Mandy and I visited Southcliff Baptist Church this morning. It had been recommended by two different couples of friends, so we though we'd give it a shot.
On a minor side note: It seems that having a coffee shop just outside the sanctuary where members can buy coffee is becoming increasingly popular in churches.
So Mandy and I walk in the front door, and once again, not more than a few seconds into the door, we're greeted by someone. Now this guy has a name tag on, so chances are this is what he's supposed to do. But still, it's nice that at least someone is looking out for new faces.
He led us over to a booth where we filled out info about ourselves. Mandy filled out the form while I spoke with the greeter. He found out we were from LA and mentioned that the senior pastor was also from there. Once our info was in, they handed us bag with all sorts of material in it about the church and what they do. We also got coupons for free coffee, which Mandy used to give herself a little caffeine boost.
The service itself wasn't all that dissimilar from a normal service. There was singing, a recorded baptism (the live one happened in the 9:20 service), and then a prayer time and then preaching. The pastor spoke on Faith Amnesia, how to not forget what God has done for you when things go bad. He used the text Mark 8:1-9. Not 100% sure the text he used related to what he was preaching, but then again I wasn't the one that studied the text, he was. (The problem with going to Seminary is that it teaches you to be very critical of what you hear. And though that can be a good thing at times, it can also get in the way and make you seem arrogant.) What he had to say was good, especially the part about building landmarks for ourselves to remember God's faithfulness, i.e. a journal or diary where one could record God's working in your life.
Afterward, our friend the greeter came back and took us up to the front to meet the pastor. Very nice guy, seems real easy to talk to. We talked seminary chat for a while, then said our goodbyes. Then the greeter told us that if we needed any help to call them, and if the LORD leads us somewhere else, then wonderful, and if not, they look forward to seeing us again. So no pressure on joining was the point he was trying to make, which I appreciated.
Looking through the material given to us, I did notice a few things that I appreciated. (1) Joining the church was fairly simple. You attend a new members class where they talk about what being a member means, and then if you agree and want to join, you simply sign a statement and you're a member. I've become kind of burned on the whole walk down the aisle thing, so that was a pleasant change. (2) They have a class specifically for married couples age 21-29. So that means we don't have to pick between going to class with college freshmen or to a class filled with couples that have three kids and a good ten years into their marriage. There is a class for people at our life stage. (3) In late September they have a dinner scheduled specifically for New Seminary students looking for a church home. These people realize that there is a ministry there and they're jumping on it.
So, all in all, a good visit this morning. Plus on the welcoming newcomers, classes offered, and membership guidelines. The only bad thing is that it is a big church, and I was really wanting to go smaller this time around. But once again, God did not speak to me and tell me that this is the church he wants us to serve at. If He does, I wouldn't be heartbroken, but I'm not feeling anything now.
Mandy did make the comment that Freedom Church in Fort Worth seemed less polished than this church, and that made them seem more real and genuine. I agree with her; the conversation at Freedom Church felt less forced. But Southcliff is a mega-church, where individually recognizing visitors may be impossible. So I can't fault the church for being practical in training greeters on what to say in order to catch everyone. Forced conversation or not, it was nice that someone made the effort to talk to us.
So, those are my experience of the morning. Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
A friendly debate...
A buddy of mine named Tim had a few things to say about my last post, and nice conversation ensued about the different views of God's existence. The first part of the debate occured mostly on Facebook, so for for everyone's benefit I thought I'd post the entire discussion here.
***The following is a conversation resulting from a video I found on youtube called The Atheist. These comments were posted on Facebook.
Tim:
Branson,
This video is well made, well thought out, but it is also ridiculous. I appeals to an emotional, instead of an intellectual argument, like most religious arguments, and results in gaining no ground. The first point that is counter-intuitive is the premise, which has the main character becoming an atheist on emotional grounds. This is ... simply not the most common case. Most atheists do not believe in god because they have made argument after logical argument tearing down what has taken centuries construct: false hope, weak emotional strength, and disregard for fact. There are several arguments presented after the initial premise which again do nothing to argue actual facts. They present an emotional gap, and fill it with metaphor and poetry. Evil is the absence of good, like a donut? Seriously? God has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering? Man's purpose is the knowledge of god? These arguments are not persuasive. Indeed, they are not even arguments.
Branson:
(1) I put this up for people who left God for emotional reasons, because believe it or not, most of the people I know that want nothing to do with God, Jesus, or anything church related, are that way because of an emotional reason. Not saying that's always the case or even mostly the case. That's just what I personally have been dealing with...
(2) If remaining on intellect alone is what it takes to have a civil conversation between a Christian and an atheist, then I am all for it. The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his "anti-faith" as the Christian does in his faith. In order to have that kind of conversation, the atheist would have to be as open-minded to the possibility that there may be a God as the Christian would that there may not be one. And sadly, that never happens. Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has "faith" that there is no God.
Tim:
I can accept you first point, as most of the 'athiest' you have probably come in contact with were just believers with angry doubts. On your second point I am truly sorry if you have been unable to have a civil conversation with an atheist, as I have had the same problem with Christians. I would have to completely disagree with your last point, as ...being an atheist means shedding all faith, including that which you may disagree with. It means basing your decisions on physical evidence and reasoned logic. As there is no evidence for god, there can be no reason to include him in your decisions. If you have some physical evidence for god, I would be pleased to see it, as would the rest of humanity. Only theists base their decisions not on fact, and anyone would be hard pressed to make such a comparison fairly.
Branson:
You're absolutely right....mankind is pressed for physical evidence of God. As a believer in Christ, I can show you the results of God's handiwork throughout all of creation. But at the end of the day, I can't introduce you to God so you can shake his hand. I can't let you see a snapshot of Him from my wallet. There is evidence of God's work, ...not evidence of Him. That's where, for the Christian, faith and personal experience take over and fill in the gaps. You can get close to seeing the existence of God on fact alone, but it takes a "leap of faith" (pardon the cliche phrase) to actually believe. The point I'm trying to make is that for someone who does not believe in a God, they have to do the same thing. A lack of evidence to support the existence of God does not mean that there is no God, only that God can't be--or is very difficult to be--proven. In order to prove there is no God, a man would have to investigate every occurrence, circumstance, and phenomenon in the entire universe throughout all of time and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way a supreme being commonly known as God could have possibly intervened in anyway. And mankind simply does not have the science or understanding to do such a thing. So, for a man to believe that there is no God, he has to look at the evidence presented and allow his faith to fill in the gaps, just like a Christian. So really, to have your decision on God based solely on fact, the best you could hope for in the "no God" direction in agnosticism.
The following is a continuation of the conversation above. All comments were posted on the blog site.
Tim:
Ok. So I'm going to post a few of your statements, and I'll try to tackle them one at a time. I'm just going to take them at random, since that's how they seemed to come out, but I do not want to belittle these, I only want to show why I disagree with them. So here we go...
1. "The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his 'anti-faith' as the Christian does in his faith." ... "Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has 'faith' that there is no God."
Alright. It is a complete misstatement to suggest that an atheist only has 'faith' there is no God. This statement suggests not only do you not understand an atheist's viewpoint, but you do not understand the basics of logic. There are many definitions of faith, but I will use the Merriam-Webster definition: 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof'. To suggest that someone's lack of belief is the same as faith is simply wrong. You do not believe in fairies. This is because there is no proof of fairies. Your A-fairieism is NOT faith that there are not fairies. You do not have to dis-prove the existence of something. The burden of proof is upon the argument of existence. This is why you cannot prove a negative. An atheist does not believe there is no God, he does not believe in a God. A subtle but important difference. Faith has nothing to do with it. If there was proof for God's existence, and the atheist still did not believe, then you might be able to apply the word faith. Unfortunately, no such proof of God exists, thus neither does the logical argument.
Branson:
Good point. "Faith" was the wrong word to use here when it comes to atheist beliefs. Let me see if I can re-word this to get the point that I'm trying to make across....
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a belief or lack of belief in God ultimately comes down to a personal choice, not a result of scientific fact. A certain interpretation of the facts may cause someone to lean one way or the other, but the facts alone aren't enough to prove either way correct.
This isn't the best of illustrations, but it's all I can come up with at the moment. Let's say two men are presented with identical apple pies and asked the question, "Did a chef bake this pie?" One man looks at the pie and says, "I see that the apples in the pie have been cut, which suggests the work of an outside hand. I see that the ingredients necessary to make the pie are measured and blended in exactly the right way to create the taste that it has, which suggests intelligent design. Therefore, it must have been made by a chef." The second man looks at the pie and says, "There are no fingerprints on the dish or in the dough itself, so there couldn't have been hands involved in the making of this pie. I cannot see or speak with or touch this supposed chef. Therefore, since I find no evidence that a chef exists, this pie could not have been made by a chef."
Not the best illustration, but it makes the point. Looking at the pie alone won't tell you whether the pie was made by a chef or a machine, because the evidence in the pie is interpreted based on the presuppositions of the observer. We of course can't assume that just because we don't see fingerprints or a chef standing nearby means that there is no chef. But at the same time, the existence and particular construction of the pie alone isn't proof enough that a chef exists. In other words, the system itself is not enough evidence for or against the existence of the system's creator.
It's the same with science and God. A man who believes in God will look at scientific fact and interpret it according to his beliefs. An atheist will do the same thing, only he interprets the facts based on the assumption that there is no God. And a man who doesn't know either way, after looking at the evidence, will most likely remain that way, unsure of whether a God exists or not. All three of them have to at some point decide how they interpret the information.
I'm sure someone said this before me, so I'll put it in quotes: "A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary." In other words, a lack of physical evidence for God does not mean God doesn't exist. So, if a man wants to base his belief or lack of belief in God on physical evidence, all he can say is that God's existence is ultimately unknowable; it can't be proven or dis-proven. If he does not believe in God, it is because he chooses not to believe in God, and if he does believe in God, it is because he chooses to.
Forgive my long-windedness (I think the late hour might have something to do with it), but what I'm trying to say is this: Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it.
Tim:
"A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary."
Again, your argument is _explicitly_ valid. Unfortunately, it just isn't useful. To illustrate, I will use a commonly accepted truism: Unicorns do not exist. Now the implicit argument (modus tollens) is as follows:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Now, your argument holds weight here. There is a lack of evidence for unicorns, but that does not explicitly mean there have never been unicorns. The problem is that if we used this rule, we could never have a reasonable understanding of what exists and what doesn't. We could never KNOW anything. And while this is explicitly true, it isn't useful. The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past.
The point here is that I do not have to go around disproving every crazy idea that someone can up with. The burden of proof is not upon me. The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence, it simply makes no sense to believe in him. And the implicit argument holds weight. So while I cannot incontrovertibly PROVE that God doesn't exist, I can infer it. The opposite is not true. You cannot infer the existence of God, mainly because it would require evidence to support it.
The point here is that the only valid argument that can refute the logic that suggests God does not exist, is the same argument that suppresses ALL logic by implying you cannot know anything. In my experience, it is a weak argument.
"Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it."
I don't know how to argue this. You seem to be suggesting that a conclusion (God's existence) is somehow immune to logic (the scientific method). When people believe things that are illogical and cannot be proven, they are deemed INSANE. Everything is a scientific question. You see, the 'system' is all that we have. It MUST be enough, as there is nothing else from which to gain evidence.
Branson:
Before Galileo improved the telescope and made his observations about the Sun being the center of our solar system, everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe. That idea was based on all the observations available at the time. Without Galileo's discoveries, there would be little to no evidence that the sun is the center of our solar system. So, assuming something isn't so simply because it can't be proven with contemporary science isn't always the most correct assumption.
You said, "The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence it simply makes no sense to believe in him." This illustrates what I've been trying to say for the past few comments. Atheism is a choice of the person's heart. You can envision and understand a world with no God, so that is what you believe, and you interpret science as such, namely pointing that God cannot be physically proven. To me, the world works perfectly well and makes sense with God, and I have personal experiences with God as my evidence, so it makes perfect sense to me that He exists. Because I believe that, a lack of physical evidence simply means that He chooses not to reveal Himself in that manner. So for both of us, our choice of belief or disbelief in God determines how the science is interpreted, not the other way around. Right or wrong, our positions on this topic are a result of personal choice, not science.
As for the existence of God being inferred, that's been done several times. One such instance is Intelligent Design Theory, which "holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." You can read more about it at http://www.intelligentdesign.org . Another instance is Thomas Aquinas, who came up with five logical arguments for the existence of God. You can read them at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html . Both of these are cases where scientific evidence and logic point to the possible existence of God.
Now, here's the thing...a true atheist will read those arguments and immediately dismiss them or come up with another explanation for the "intelligent designer" or the "first cause" other than God. Why? Because he chooses not to believe in God. And that decision dictates his entire world view and how he interprets the information presented to him. There are brilliant, intelligent, logic-loving scientists who are willing to believe that life was seeded here on Earth by aliens from outer space simply because they refuse to believe in God.
So, in response to God's existence being immune to logic, it isn't immune; it simply isn't a conclusion. It's an axiom. Whether or not you believe in God determines how you view the world, not the other way around.
Just as an aside, despite the burden proof not falling on disproving God, I know of two men who tried to do just that. And at the end of it, they both ended up becoming Christians. One such man is Lee Strobel, who's written several books about his journey, including The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator. The other man is Josh McDowell, who's compiled all of his research into one volume called The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Their journeys to Christ might prove enlightening as you see how they came to the beliefs they have now.
Tim:
1. Making a reasoned conclusion from available data is not an assumption.
2. Atheism is not a choice. It is a reasoned conclusion. My position is completely based in science.
3. I am well read in Aquinas. His five logical arguments for the existence of God are primitive and easily refuted. Intelligent design is one of his five proofs, and it too is easily dismissed. You see, intelligent design states that the world is so fundamentally complex, that it HAD to have been designed. The problem here is that the basis for its necessity (the universe being so complex that it demands a creator) is its greatest flaw (dismissing God, infinitely more complex than the universe, as not needing a creator). It refutes its own axiom. Ridiculous.
4. God's existence may be an axiom to you, but it is simply another logical argument to everyone who bases their conclusions on fact.
5. As I stated initially, I am not trying to persuade you. I am trying to let you understand an atheist's point of view: physical evidence and reasoned logic. I think you will find this series interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=762A731FA12BCB57&search_query=thunderf00t
Branson:
Thanks for the link. Although I think Ray has some valid points, he at times comes across a little more argumentative than I would want to be.
I think this is the point where we start to spin wheels and just agree to disagree. My belief in God is my defining point. Everything that I am and everything that I believe to be real about everything flows from assuming that the God of the Bible is real and active in my life. To you, God is an exercise in logic and reason, and short of God himself coming down and making Himself known, you don't believe He exists. And it seems there's no middle-ground where one of us can pull the other to the other side.
So, before this gets to be a long repetition of beating dead horses, and I start to sound exactly like the Bible-thwacking "Christians" that I take issue with, let me say thank you so much for the chance to talk. As I said before, this conversation has made me think hard about why I believe what I believe, and sadly that is something that just doesn't happen often enough for those who do believe in God.
I'd like to make just one more statement. Jesus said, "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened for you." (Matthew 7:7). Jesus was mainly talking about God providing for the needs of His people, but I would say that offer extends to beyond simple physical needs. If you earnestly seek after God, you will find Him. To the one who wants to know Him, He reveals Himself, and the science and the logic and everything else starts to work itself out. The issue is whether or not a man is willing to seek after God, to know Him.
So, if you're absolutely sure that there is no God to know, and nothing will make you even consider the contrary, then I applaud you for your steadfastness to your convictions--it is a lesson I wish some "Christians" would learn. But if there is ever a time that you even consider the possibility of God's existence, I promise you that if you look for Him, you will find Him.
Thanks again so much for this discussion. I hope its been as engaging and thought provoking for you as it has been for me. And feel free to comment on any of my posts that you feel a desire to. The last thing I want is the God issue to be a source of alienation for either one of us. Besides, it makes me feel good to know that somebody is actually reading my posts. ;-) Until next time, take care.
***This is pretty much where the conversation ended. I enjoyed the debate and am glad that Tim and I were able to discuss our beliefs without getting at each other's throats. A good debate every now and then is good for the soul.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
***The following is a conversation resulting from a video I found on youtube called The Atheist. These comments were posted on Facebook.
Tim:
Branson,
This video is well made, well thought out, but it is also ridiculous. I appeals to an emotional, instead of an intellectual argument, like most religious arguments, and results in gaining no ground. The first point that is counter-intuitive is the premise, which has the main character becoming an atheist on emotional grounds. This is ... simply not the most common case. Most atheists do not believe in god because they have made argument after logical argument tearing down what has taken centuries construct: false hope, weak emotional strength, and disregard for fact. There are several arguments presented after the initial premise which again do nothing to argue actual facts. They present an emotional gap, and fill it with metaphor and poetry. Evil is the absence of good, like a donut? Seriously? God has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering? Man's purpose is the knowledge of god? These arguments are not persuasive. Indeed, they are not even arguments.
Branson:
(1) I put this up for people who left God for emotional reasons, because believe it or not, most of the people I know that want nothing to do with God, Jesus, or anything church related, are that way because of an emotional reason. Not saying that's always the case or even mostly the case. That's just what I personally have been dealing with...
(2) If remaining on intellect alone is what it takes to have a civil conversation between a Christian and an atheist, then I am all for it. The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his "anti-faith" as the Christian does in his faith. In order to have that kind of conversation, the atheist would have to be as open-minded to the possibility that there may be a God as the Christian would that there may not be one. And sadly, that never happens. Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has "faith" that there is no God.
Tim:
I can accept you first point, as most of the 'athiest' you have probably come in contact with were just believers with angry doubts. On your second point I am truly sorry if you have been unable to have a civil conversation with an atheist, as I have had the same problem with Christians. I would have to completely disagree with your last point, as ...being an atheist means shedding all faith, including that which you may disagree with. It means basing your decisions on physical evidence and reasoned logic. As there is no evidence for god, there can be no reason to include him in your decisions. If you have some physical evidence for god, I would be pleased to see it, as would the rest of humanity. Only theists base their decisions not on fact, and anyone would be hard pressed to make such a comparison fairly.
Branson:
You're absolutely right....mankind is pressed for physical evidence of God. As a believer in Christ, I can show you the results of God's handiwork throughout all of creation. But at the end of the day, I can't introduce you to God so you can shake his hand. I can't let you see a snapshot of Him from my wallet. There is evidence of God's work, ...not evidence of Him. That's where, for the Christian, faith and personal experience take over and fill in the gaps. You can get close to seeing the existence of God on fact alone, but it takes a "leap of faith" (pardon the cliche phrase) to actually believe. The point I'm trying to make is that for someone who does not believe in a God, they have to do the same thing. A lack of evidence to support the existence of God does not mean that there is no God, only that God can't be--or is very difficult to be--proven. In order to prove there is no God, a man would have to investigate every occurrence, circumstance, and phenomenon in the entire universe throughout all of time and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way a supreme being commonly known as God could have possibly intervened in anyway. And mankind simply does not have the science or understanding to do such a thing. So, for a man to believe that there is no God, he has to look at the evidence presented and allow his faith to fill in the gaps, just like a Christian. So really, to have your decision on God based solely on fact, the best you could hope for in the "no God" direction in agnosticism.
The following is a continuation of the conversation above. All comments were posted on the blog site.
Tim:
Ok. So I'm going to post a few of your statements, and I'll try to tackle them one at a time. I'm just going to take them at random, since that's how they seemed to come out, but I do not want to belittle these, I only want to show why I disagree with them. So here we go...
1. "The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his 'anti-faith' as the Christian does in his faith." ... "Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has 'faith' that there is no God."
Alright. It is a complete misstatement to suggest that an atheist only has 'faith' there is no God. This statement suggests not only do you not understand an atheist's viewpoint, but you do not understand the basics of logic. There are many definitions of faith, but I will use the Merriam-Webster definition: 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof'. To suggest that someone's lack of belief is the same as faith is simply wrong. You do not believe in fairies. This is because there is no proof of fairies. Your A-fairieism is NOT faith that there are not fairies. You do not have to dis-prove the existence of something. The burden of proof is upon the argument of existence. This is why you cannot prove a negative. An atheist does not believe there is no God, he does not believe in a God. A subtle but important difference. Faith has nothing to do with it. If there was proof for God's existence, and the atheist still did not believe, then you might be able to apply the word faith. Unfortunately, no such proof of God exists, thus neither does the logical argument.
Branson:
Good point. "Faith" was the wrong word to use here when it comes to atheist beliefs. Let me see if I can re-word this to get the point that I'm trying to make across....
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a belief or lack of belief in God ultimately comes down to a personal choice, not a result of scientific fact. A certain interpretation of the facts may cause someone to lean one way or the other, but the facts alone aren't enough to prove either way correct.
This isn't the best of illustrations, but it's all I can come up with at the moment. Let's say two men are presented with identical apple pies and asked the question, "Did a chef bake this pie?" One man looks at the pie and says, "I see that the apples in the pie have been cut, which suggests the work of an outside hand. I see that the ingredients necessary to make the pie are measured and blended in exactly the right way to create the taste that it has, which suggests intelligent design. Therefore, it must have been made by a chef." The second man looks at the pie and says, "There are no fingerprints on the dish or in the dough itself, so there couldn't have been hands involved in the making of this pie. I cannot see or speak with or touch this supposed chef. Therefore, since I find no evidence that a chef exists, this pie could not have been made by a chef."
Not the best illustration, but it makes the point. Looking at the pie alone won't tell you whether the pie was made by a chef or a machine, because the evidence in the pie is interpreted based on the presuppositions of the observer. We of course can't assume that just because we don't see fingerprints or a chef standing nearby means that there is no chef. But at the same time, the existence and particular construction of the pie alone isn't proof enough that a chef exists. In other words, the system itself is not enough evidence for or against the existence of the system's creator.
It's the same with science and God. A man who believes in God will look at scientific fact and interpret it according to his beliefs. An atheist will do the same thing, only he interprets the facts based on the assumption that there is no God. And a man who doesn't know either way, after looking at the evidence, will most likely remain that way, unsure of whether a God exists or not. All three of them have to at some point decide how they interpret the information.
I'm sure someone said this before me, so I'll put it in quotes: "A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary." In other words, a lack of physical evidence for God does not mean God doesn't exist. So, if a man wants to base his belief or lack of belief in God on physical evidence, all he can say is that God's existence is ultimately unknowable; it can't be proven or dis-proven. If he does not believe in God, it is because he chooses not to believe in God, and if he does believe in God, it is because he chooses to.
Forgive my long-windedness (I think the late hour might have something to do with it), but what I'm trying to say is this: Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it.
Tim:
"A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary."
Again, your argument is _explicitly_ valid. Unfortunately, it just isn't useful. To illustrate, I will use a commonly accepted truism: Unicorns do not exist. Now the implicit argument (modus tollens) is as follows:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Now, your argument holds weight here. There is a lack of evidence for unicorns, but that does not explicitly mean there have never been unicorns. The problem is that if we used this rule, we could never have a reasonable understanding of what exists and what doesn't. We could never KNOW anything. And while this is explicitly true, it isn't useful. The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past.
The point here is that I do not have to go around disproving every crazy idea that someone can up with. The burden of proof is not upon me. The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence, it simply makes no sense to believe in him. And the implicit argument holds weight. So while I cannot incontrovertibly PROVE that God doesn't exist, I can infer it. The opposite is not true. You cannot infer the existence of God, mainly because it would require evidence to support it.
The point here is that the only valid argument that can refute the logic that suggests God does not exist, is the same argument that suppresses ALL logic by implying you cannot know anything. In my experience, it is a weak argument.
"Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it."
I don't know how to argue this. You seem to be suggesting that a conclusion (God's existence) is somehow immune to logic (the scientific method). When people believe things that are illogical and cannot be proven, they are deemed INSANE. Everything is a scientific question. You see, the 'system' is all that we have. It MUST be enough, as there is nothing else from which to gain evidence.
Branson:
Before Galileo improved the telescope and made his observations about the Sun being the center of our solar system, everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe. That idea was based on all the observations available at the time. Without Galileo's discoveries, there would be little to no evidence that the sun is the center of our solar system. So, assuming something isn't so simply because it can't be proven with contemporary science isn't always the most correct assumption.
You said, "The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence it simply makes no sense to believe in him." This illustrates what I've been trying to say for the past few comments. Atheism is a choice of the person's heart. You can envision and understand a world with no God, so that is what you believe, and you interpret science as such, namely pointing that God cannot be physically proven. To me, the world works perfectly well and makes sense with God, and I have personal experiences with God as my evidence, so it makes perfect sense to me that He exists. Because I believe that, a lack of physical evidence simply means that He chooses not to reveal Himself in that manner. So for both of us, our choice of belief or disbelief in God determines how the science is interpreted, not the other way around. Right or wrong, our positions on this topic are a result of personal choice, not science.
As for the existence of God being inferred, that's been done several times. One such instance is Intelligent Design Theory, which "holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." You can read more about it at http://www.intelligentdesign.org . Another instance is Thomas Aquinas, who came up with five logical arguments for the existence of God. You can read them at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html . Both of these are cases where scientific evidence and logic point to the possible existence of God.
Now, here's the thing...a true atheist will read those arguments and immediately dismiss them or come up with another explanation for the "intelligent designer" or the "first cause" other than God. Why? Because he chooses not to believe in God. And that decision dictates his entire world view and how he interprets the information presented to him. There are brilliant, intelligent, logic-loving scientists who are willing to believe that life was seeded here on Earth by aliens from outer space simply because they refuse to believe in God.
So, in response to God's existence being immune to logic, it isn't immune; it simply isn't a conclusion. It's an axiom. Whether or not you believe in God determines how you view the world, not the other way around.
Just as an aside, despite the burden proof not falling on disproving God, I know of two men who tried to do just that. And at the end of it, they both ended up becoming Christians. One such man is Lee Strobel, who's written several books about his journey, including The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator. The other man is Josh McDowell, who's compiled all of his research into one volume called The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Their journeys to Christ might prove enlightening as you see how they came to the beliefs they have now.
Tim:
1. Making a reasoned conclusion from available data is not an assumption.
2. Atheism is not a choice. It is a reasoned conclusion. My position is completely based in science.
3. I am well read in Aquinas. His five logical arguments for the existence of God are primitive and easily refuted. Intelligent design is one of his five proofs, and it too is easily dismissed. You see, intelligent design states that the world is so fundamentally complex, that it HAD to have been designed. The problem here is that the basis for its necessity (the universe being so complex that it demands a creator) is its greatest flaw (dismissing God, infinitely more complex than the universe, as not needing a creator). It refutes its own axiom. Ridiculous.
4. God's existence may be an axiom to you, but it is simply another logical argument to everyone who bases their conclusions on fact.
5. As I stated initially, I am not trying to persuade you. I am trying to let you understand an atheist's point of view: physical evidence and reasoned logic. I think you will find this series interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=762A731FA12BCB57&search_query=thunderf00t
Branson:
Thanks for the link. Although I think Ray has some valid points, he at times comes across a little more argumentative than I would want to be.
I think this is the point where we start to spin wheels and just agree to disagree. My belief in God is my defining point. Everything that I am and everything that I believe to be real about everything flows from assuming that the God of the Bible is real and active in my life. To you, God is an exercise in logic and reason, and short of God himself coming down and making Himself known, you don't believe He exists. And it seems there's no middle-ground where one of us can pull the other to the other side.
So, before this gets to be a long repetition of beating dead horses, and I start to sound exactly like the Bible-thwacking "Christians" that I take issue with, let me say thank you so much for the chance to talk. As I said before, this conversation has made me think hard about why I believe what I believe, and sadly that is something that just doesn't happen often enough for those who do believe in God.
I'd like to make just one more statement. Jesus said, "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened for you." (Matthew 7:7). Jesus was mainly talking about God providing for the needs of His people, but I would say that offer extends to beyond simple physical needs. If you earnestly seek after God, you will find Him. To the one who wants to know Him, He reveals Himself, and the science and the logic and everything else starts to work itself out. The issue is whether or not a man is willing to seek after God, to know Him.
So, if you're absolutely sure that there is no God to know, and nothing will make you even consider the contrary, then I applaud you for your steadfastness to your convictions--it is a lesson I wish some "Christians" would learn. But if there is ever a time that you even consider the possibility of God's existence, I promise you that if you look for Him, you will find Him.
Thanks again so much for this discussion. I hope its been as engaging and thought provoking for you as it has been for me. And feel free to comment on any of my posts that you feel a desire to. The last thing I want is the God issue to be a source of alienation for either one of us. Besides, it makes me feel good to know that somebody is actually reading my posts. ;-) Until next time, take care.
***This is pretty much where the conversation ended. I enjoyed the debate and am glad that Tim and I were able to discuss our beliefs without getting at each other's throats. A good debate every now and then is good for the soul.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Atheist...
To anyone who ever wanted to shake their fist at God and demand "Why?"
Watch this...
If you can't see the video, click here.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Watch this...
If you can't see the video, click here.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
The Importance of Memorizing Scripture...
This is why you should always be sure you know what you're saying when it comes to the Bible.
If you can't see the video, click here.
Keep Soaring,
B
If you can't see the video, click here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Monday, August 17, 2009
Freedom Church of Fort Worth.....a review
So Mandy and I are still in the long and arduous task of finding a church to join here in Fort Worth. As of yet, the LORD has not led us to a particular one. However, the church we last visited had some promising characteristics that I'd like to share.
Freedom Church of Fort Worth wasn't a huge church. First pulling into the parking lot, it looked to be a small country church who just recently got enough funds to build a new building. The first thing I noticed was three or four families walking to the front. All of them were wearing jeans, some of the children wearing shorts and flip flops. I didn't see the first tie, and button up shirts were rare. Personally, this was a plus. I'm always excited to attend a church that cares more about the hearts of its people rather than the clothes that they wear.
We walk in to the Sanctuary, and within two minutes of entering the building we're greeted by none other than the pastor of the church himself. He introduces himself, asks our names, where we're from, how we heard about the church. He brought us over to a counter in the back where the church sells coffee and muffins before the service and introduced us to his wife. After we had made all the small talk that could be made, we went and sat down. While sitting there, two other people came and introduced themselves to us. The biggest thing I noticed was that none of them wore an "usher" name tag. They came up and introduced themselves because they were all about community and we were new.
The service started, and I had to endure through it a little. The praise band was big fan of distorted electric guitars and heavy drums. Don't get me wrong, I love a good rock song here and there. But when it comes to praise and worship, I'm more of an acoustic guitar and bongo drums kinda guy. The whine of electric guitars was a little distracting to me. So I did my best to simply focus on the lyrics of the songs we sang and not so much on their arrangement, and things seemed to go well.
The pastor then got up and explained that they used "worship stations." During the last song of the worship, there were different stations that you could go to of yoru own accord. One was for you to have communion with your family....the old dip the cracker in the grape juice version. That station also had a piece of wood with a nail in it to remind you of the pain Jesus endured on the cross. A second station was for prayer, where you could write down a prayer request and light a candle to represent that request, or you could go to pray for the requests that were already written down. And finally, a station in the back and a frame with some sort of paste spread in it next to a cup full of broken tiles and another cup with sharpies. You were supposed to write a word or draw a symbol on a piece of tile that represented a time when you were broken and then place it in the paste. The idea is that eventually, there would be mosaic of all the brokenness of the church. The point is this: we're just a bunch of broken people, but when God calls us together for His work, He turns us into a beautiful work of art. All in all, it was different and took a little getting used to. Mandy wasn't a big fan of a communal cup that everyone dipped their crackers in, but aside from that the stations seemed like an interesting, if not unique, form of worship.
There was an offertory after the song, followed by a five-minute intermission before the sermon where people were allowed to get more coffee, stretch, and just walk around. Then the preaching started. No pulpit, this guy got right down in front of us and sat in a chair. The lesson wasn't so much his lecturing to us as it was a group discussion. He asked questions of the congregation and expected to be answered back. It was an interesting dynamic, and it was a little hard to follow. If it weren't for the notes in the bulletin, I don't know that I'd get the point of the message. But then again, I'm used to standard 3-point Baptist sermons with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Group discussion was something I was never good at. On a positive note, he spent a lot of time in the original languages, explaing meanings and where English and Hebrew had some issues in translation. I appreciated this a lot--it showed me that the pastor cares about study and understanding authorial intent, not just what the pastor he had told him.
(He managed to work in references to the Matrix, Star Wars, and Star Trek, in his sermon as illustrations. I was in hog heaven.)
After the sermon was an invitation time. Both the pastor and his wife waited up front to receive people, which I thought was a good idea. (If a woman is experiencing extreme pain from her ovaries, it's kinda hard to talk to a male pastor about that.) The worship stations were opened up again. After the song ended, the pastor gave announcements, we prayed, and then we were dismissed.
Before we could get out the door, the pastor ran us down again and talked with us afterward. He introduced us to his daughter (who is attending Southwestern) and son-in-law, and then we started talking about Seminary. (Turns out he graduated from Southwestern back in the 80's.) In the time it took for us to talk, three more families came and introduced themselves to us, again not wearing any usher name tags, just being friendly. By the time we were ready to leave, we probably had met nearly half the church, and they all came to us.
We talked about ministry and community. The pastor said their method of evangelism is kind of backwards. Rather than getting them saved and then welcoming them into the community, they welcome the people into the community first and love them to Christ. He gave the example of an atheist who came there two years ago and basically said, "I'm just here to check things out. Leave me alone." The pastor said fine and didn't push the guy, but made sure he felt welcomed and invited him to everything the church did. He was baptized two months ago, and it wasn't because someone beat him over the head with a Bible. It was because he saw real Christianity at work, and it made him desire Christ.
Of course, being a Seminary student, the question in the back of my mind is "do you give to the cooperative program? Will I get the discount on tuition if I join here?" I utterly loathe and hate that its something to consider, but it is. Where we end up joining will have a huge impact on how we handle our finances, so it's a point of concern. It does not dictate where we end up joining (God will provide the money one or the other), but it does affect decisions we make as a result of where we join. Thankfully, the pastor brought it up before I said anything about it. "Yeah, I really would like to give to the cooperative program, because it's a good thing and it would help on my daughter's tuition. But I can't justify giving to it for just my family. If I had about 4 or 5 families here that attended the seminary, I would definitely be open to giving to it, but right now it would just seem too self-serving." Gotta hand it to the guy for having principles. So, in the end, no this isn't a church on Southwestern's special list, but it could be.
So, all in all, there are a few things I wasn't wild about, but those things were issues of personal preference, not doctrine. And they definitely have a community-driven ministry that cares just as much about the school and houses across the street as it does some obscure village in Asia. So, while God hasn't been clear about where He's calling us yet, if He did call us to Freedom Church or Fort Worth, I'd be okay with that.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Freedom Church of Fort Worth wasn't a huge church. First pulling into the parking lot, it looked to be a small country church who just recently got enough funds to build a new building. The first thing I noticed was three or four families walking to the front. All of them were wearing jeans, some of the children wearing shorts and flip flops. I didn't see the first tie, and button up shirts were rare. Personally, this was a plus. I'm always excited to attend a church that cares more about the hearts of its people rather than the clothes that they wear.
We walk in to the Sanctuary, and within two minutes of entering the building we're greeted by none other than the pastor of the church himself. He introduces himself, asks our names, where we're from, how we heard about the church. He brought us over to a counter in the back where the church sells coffee and muffins before the service and introduced us to his wife. After we had made all the small talk that could be made, we went and sat down. While sitting there, two other people came and introduced themselves to us. The biggest thing I noticed was that none of them wore an "usher" name tag. They came up and introduced themselves because they were all about community and we were new.
The service started, and I had to endure through it a little. The praise band was big fan of distorted electric guitars and heavy drums. Don't get me wrong, I love a good rock song here and there. But when it comes to praise and worship, I'm more of an acoustic guitar and bongo drums kinda guy. The whine of electric guitars was a little distracting to me. So I did my best to simply focus on the lyrics of the songs we sang and not so much on their arrangement, and things seemed to go well.
The pastor then got up and explained that they used "worship stations." During the last song of the worship, there were different stations that you could go to of yoru own accord. One was for you to have communion with your family....the old dip the cracker in the grape juice version. That station also had a piece of wood with a nail in it to remind you of the pain Jesus endured on the cross. A second station was for prayer, where you could write down a prayer request and light a candle to represent that request, or you could go to pray for the requests that were already written down. And finally, a station in the back and a frame with some sort of paste spread in it next to a cup full of broken tiles and another cup with sharpies. You were supposed to write a word or draw a symbol on a piece of tile that represented a time when you were broken and then place it in the paste. The idea is that eventually, there would be mosaic of all the brokenness of the church. The point is this: we're just a bunch of broken people, but when God calls us together for His work, He turns us into a beautiful work of art. All in all, it was different and took a little getting used to. Mandy wasn't a big fan of a communal cup that everyone dipped their crackers in, but aside from that the stations seemed like an interesting, if not unique, form of worship.
There was an offertory after the song, followed by a five-minute intermission before the sermon where people were allowed to get more coffee, stretch, and just walk around. Then the preaching started. No pulpit, this guy got right down in front of us and sat in a chair. The lesson wasn't so much his lecturing to us as it was a group discussion. He asked questions of the congregation and expected to be answered back. It was an interesting dynamic, and it was a little hard to follow. If it weren't for the notes in the bulletin, I don't know that I'd get the point of the message. But then again, I'm used to standard 3-point Baptist sermons with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Group discussion was something I was never good at. On a positive note, he spent a lot of time in the original languages, explaing meanings and where English and Hebrew had some issues in translation. I appreciated this a lot--it showed me that the pastor cares about study and understanding authorial intent, not just what the pastor he had told him.
(He managed to work in references to the Matrix, Star Wars, and Star Trek, in his sermon as illustrations. I was in hog heaven.)
After the sermon was an invitation time. Both the pastor and his wife waited up front to receive people, which I thought was a good idea. (If a woman is experiencing extreme pain from her ovaries, it's kinda hard to talk to a male pastor about that.) The worship stations were opened up again. After the song ended, the pastor gave announcements, we prayed, and then we were dismissed.
Before we could get out the door, the pastor ran us down again and talked with us afterward. He introduced us to his daughter (who is attending Southwestern) and son-in-law, and then we started talking about Seminary. (Turns out he graduated from Southwestern back in the 80's.) In the time it took for us to talk, three more families came and introduced themselves to us, again not wearing any usher name tags, just being friendly. By the time we were ready to leave, we probably had met nearly half the church, and they all came to us.
We talked about ministry and community. The pastor said their method of evangelism is kind of backwards. Rather than getting them saved and then welcoming them into the community, they welcome the people into the community first and love them to Christ. He gave the example of an atheist who came there two years ago and basically said, "I'm just here to check things out. Leave me alone." The pastor said fine and didn't push the guy, but made sure he felt welcomed and invited him to everything the church did. He was baptized two months ago, and it wasn't because someone beat him over the head with a Bible. It was because he saw real Christianity at work, and it made him desire Christ.
Of course, being a Seminary student, the question in the back of my mind is "do you give to the cooperative program? Will I get the discount on tuition if I join here?" I utterly loathe and hate that its something to consider, but it is. Where we end up joining will have a huge impact on how we handle our finances, so it's a point of concern. It does not dictate where we end up joining (God will provide the money one or the other), but it does affect decisions we make as a result of where we join. Thankfully, the pastor brought it up before I said anything about it. "Yeah, I really would like to give to the cooperative program, because it's a good thing and it would help on my daughter's tuition. But I can't justify giving to it for just my family. If I had about 4 or 5 families here that attended the seminary, I would definitely be open to giving to it, but right now it would just seem too self-serving." Gotta hand it to the guy for having principles. So, in the end, no this isn't a church on Southwestern's special list, but it could be.
So, all in all, there are a few things I wasn't wild about, but those things were issues of personal preference, not doctrine. And they definitely have a community-driven ministry that cares just as much about the school and houses across the street as it does some obscure village in Asia. So, while God hasn't been clear about where He's calling us yet, if He did call us to Freedom Church or Fort Worth, I'd be okay with that.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Friday, August 14, 2009
Everything by Lifehouse
I'm not one to cry at movies or dramas, but this one struck me hard. My thanks to Lauren for sharing it with us.
Keep Soaring,
B
Keep Soaring,
B
Friday, August 7, 2009
Update on the life and times of the Boykins....
So we've been in Fort Worth for just over two months now. We're finally starting to find a place for everything so that we don't have boxes packed ceiling high everywhere. The only thing really left to unpack is a few boxes of pictures here and there. But I'm not really worried about that....Mandy already has the big stuff up.
I start Seminary in a few weeks. Had a very weak moment yesterday. I opened up my recently purchased Greek New Testament and saw what looked to my mind to be chicken scratch scribbled across the page. I panicked, quite certain that there was no way I could handle this. Thankfully, Mandy was there. And after holding me a little while, she helped me get a start by working with me on memorizing the Greek Alphabet:
Get ready....GO!!! Alpha beta gamma delta zeta eta theta iota kappa lamda mu nu xi omicron pi rho sigma tau phi chi psi omega!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait let me check.......darnit!! Forgot Epsilon......ah well.....work in progress.
