Another Article I Did On Helium, This Time On The Question,"Who Created God?"

It is clearly evident to me that many people still seem to struggle with this, to me, largely logically primordial question, “If God Created Everything, Who Created God?” Upon reading many of the articles posted about this topic, it also is clearly evident to me that few (if any) of those who wrote upon this topic have really performed actual research or deep analysis on such a problem’s history, and more than that, its actual logical bearings on the contingency of a creator for the universe, or for the purposes of this question “him”-self. I notice some of the top writers going so far as to say that, “there is currently no answer to this question.” –such a supposition I know to be completely ignorant of the last two thousand years of Western Philosophy and theology as we know it; for such a question has long since been dealt with and abandoned by those whose aim is to disprove a divine existence in the first place. Many have made much stronger attempts at disproving such a being via the Problem of Evil.

Before delving too far into this subject matter; however, I would first allow for all readers to know my own intentions and convictions. I find this necessary for my belief in the freedom of man in his affairs, and also to not waste the time of some individuals who do not care to consider the arguments of one from a different perspective. I am a Christian who studies problems like this every day and minute of my life as I study world religion and philosophy in school. I don’t go to a Christian University, but rather a secular school. I am a former atheist and not ignorantly so as if I somehow intellectually “lost” a battle with Christianity but rather I consider myself to be intellectually honest, as I encourage all to do. MOST importantly of all, I am a NOBODY who is easily shown up by REAL theologians who have something beyond an elementary education such as mine.

The question of whether God, in the Western Christian sense (as I’m certain that is the “God” whom this question is directed towards), was created or not is absurd logically. The question along with many others I have noticed in related articles about this such as, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?” (therefore nullifying his omniscience), are logically systemically contradictory. They both rely on lethally erroneous assumptions that cause the very questions, not even the arguments, to fall apart. As I am aware of the specific audience I am writing to, I will restrict my answers and contemplations to the Judeo-Christian God of the Israelites; a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. My arguments via physics will adhere to current understandings of the physical world via Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, most of my arguments and reasoning will remain philosophical as that’s what everyone seems to “want.”

“If God Created Everything, Who Created God?”

The answer to this question will demand several definitions about the nature of inherent qualities that the universe has. Some of you philosophy buffs out there may notice that this article will reflect upon certain characteristics of arguments for the existence of God, most notably one (of the many) versions of the Cosmological Argument. From what modern physics has revealed about the universe as we know it today, there was a beginning –the Big Bang some fourteen odd billion years ago. There were two very important things that began with the Big Bang: space and time, respectively. We know that it is a fundamental law of physics that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and yet we have a beginning whereby matter exploded from nothing into existence simultaneously with time. Now don’t get too excited I’m not saying that this alone is any sort of proof for the existence of God, but rather it demonstrates that the laws of physics needed to be and were broken in order for space and time to erupt into existence in the first place.

Time for the fun part, if one attempts to “retrodict” to a “point before” the Big Bang, than something rather unscrupulous is being suggested. That is to say things “happen” or “happened” BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. To say that something has been created necessitates the existence of time as a necessary entity. “I exercised at the gym today.” –is a logically coherent conjecture. To ask, “If God Created Everything, Who Created God?” is logically inconsistent. Something that I feel that is important to note at this point is that the question that we are asking already assumes that (a) God exists. To argue about whether or not any God was necessary for any of this is an entirely different conversation in its own right –a problem which I feel is much more worthy than this in the first place. Our current dilemma; however, is perhaps best articulated via logical argument, a basic form goes something like this:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

This is a basic form of the Cosmological Argument from Contingency. The distinguishing factor that is relevant to this conversation is whether or not God would fall into the category of a contingent being or a necessary being. That is, would his existence require explanation (who created Him?) or if it begins with Him. The point of the discussion above about time was to articulate that necessity ends and contingency begins with the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang. Because phenomena occur in time, and time did not “exist” “prior to” the Big Bang, then the question of God’s contingency is easily smashed. God is the necessary being with which the universe is contingent upon, in this argument.

Therefore, as the issue of time has been clarified, the issue of whether or not God could have had a creator is absurd outright. TIME TIME TIME, it’s all about time. I’m sure you’ve heard enough of it; however, it is entirely necessary for some to hear. It is understandably difficult to remove one’s perspective from that of time, or be it impossible. However, one must not let that difficulty extend to something that is eternal (Latin for “no time”).

I am a Christian with no degree in anything, a nobody; just some twenty year old kid that goes to church in some small hick town in the mid-west United States. The arguments above are no “end-all” argument for God’s existence, but I think that perhaps it is for the question that we have asked in regards to “His creator.” I’m not the type of Christian who will cram Jesus down your throat the first chance that I get because that is not what being a Christian is about. It’s about being loyal to the truth, and showing love to people. Unfortunately all that is seen of the contemporary American Christian is the ignorant, intolerant, and largely inconsiderate undereducated, misinformed, illogical, irrational, hypocritical, charismatic, and practically dangerous individuals roaming about. Sad to say there are some that are like that and I’m afraid that they’ve just missed the point. They were meant to be the light of the world and have become one of the greatest stumbling blocks for all of mankind.

Even apart from our religious/spiritual affiliations I feel that it is necessary for us to be loyal to the truth and to honesty with one another. The purpose of this article is not so much to argue about what I still consider a layperson’s problem with the philosophy of religion, but rather to present the perspective that it is an intellectually reputable position to be a believer in God, not just in the Judeo-Christian God, but the mere concept of a creator.

If one can bring themselves to the place whereby the realization occurs that theism is a reasonable position, then at least an atheist could be brought to agnosticism. Everyone is an agnostic. Everyone. That is because epistemologically there is not a possible means with which to derive conclusive evidence amounting in the favor or either the theist or the atheist. It is with that fact in mind that one should be honest and maintain the integrity of a true student of academic skepticism. Don’t be sold anything, but rather through conviction and reason, one ought to bring themselves to the place where the head and the heart meet, because that is where the essence of being human is truly found.

-Στεφανος Άρρις

On My Grievances For Worship Music...

I recently have been experiencing a dilemma from my musical endeavors, as well as my perceptions on music-worship in particular. I constantly find myself (frankly) annoyed at Christian music for its monotony, lack of creativity, and most of all how I feel about what the role of that music is supposed to be. When I say monotony, I mean to communicate just what you all have, that it all sounds the same.

I oftentimes find my opinion aligning with that of Neil, that is, it must be insulting to an Almighty Being for such uncreative music to have been offered by a being of such greater potential. I think that we are better than G, D, C, (refrain) compositions, or are we? Some people just aren’t creative. Maybe those people are creating the best that they can. I don’t know, do you? There is a great struggle inside of me that begs the question of whether or not I am in the right place. Perhaps my understanding of the function of worship music is not where it needs to be.

Scripture tells us that the LORD delights in our song, but certainly HE expects the act of worship to be the most powerful, expressive, and humble act of our being. Maybe that is presumptuous. It probably is. Is the way that I judge music (especially worship music) even appropriate? With secular music, I feel as though I have the right and privilege of providing a social, creative, and personal critique upon it. On the other hand, is worship music even to be graded by the same standards? Pastors seem to tell me that it is the message that is important, that our singing is to be as a prayer to the LORD. I believe that is true; however, with me personally whenever I hear worship music I feel a strange, violating, almost haunting sense of distraction from the message of worship and find myself analyzing the music and placing scrutiny upon it. Who am I to do such a thing? I am belittling a faithful person’s worship to the LORD as being inferior, insufficient, even insulting when I fail to ask if what they are doing has a scriptural basis; or more than that IF WHAT I AM DOING EVEN HAS A SCRIPTURAL BASIS.

I have this feeling of not being able to fully communicate how I feel about the subject. Recently in church, I confronted my pastor about this issue that I’m having because it really has, does, and probably will continue to bother me until I resolve this problem within myself. I remember the passage that tells us that when we pray we are to, “let our words be few.” I wonder whether or not the simplicity of the music is necessary for the sake of worship. For me, it might be-I’m not certain yet. Maybe it is necessary for the masses as they would not have the ability to sing along to a song written in a 7/4 verse ending with a perfect cadence transitioning into a 13/8 chorus all the while making way to a free-time bridge. It’s simply not possible. I think that it is popular to have a 4/4 song in a simple major key because it is necessary for the large majority of the culture. They can interact with it much easier than a song that is more complicated like some songs written by my past band, Mayday!

This conflict eats me alive during every Sunday service or every time I turn on the radio hoping to find a good sermon on WFCJ (93.7 FM) and come to find a three hour period of worship music. I want to criticize the music for its lack of progressivism creatively but I am nearing the conclusion that I don’t have a place in doing that. However; that is not to say that I don’t think that individuals gifted with creative ability and aspirations shouldn’t pursue those abilities. I believe that individuals such as my close friends Neil, Kevin, T.j., and myself need to provide that option for people with a greater yearning for creative outlets out of commandment (“…do all that you do to the glory of God.”). The variety needs to be, and should be there.

Like Neil has outlined in his blog, he as well as all of us need to be reminded of just who all of this belongs to, HIM. None of this belongs to us; we are merely stewards of our abilities and our possessions for HIM as well as for others. What is ours now will pass on to another when we die, no matter how much less “worthy” they may be having not worked for the fortune that they inherit. We need to be willing and active in lifting up everything that we have and do to God. Like Neil, I find myself periled by the fact that I am so reluctant to give up that piece of “my” creative ability. In instances such as this, people have historically given such things up if they interfere with their ability to do all that they do to HIS glory. That is, if something causes them to stumble, to remove it from themselves. Sometimes I wish that I could do that, but other (and most) times I find myself praying for and trying to simply “gain the strength” to cope with this inadequacy. I think, “Why can’t I just suck it up and get strong enough so that this won’t be a problem?” –as if giving up is the easy way out. MAYBE SOMETIMES IT’S THE NECESSARY AND SAFE WAY OUT. Maybe it works for some and others are not called to do that, I don’t know. I can’t even talk about it, nor do I even really know what I am talking about.

Too many times; however, I find that those who are in positions of influence (musically) abuse that privilege and become the beast that they so thought that they fought to overcome. That is, that a lot of times even Christian musicians use their musical talent and status publicly to get attention, recognition –things of the world for that matter. Many musicians, including myself, like to look cool on stage having everybody’s eyes fixated upon them. I like it because it feels good, recognition. It is sinful; it is wrong. I sometimes wonder if maybe that was why Neil was reluctant to play out with Mayday! He had played out so many times that it didn’t mean anything any longer. Like Solomon in a sense, he recognized the vanity of it all, I suppose. This brings me to my greatest peeve in Christian music today, the Christian metal scene.

I am staunchly convinced that there is absolutely nothing glorifying to God about this music. Every inch of it is produced from the ego seeking recognition and even expressing and oftentimes advocating sin. My church has hosted many of these concerts because (and it so greatly grieves me that I could never describe it) it is what the youth these days want. They want to live in a culture of indulgence being permissive and tolerant of all things. Many of the groups that we hosted were encouraging violent mosh pits in the very sanctuary. Granted, I don’t feel any particular sense of holiness about a building mind you; however, in an environment and in particular an event geared at an outreach to the youth to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to me repulsive. Perhaps I’m wrong for thinking that; I probably am. It accomplished exactly what an outreach is geared towards, getting non-believers into an environment in which the Gospel can be presented. The musicians most of the time are exalting themselves, not God; however, it says in scripture that God works in all things for the good of those that believe in HIM. Maybe those selfish musicians do serve a purpose. I just feel really uncomfortable about it for whatever reason. This is how I feel even if it is not logically sound.

I suppose it bothers me not because the motives of these bands are selfish and for vain things, but rather for the reason that they profess that they are Christian bands which in my opinion tarnish the name of Christianity. Those who encounter Christianity may remember this band and think of them, only adding to layers of preconceived inconsistencies within the Christian faith and lifestyle. That’s probably not entirely true, but nonetheless, it is now a face that Christianity has and will have to answer to. Like I said earlier, God works in all things for the greatest good of those who believe in HIM; however, does that put me in the wrong for feeling offended because of the now shared title that I have with these hypocrites? I don’t know. I’m a man without answers.

I think that they way things are may be for the best (as much as I may not agree with them). The simple, horribly uncreative, monotonous music created by the Christian pop music culture is “working” for the masses. For those that have a greater yearning or need for creativity, the options are out there. For all of the hypocrites within the Christian music scene, God will use them anyways. What they do cannot tarnish whatever plan that God has. What is necessary though, is the focus. Just as when Peter encountered Jesus walking on the lake he only plunged into the waters after his eyes became unfixed from Jesus. No matter what we do or how we feel, we need to place our trust in him; take our burdens and leave them at the cross, lift up everything that we have to HIM, and never lose sight of HIM.

I like so many others really do need to forget myself and pick up my cross and follow HIM, though I often fail. Thank God that I have grace, though I don’t deserve it. In fact, I so undeserve it that I cannot even conceive of why HE would ever give it to me in the first place. I’m all the more grieved by my sins for the suffering endured on the cross in my stead. I feel grieved by my musical conviction, for it is a sin in that I stumble because of it. I judge the musical prayers of others by placing value upon it and the type of music I would like to make in HIS name, I fear, would not be totally to HIS glory. Like I said, we must never lose sight of Christ, what HE has done for us, and what HE is doing for us every minute of every day –allowing the Spirit to convict us of sin and to forgive us through grace, justifying us through faith.

I leave this post without an answer or an opinion about it other than it troubles me, it grieves me, and most of all it reminds me of just how unworthy I am of HIS forgiveness. Praise be to God.

In Christ,
Στεφανος Άρρις

A Disappointed Rant

What has happened to the atheist movement? There used to be a day when intellectual integrity, sound logic, philosophy and reason dominated academia. We find ourselves now in a world of atheists that now buy into the obscurities of the Zeitgeist Movie, and The God Delusion, and The God Who Wasn't There. Walk into any classroom of serious philosophy students and all will shun such works for the intellectual failure that they are. Propaganda, perversion, and control. The very things that these films and books profess they use to indoctrinate the masses. Flemming encourages all to escape indoctrination when people have succumbed to his pitiful aim to fight against God.

Does anybody even check the references of any of those films or books anymore? The two films I noted are all based on the Christ myth which is possibly the least respected intellectual position in modern scholarship. In my opinion, Dawkins did himself a great disservice by making an appearance in Flemming's film. To even associate one's self with Flemming brings into question just how respectful their attempts to antagonize God really are.

Notice that not a single Christian scholar or respectable Christian protagonist is consulted in the film. Who will win do you think? An atheist scholar (not even a very good one at that) or a street Christian who (I apologize for this) doesn't have a clue about what it is that they believe in and what it is that they are asserting intellectually when they say that there is a God; more than that, to say that He even came down in bodily form and dwelt among us. It's a disgrace, and a travesty to which I know Flemming and the creators of Zeitgeist will never admit. This is largely because they honestly believe what it is that they are asserting, but also because they are idiots.

Richard Dawkins was recently outraged by a university that refused to include his contributions to atheism on a course for students on atheism because there were so many more respectable atheists in history than he. They argued that much greater intellectually formidable atheists would be reviewed such as Sartre, Kant, etc. as he stood by outraged that he was not compared with them. What arrogance is this?

Having been an atheist at an earlier point in my life I can't help but feel depressed that I will have to waste my time dealing with such intellectually repulsive arguments as those of Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Dennett, and Hitchens. It's a fad, and a trend (I hope and pray) that will someday stop once another great atheist of our modern era silences them all with a new breathtaking argument for theists the world over to face.

What many fail to realize is that it is intellectually reputable to be a Christian. Many run from Him out of weakness, though certainly they will say the opposite; that is that they walk away out of strength, that they no longer need the mythologies of an ancient and un-evolved man with which to cope with the existential burdens of our universe. However, I tell you that it is the fool who says this in their heart and believes these things. The fool assumes that he might brave the seas and swim without the lifeboat that Christ has provided for us. This wage is sin, and it leads to death.

Sin, the arrogance of man to assume that he can brave the storm; he certainly will drown from his own iniquity.

I believe that the truth will set you free. I am sure that you believe that too; we all do. I believe that as a category it exists, truth. There is also a category that I believe exists, that is untruth. There is much untruth to be sorted through out there, even in the midst of the church. Politics, propaganda, personal agenda it is all vain. Truth is an imperative that will outlast all things. You think and therefore you are, so too truth exists and will face us all. The brevity of life; the vanity of things; the haunting uncertainty of death.

I apologize for all the rubbish; the media, Christians who live unbiblically yet publically for all to see and mock, the man who is intellectually dishonest and produces a film to free a generation of believers from the shackles of belief only to lock them again into the despair and death that will come from untruth.

Be a skeptic, don't believe everything that you hear, read, and even think. Be reasonable, genuine, and most importantly of all HONEST. We are most often dishonest with ourselves to make our existence more palatable. Let it be known and seen that such a disposition is vain and without reward. Just look to the parent who became an alcoholic and still searches life for meaning when they have really lost everything. Look to those who scour the earth fighting their way to the financial summit only to find out that it is a lonely place, still haunted with desire. There is no hope in this world. A season comes and a season goes only to remind you that regardless of what you do, you will die anyways. No matter what fortune your life amounts to, it will be inherited by someone who has not worked for it and who is less capable than you. It is of no consequence what you become; you will meet the same fate as all men, death.

One may say this isn't perhaps so depressing as we have this life to look forward to and that life isn't intended to live in despair. I agree. Not for the same reason as the atheist; however. Why would one care if someone who has not labored inherits your fortunes? Why should you or anyone care whether or not you have contributed anything to the world? You will be dead, and what becomes of things afterward would be non-consequential anyways. I would argue that it does matter, just as the sensible atheist would for the simple virtue and reason that what it is that you do invariably affects everyone else.

My only derivation to this is that there is also a God to whom we are accountable who has demonstrated such and given warning so that we might not fall because of sin just as the first of mankind did. However, I implore you to not be a fool. Search your heart, your wit, and your very essence and find what it is that is truth; NOT what is TRUE TO YOU, but rather what is true categorically, imperatively, what exists apart from you. I tell you that it is the arrogant and the fool that insists that truth is subjective, that there is a reality special to each and every one of us, NO. These people will stand judgment as well, yes; even the fool who claims to be a Christian and insists that there is such a thing as their own spiritual reality. Their "truth" will perish with them; truth is everlasting and will survive even to the end of time.

