

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael