Time is like a zipper. The past has been determined, while the future remains open. The present is that very interval of interaction between what is yet to be into becoming what has been. For our interaction with the eternal God to be at all meaningful, He must necessarily experience time sequentially as we do since its creation. This profoundly implies the openness of the future being guided by God, if we follow His will, or else a deviate from it. In this openness of the future, along with our free-will, it is therefore possible and even likely that what God wills for our life and what actually happens may be two different things altogether. The zipper-like nature of time and the gracious merciful nature of God continuously interact, so that even if we disobey and change routes God’s will is powerful enough to meet us in our current “fork in the road” to guide us again in His calling–or even create an entirely new calling.
The sovereignty of God, then, is shown as being even more powerful–He is after all omnipotent. To create an open system for a creature with a profound free-will, guiding the future requires not the stringing of a puppet, but the conviction onto the heart of that creature in and through relationship into a loving bond where the created creature relinquishes his own sovereignty, gifted by the Creator, into the hands of His master. This is what it means to be clay in the Potter’s hands.
Thanks to the author of the article, Russ Jones, ReligionToday.com mentioned this blog post made last week–“What Should We Make of the ‘God Particle’ Discovery?”
Regarding the amazing find of the Higgs Boson particle, many people see it as a way of disproving God. The idea that any aspect of the physical universe we can’t explain naturally must by necessity be “God” explained has been the false presumption by many theists. Therefore, new discoveries such as this are yet backfiring to such theistic claims–furthering the idea that there must be no God. However, this situation simply expresses the flaw of many theists who argue God’s existence in the gaps of our scientific finds–only showing atheism to be the perspective for those who wait for a better natural answer, while theists are shown to be the anxious ignorants. The problem is that our idea of God is all wrong–completely even! If there is one unique aspect of the Gospel message, it is that God is not the cop-out answer for that which we don’t know, He is the God of revelation. He isn’t the God of the gaps, but the God of completion.
Christians shouldn’t be scared of anything that seems to prove God out of the picture. Continue reading →
A few days ago I decided to start on the book of Daniel and read it through, a chapter or so every day. His story is so awesome, that perhaps a movie based on the book would and could be as high quality as the Lord of the Rings trilogy–so, yes, Peter Jackson, I’m talking to you.
This morning I read Daniel 4 about the second record of King Nebuchadnezzar‘s vision, the one about the “Great Tree”. Let me summarize the vision a little:
So, King Nebby (why not?) is laying in his bed and he sees this extraordinarily massive tree that is said to have grown… Continue reading →
The reason this train of thought began was when I started contemplating about your human desire, even to the point of why it is we find something beautiful. You hear the statement, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, and I believe that. The statement should stop us from trying to label everything as merely being ‘beautiful’ in someone’s eyes, and start asking why it is a person finds anything beautiful. Perhaps I’ll write my philosophy on beauty and desire someday, but this post was definitely along that line of thought.
It can be said in defense of Eve that demonstrated her resoluteness in responding to Satan, and as you articulated that I can agree. Her love for God, and she did truly love Him, demanded that she put His command before even her own desire. What I’m suggesting, however, is that the desire to eat of the tree already existed. Continue reading →
This notion of the tree of knowledge being so tempting and desirable to Adam and Eve has been bugging me lately. Why was it so very tempting to them if God clearly told them not to eat it? Was it that these trees, the one of knowledge and the one of life, were more aesthetically pleasing than any other trees in the garden? Did the leaves have different shades of all the colors of the rainbow? Did they glow in the dark? Perhaps every time we consider this story, we tend to treat the temptation too superficially. We often think of this story in terms of Adam and Eve being like children, when the temptation itself expresses the inner prideful desires we have even before we act out in sin. The temptation to eat the fruit of knowledge was the temptation to be like God–to know right from wrong and to have authority over it. We want to decide for ourselves what consititutes right from wrong. Continue reading →
Thanks to Nephele Tempest for posting a link, I just saw a blog that shows a woman who took an incredible amount of time to express her thanks for the local Libraries in her home of Scotland. She is known as the Library Phantom for her anonymity in presenting different locations with her innovative sculptures. This definitely deserves a look.
It’s simply amazing the creativity that may ensue from an individual, especially given her passion for reading and vivid imagination. It’s simply amazing how the human mind behaves and functions, and how the deep affections of some cause even the smallest detail of a thing to be noticed and valued. What is particularly telling of these sculptures is how they relate to her appreciations of the existent libraries.
Upon looking at them, I was reminded of the influence my grandmother had on me growing up, in regard to fine arts and the imagination. Everything at her home drew upon some artsy inspiration or Continue reading →
So, my son has a Toddler Bible that amazingly summarizes Bible stories in extremely short paragraphs within only a couple short pages per story. My wife and I see much benefit in reading him these stories. He calms down from the day to read a book (of course Dr. Seuss gets his time), he becomes familiarized with the background narratives that form Scripture, he learns repetition from reading the same few stories over again, and he also learns relational titles such as “Daddy” or “Grandpa”. Since Adam is seen as a younger adult, along with the notion that he is God’s first actual human (the topic of humanoids [e.g. homo-erectus] is a separate study altogether), Adam gets the tag “Daddy” when we read to him about God’s creation of humanity. Well, since characters such as Noah and Abraham are illustrated as older (i.e. white hair and staffs) they are deemed “Grandpa”.
But, in reading to him I am again reminded of the Genesis narratives. I know it’s been popular with many Young-Earth creationists to analyze and presume human age-lengths when reading the Old Testament genealogies for the purpose of dating Earth to an approximate date of 6,000 to 10,000 years ago; however, that unnecessary presumption always leads away from the more important questions. On a side note, I’m not so certain the genealogies are precise Continue reading →