Proverbs 14 tells us:

1The wise woman builds her house,
But the foolish tears it down with her own hands.
2He who walks in his uprightness fears the LORD,
But he who is devious in his ways despises Him.
3In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back,
But the lips of the wise will protect them.
4Where no oxen are, the manger is clean,
But much revenue comes by the strength of the ox.
5A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness utters lies.
6A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,
But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.
7Leave the presence of a fool,
Or you will not discern words of knowledge.
8The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way,
But the foolishness of fools is deceit.
9Fools mock at sin,
But among the upright there is good will.
10THE HEART KNOWS ITS OWN BITTERNESS,
And a stranger does not share its joy.
11The house of the wicked will be destroyed,
But the tent of the upright will flourish.
12THERE IS A WAY WHICH SEEMS RIGHT TO A MAN,
BUT ITS END IS THE WAY OF DEATH.
13Even in laughter the heart may be in pain,
And the end of joy may be grief.
14The backslider in heart will have his fill of his own ways,
But a good man will be satisfied with his.
15THE NAIVE BELIEVES EVERYTHING,
BUT THE SENSIBLE MAN CONSIDERS HIS STEPS.
16A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil,
But a fool is arrogant and careless.
17A quick-tempered man acts foolishly,
And a man of evil devices is hated.
18The naive inherit foolishness,
But the sensible are crowned with knowledge.
19The evil will bow down before the good,
And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.
20The poor is hated even by his neighbor,
But those who love the rich are many.
21He who despises his neighbor sins,
But happy is he who is gracious to the poor.
22Will they not go astray who devise evil?
But kindness and truth will be to those who devise good.
23In all labor there is profit,
But mere talk leads only to poverty.
24The crown of the wise is their riches,
But the folly of fools is foolishness.
25A truthful witness saves lives,
But he who utters lies is treacherous.
26In the fear of the LORD there is strong confidence,
And his children will have refuge.
27The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life,
That one may avoid the snares of death.
28In a multitude of people is a king's glory,
But in the dearth of people is a prince's ruin.
29He who is slow to anger has great understanding,
But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.
30A tranquil heart is life to the body,
But passion is rottenness to the bones.
31He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker,
But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.
32The wicked is thrust down by his wrongdoing,
But the righteous has a refuge when he dies.
33Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding,
But in the hearts of fools it is made known.
34Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a disgrace to any people.
35THE KING'S FAVOR IS TOWARD A SERVANT WHO ACTS
WISELY,
BUT HIS ANGER IS TOWARD HIM WHO ACTS SHAMEFULLY.

If you want to see the rest, see Proverbs chapters ten through eighteen.

It is not the foolish who thrive in the eyes of God, but the wise. The likes of the New Atheists, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Dennett, and Hitchens will fade into the past, forgotten (I pray). The reputable philosophies of a forgotten age will one day resurface and be given the attention of an intellectually starved academia ravaged by the likes of boundless masquerades of the truth. This “fad” so perfectly characterized by Keith Breeze is, “…so ironic it’s painful, so hip it’s almost passé.”

You yourself know the iniquity of humanity. You have seen the evil deeds of man. Dishonesty, theft, sexual objectification, jealousy, dissentions, drunkenness, envying, carousing, and worse; mankind is a selfish creature by nature. All these things are vanity and lead to shame, guilt, and ultimately death. The Good News is that in spite of it all, our failures, iniquity, and shortcomings is that God has given you a way out; the gift of salvation and freedom in his Son Jesus Christ with grace and justification in faith.

Faith, so commonly a scarcely trodden upon word; it is the summation of your impressions. It is what you believe about the world around you. Faith is not a magical, mystical thing that you see in fairy tales but rather a certainty. Cogito ergo sum. I have faith that I exist, just as I have faith that God exists.

In Christ,

Στεφανος Άρρις

A Clever Brook

A clever brook finds its way,
winds, combs,
to the end of all things

To the end-
to the place where the air grows cold , promising
promising a surprise, all trivial, all familiar

This is the fate of all things,
and yet, the clever mind their steps
careful for the loss of but a drop

A drop to those along the way, parched
thirsty in the ways of all things mortal
a mortal thirst, which does threaten all annoy

It is the thirst which drives the currents,
pushes the selfish,
drags the selfless,

To the place where the night is dark, suspicious
suspicious of a theft, a theft of me,
screaming for those of the current, no mind for the cold air, the suspicious night

The clever brook minds its shores
as tree and man alike do conspire
O' the wondrous things, their part could acquire

As all do thirst, all too do drink
drop by drop, a mortal and endless crave
day and night betray, another day to thirst again

The clever brook sees it all,
its wit, does embrace the night,
its spirit, embraces the beating sun

Skillful waters wind and comb,
they become an end, a different end,
embracing the beating sun

Beating upon the waters until, no more
alas, not a drop left to drink,
the clever brook has become the fool

The fool that knows-
that it is better to have dried up,
than ever to have flowed at all.

5 January, 2009

"Can God and Darwinism Coexist?" an article I did on Helium.com

Throughout much of the modern media today, both the extremes of atheistic evolution and young earth creationism have found the spotlight. As our science has developed over the centuries, the piercing question of, "Is there really something out there?" has continued to plague us. Such developments include the publishing of the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin in 1859 and the development of Gregor Mendel's Laws of Inheritance just a few years later finally began to shed some light on this question much to the dismay of the church.

In lieu to the more pertinent question at hand, "Can God and Darwinism coexist?" we must determine a few things if we are to have a successful "experiment in logic and science" at all. The questions that we have are, "What God are we talking about? The God of the Jews, and the Christians? Perhaps Allah of the Muslims?" We could even be referring to the Bhagavn of the Hindus. I think this question would be most objectively argued from the perspective of a "model deity" meaning the general sort of "God" concept that all faiths share in some fundamental way with whom they attribute the creation of the universe and the state of affairs and relationships between that deity and man. However, this particular inquiry is to some degree loaded to bring the God of the Jews and the Christians, Yahweh, into the spotlight. The next set of questions that we have must define what we mean when we say "Darwinism." Certainly we are not to place ourselves in nineteenth century Europe and debate about the issues plaguing both the Darwanists and the Theists of that day; no, we are indeed talking about whether or not the God of the Bible could possible coexist with the modern theories of evolution as recognized today.

To make sure that we cover all bases, I'm first going to discuss the two extremes that we often hear about in the media. The first of which being that of young earth creationism, the second being atheistic evolutionism.

"Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets." This transliteration of Hebrew contained in Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth." He went on to say, "Vayomer Elohim na'aseh adam betsalmenu kidemutenu veyirdu bidegat hayam uve'of hashamayim uvabehemah uvechol-ha'arets uvechol-haremes haromes al-ha'arets. Vayivra Elohim et-ha'adam betsalmo betselem Elohim bara oto zachar unekevah bara otam. Vayevarech otam Elohim vayomer lahem Elohim peru urevu umil'u et-ha'arets vechiveshuha uredu bidegat hayam uve'of hashamayim uvechol-chayah haromeset al-ha'arets." (Genesis 1:26-28) This was the concerning the first account of the creation of man. Many passages such as these tell of a creation that took place in six "days" (I place quotes around days because of the various opinions surrounding the translation of the Hebrew word for day, yom, as potentially being translated as an undefined period of time or era), and picks up with the story of Adam and Eve leading all the way through to the story of Moses and the Patriarchs. As there are numbered lifespans ascribed to the various people in the Genesis account, many Christians who subscribe to the very literal interpretation of Genesis and thusly young earth creationism would testify that Genesis tells us that man, the earth, and the universe for that matter are approximately six thousand years old. This is how we will define "young earth creationism."

As we come to atheistic evolutionism, to be fair, we do not restrict ourselves to just this field of science. For the purposes of this particular discussion we will encompass both the field of evolution, and the commonly accepted Big Bang Theory so that we might level the playing field in regards to time. Though there is no scientific consensus on the origins of life (though there are proposals), I do not deny that the science of tomorrow will only further develop the theory of evolution; in this way we will give evolution the benefit of the doubt. So too with modern physics, we will entrust that later developments in physics will allot for our present lack of understanding in the mechanics regarding the initial moments after the Big Bang.

It first should be reminded of us that there are a great many Christians, and some Jews that also adhere to another particular "literal" translation of Genesis relating back to the Hebrew word, "yom", we discussed earlier. Many make an attempt to reconcile the "literal" translation of "yom" as being "and undefined period of time; or era" with that of the precepts of evolution current theories about the origins of the universe. This, in a sense, would allow for some sort of reconciliation with these two vastly different doctrines. This explanation by some modern Christians, coupled with a similar argument recounted and summarized by another author on Helium, Eric Lannak, details of a dialogue between man and God about the "creation event." The dialogue, in a somewhat humorous manner, reminds us that mankind did not always have the understanding of science that we have today, and that, consequently, such an explanation of evolution and the creation of the universe (if it matched those current theories of evolution and astronomy) would make little sense to a man of prehistoric cultural foundation. This is important to note in our discussion, not that some individuals interpreted Genesis in any particular way, but that man had little scientific knowledge between 500 and 1000 BCE (when Genesis is believed to have been written and reached its final form).

A noted Hebrew scholar, Dr. Ting Wang (a professor of Biblical Hebrew at Stanford University in California) would argue that Genesis "means what it says" and that the earth, and the universe are indeed told by Genesis to be 6,000 years old. He gives a compelling argument that one should interpret "yom" as meaning "day" and not "an undefined period of time or era" as it is modified by a number and is contextually surrounded by the descriptive terms of having an evening and morning. Others aside from him would argree that Genesis indeed "says what it means", meaning, that though Genesis recounts its events as "days" that the style of authorship, much like other pieces of literature and creation tales of the time were written allegorically or even poetically. Though Wang disagrees with this notion as an explanation, many scholars hold firm on both sides of the fence.

As our question bears further down upon us we really do have to ask, "Does the Book of Genesis really recount events describing evolution and the Big Bang, or are we simply trying to fill in the "gaps" of the Bible with scientific data of today?" This is a question perhaps best left for another time; another "yom." if you will. Something I do think is very important to all of us, however, is that as seekers of truth, we ought not fall into the politics of arguments such as these, or any for that matter, and that we analyze the data best available to us at the time and attempt to make some sort of decision for ourselves.

When it comes to creationism of any form, both "young earth" and "old earth" we have to remember that we cannot conduct any sort of scientific experiment to verify the existence of God. Whether it be the God of the Jews, the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jains, etcetera or any for that matter, we cannot provide "proof" sufficient for the scientific community. This I believe has much to do with a proposition as fallible as "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?", and that is that theists around the globe are being challenged to "prove" the existence of a supernatural being, with natural explanations. If indeed there is a God, most would agree that "He" would "exist outside" of this universe and that the mechanics with which we explain phenomena within it (physics) would become useless to us.

Something I brought to our attention earlier was that when the Book of Genesis was written, mankind had no understanding of science as we do today. Such explanations were meaningless to human beings at that time. From research too arduous to go into detail about in this article, the archaeological community is finally having a picture of the ancient world form before their eyes. They see the Sumerians emerge with a written language around 3000 BCE and the Egyptians erecting the great pyramids of the Pharaohs. Many of the great epics of history were recorded from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Enuma Elish. The great laws of Hammurabi stretched its hand from Babylon all the way through our recorded history. Many of these themes we see in the Bible: accounts of creation, great floods, laws for civilized man on and on to give us context for our treasured creation narrative. I think that as more is learned about science the creation account in Genesis will be given more and more light, for better of for worse.

I would just like to say that no matter how you view the Book of Genesis, that from what we know it is a book that contains history. Whether or not it is a historical book is up to you. It contains stories of love and struggle, of hardship and defeat, and of a relationship between God and a peculiar people of the Mesopotamian region. I think that the important question for us to ask really is not whether or not the events described in Genesis really happened that way, but to discern as to whether or not the account tells us about a relationship between God and a people that is of use to us. Does it show us anything about human nature that we can use today? Does this story of creation teach us about the role of God in the creation of the universe? I think so.

In Christ,

Stephen

The World (a supplement to Something Called History)

The world has a way of instilling into people what they "ought" to believe, what they "ought" to think is important, and what they "ought" to think gives their life meaning. We have the dollar, clothes and cars, sex, alcohol and worse- praise for indulging or adhering to the ways of the world. All of these things, though pleasurable, are merely temporal pleasures. They are here one day and gone the next. We as humans NEED that sense of fulfillment in life, a sense of purpose. We create "fixes" to our desire for meaning, hope, and worse- addictions. In the same way that a drug addict needs that "fix" to keep himself going, so too do we engage in these things of the world that our culture has made us to believe are important, right, fulfilling and what we "ought" to do.

But there will never be fulfillment in these things. All that you have had, your house, your car, the expensive restaurant that you dined at with your co-workers, the wonderful drinks that make you feel so warm and fuzzy not worrying about the things of the world, could all be gone tomorrow and what then would you have? All these things that we have been convinced that have meaning and real importance since birth, have ended up owning us (thanks Brad Pitt, lol). A good way to think of it would be to remember Hurricane Katrina. It was a culture that had it all and then it was taken all away. All of the temporal pleasures slipped away and all that was left was the lives of the survivors.

This tells us something important, that fulfillment must come on a deeper level than the physical. You cannot fill a glass by surrounding it with other things or by letting it go afloat upon a great body of water. You must fill it from the INSIDE (wow my metaphors suck lol).

Everything that we know about life has been shown to us by our culture: what we should do as teenagers, what we should eat and what we should buy, but I tell you, the world has a way of making people slaves to it. You know this, I know this, we all do, but it is the extension of that truth into the real world that will help us to overcome this "fix" that never fulfills. Just like with any fix, you always have to go back for more.

In Christ,

Stephen

Something Called History

At one point I was the one of the most difficult people to convince of anything. As an atheist, I was a logician, a philosopher, an ethicist and many others. My intellect has in no way compromised by my spiritual pursuits, but if anything been far more liberating and challenging than any other endeavor that I have ever partaken in. Also, as a former Buddhist, I was very deep seeded in eastern philosophy and spirituality, but nonetheless I was an atheist (as all non-Tibetan Buddhist practices fundamentally are).

Perhaps the difference between me and my fellow Christians is that I don't get preachy to people who are not Christians. It's just a plain bad idea. There is hardly a soul who would come to Christ, in my experience, if he/she were just shoved in their face and were told to "eat of this bread."

Some time ago, depression struck me when my mother passed away from breast cancer, and insomnia soon after came. Days upon days I would be awake. Living, but as the walking dead, an empty mass of flesh. Nine days solid I was once awake and the hallucinations were terrible. Buddhism was a way to calm me and give me peace at the time. It, however, was about inward focus of the self. The goal was the betterment of the self, not others. One can see this recurring theme throughout the faith by the large monastic community that much of the Buddhist community is a part of. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Buddhist faith and Christianity.

If you have ever studied psychology, the human mind has a way of "experiencing" things the way it sees fit. A way of interpreting "truth" as it deems appropriate. In other words, the mind sees what it wants to see, and hears what it likes to hear. The only way to prescribe whether or not that is occurring is by the removal of the self from one's own thoughts (if that makes any sense to you, as I'm sure it does); to forget the self and realize the greater things that are at play in your midst. Philosophy, logic and willpower became the primary focus; a sort of meditative practice focusing on nothing but "truth" and what we can know to be "empirical." There is also intuition. This is when things become complicated for making judgments as to whether or not we are being the creators of our own truth. Sometimes we just "feel" when something is right. Often times when we forget ourselves, the truth is revealed for what it is. To forget the self, and leave behind what one deems as important and meaningful brings about (surprisingly) an important and meaningful life.

The pursuit of happiness is far more deeply rooted than in just what we find in the world, which has the Buddhists would say has a quality called "anitya" or "mujo" both of which mean "impermanence,” that is, that none of these things last forever and can never give us a REAL fulfillment and sense of meaning as we would like.

Haha, do you remember the movie, "Fight Club" with Brad Pitt? He said something in that movie that I really responded well to and that I thought contained a lot of truth (seriously, whoever wrote that movie is a genius lol). He said, "Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives." He also said, “The things that you own, end up owning you.” Now you just think about that. If it came down to it, would you be able to leave everything behind in pursuit of truth (whether that be Christ, or not)? Most would say, yes, however this I know not to be true. Honesty with the self is the first key to freedom from everything.

The world has given us a false hope. I'm not referring to spirituality in any way here either. They just tell us that if you want to be happy, that you get a "nine to five", a house, kids, and a 401K. All they do though is create barriers and limits. It makes us stuck where we are. You hear people talk about it all the time. They say that they would love to just pick up and leave, but they just "can't." They are "stuck", enslaved to the things that they own, their commitments and their careers.

If you travel outside of America, which you have, there is a very different attitude about travel and life than here in this country. Even in Japan, it is commonplace for people to pick up and just leave for a one month vacation every year. EVERY YEAR. In Europe, Australia, and the Indian subcontinent it is common for people to travel the world when they are finished with school before they even start to work. What tops it all is that they don't say, "I can't." or "I'm stuck."

Stress comes in many forms, we just have to be sure we are presupposing what the sources of that stress is correctly if we are to overcome it and truly achieve peace and happiness. What we need is freedom, not an antidote for stress.

The real freedom that comes for me, as a Christian, ultimately comes from the bible and God. In the book of the Psalms, (103:19) it is said, "The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all." This tells me that no matter what happens in this world we can look to God and be comforted by the fact that so long as He is on His throne, His will shall be done. This is coming from a Christian perspective so do try to understand that (seriously, do try to understand that). If you were a Christian, this would be what speaks to you. However, though you are not, that does not mean that nothing speaks to you. lol

This is my story. I hope that will help you to understand a little about myself and why I may speak in the way that I speak. I'm still a very uneducated person in relationship to the scholars out there. I aim to become one myself someday, but so long as I know one truth about this world, it is my duty as a human being to proclaim it. It is my responsibility to be an open book of information for anything that anybody needs. And it is my purpose to be a living example of the hope that is in me for you, my friends, and the whole world for that matter.

Think of it this way, if I were commanded to go forth and preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations (Mark 16:15) and I knew somebody pretty personally or even let's say not very well at all. If I knew somebody, and had the power to share even a word of the gospel with them and potentially *save them (try to realize this word from a Christian perspective) and didn't, then not only would I be breaking the covenant that I made with God, but would also be responsible for their *damnation (try also to understand this word from a Christian perspective, however difficult it may be. lol Most Christians even have a hard time knowing what this word is really about. lol).

The whole point to this near-novel that I just wrote is to articulate that I am here for anything. Anything that you need to talk about personally, spiritually, intellectually, philosophically... anything. So, lol, I hope that I'm not coming off as the type that will never get off of this kick and just chat, because I will. This, I thought, might just help with discussion and direction for what to say, or more importantly how to say it, now that you know more about me and who I am. lol

In Christ,

Stephen