Mandy continues her journey as nurse at Plaza Medical Center. It's weighing on her a little. The past few days she's worked, she's had to stay an hour over to get all her work done. I shutter to think what kind of job has so much to do that a 12 hour shift isn't long enough to do everything. The woman is a warrior. She's hard on herself right now, but with time she's gonna get better at this. I'd ask that you pray for strength and endurance for her as she tries to do everything. And confidence, too. She needs to see herself as her Father in Heaven sees her, not as her Accuser would have her be seen.
In-laws are stopping in on their trip home from Canada tomorrow. Glad they had fun and that they made it back safe. Btw, Skype is an extremely fun and cheap way to communicate with friends and loved ones far away. Check it out.
Keep praying for the family of Flint Smith. The funeral for his brother was this week, though I'm sure the sting of his death remains. Pray for peace for the family and strength for Flint.
Working on a new project called Faith Noir. As Dustin so adequately put it, "It's like Sin City meets The Shack." It's my first venture into crime comics, so it'll be interesting.
Not much on the teaching side in this post....but regardless, feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
I start Seminary in a few weeks. Had a very weak moment yesterday. I opened up my recently purchased Greek New Testament and saw what looked to my mind to be chicken scratch scribbled across the page. I panicked, quite certain that there was no way I could handle this. Thankfully, Mandy was there. And after holding me a little while, she helped me get a start by working with me on memorizing the Greek Alphabet:
Get ready....GO!!! Alpha beta gamma delta zeta eta theta iota kappa lamda mu nu xi omicron pi rho sigma tau phi chi psi omega!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait let me check.......darnit!! Forgot Epsilon......ah well.....work in progress.
Mandy continues her journey as nurse at Plaza Medical Center. It's weighing on her a little. The past few days she's worked, she's had to stay an hour over to get all her work done. I shutter to think what kind of job has so much to do that a 12 hour shift isn't long enough to do everything. The woman is a warrior. She's hard on herself right now, but with time she's gonna get better at this. I'd ask that you pray for strength and endurance for her as she tries to do everything. And confidence, too. She needs to see herself as her Father in Heaven sees her, not as her Accuser would have her be seen.
In-laws are stopping in on their trip home from Canada tomorrow. Glad they had fun and that they made it back safe. Btw, Skype is an extremely fun and cheap way to communicate with friends and loved ones far away. Check it out.
Keep praying for the family of Flint Smith. The funeral for his brother was this week, though I'm sure the sting of his death remains. Pray for peace for the family and strength for Flint.
Working on a new project called Faith Noir. As Dustin so adequately put it, "It's like Sin City meets The Shack." It's my first venture into crime comics, so it'll be interesting.
Not much on the teaching side in this post....but regardless, feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Pray for Flint Smith....
Flint Smith is a guy from my old lifegroup at First West in West Monroe. As I type this message, he and his parents are making a long trek to Houston from West Monroe to see his now-dead brother. They started while he was still alive, hoping to make it there before he passed. They didn't.
I ask that you pray for comfort and safety as they travel. It must be emotionally exhausting to have to make so far of a drive knowing something horrible is waiting for you on the other end of it. Flint is a strong man with a heart for the LORD like none other. He is going to need a lot of support now. Please send it to him through your prayers.
When I started this blog, I promised that I wouldn't sugar coat, that I would always be open and honest about what I believed and about what the Bible says. And the Bible says that regardless of circumstances, God is good. Even when He doesn't give us the answer we want, God is good.
And I believe that, I really do. All of the teaching I've had, all of the men I have sat under and learned from....they all have ingrained that into my soul, to the point that even in the wildest of rages I cannot help but admit that God is good.
I know you are good. Every piece of my heart that now breaks for my brother Flint knows that. And in this time of sorrow for him, you are the only sure thing that he has. So, please, be there for him. He's making a journey now that a weaker man could not do. Go with him, hold him like a father holds his child, and speak to him the words that will give him strength for the days ahead. Carry him, as you have carried others before. Give him the grace he needs to endure this storm.
And where our futile minds cannot make sense of these things that you have allowed to happen, give us the faith to trust in what we cannot understand.
Brothers and sisters, what prayers you may utter tonight, let them speak of Flint Smith and his family. This titan of faith now walks on shaken ground, and more than anything he needs his God and his spiritual family. God is with him already. Let us be with him, too.
Keep Soaring,
B
I ask that you pray for comfort and safety as they travel. It must be emotionally exhausting to have to make so far of a drive knowing something horrible is waiting for you on the other end of it. Flint is a strong man with a heart for the LORD like none other. He is going to need a lot of support now. Please send it to him through your prayers.
When I started this blog, I promised that I wouldn't sugar coat, that I would always be open and honest about what I believed and about what the Bible says. And the Bible says that regardless of circumstances, God is good. Even when He doesn't give us the answer we want, God is good.
And I believe that, I really do. All of the teaching I've had, all of the men I have sat under and learned from....they all have ingrained that into my soul, to the point that even in the wildest of rages I cannot help but admit that God is good.
I know you are good. Every piece of my heart that now breaks for my brother Flint knows that. And in this time of sorrow for him, you are the only sure thing that he has. So, please, be there for him. He's making a journey now that a weaker man could not do. Go with him, hold him like a father holds his child, and speak to him the words that will give him strength for the days ahead. Carry him, as you have carried others before. Give him the grace he needs to endure this storm.
And where our futile minds cannot make sense of these things that you have allowed to happen, give us the faith to trust in what we cannot understand.
Brothers and sisters, what prayers you may utter tonight, let them speak of Flint Smith and his family. This titan of faith now walks on shaken ground, and more than anything he needs his God and his spiritual family. God is with him already. Let us be with him, too.
Keep Soaring,
B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)