Heretical Musings by the author of Books by Bareiss
Return to the home page
There is and always has been an incredible variety of religious beliefs in our
world. Most individuals in every society, from primitive tribes to the loftiest
of intellectual groups, hold some form of acknowledgment of a higher power.
Alone, this universal belief makes a strong argument for the existence of God.
Most believers profess to know God’s exact nature, plans, and desires. But the sheer variety of these beliefs, no matter how strongly felt, seems to prove the opposite.
Accordingly, many beliefs in the Christian faith have puzzled me throughout my life, beginning with my earliest recollections of church attendance with my parents and continuing well into my adult life. However, being old, I’m free from the requirement for accepting generally held beliefs. So, having ruminated on these matters for many years, I have arrived at my conclusions about the nature of God, the Universe, and human beings. These ideas are distilled into the five major points listed below. My reasoning for arriving at these opinions is covered in the following pages. Be warned; however, if you are emotional to the point of becoming hysterical or physically sick when your beliefs on these subjects are discussed and challenged, it might be better if you read no further.
1. If the word omnipotent means an infinite ability, then God is not omnipotent. Clinging to the belief in God's omnipotence requires believers to adopt herculean imagination and creativity when understanding or explaining biblical events and precepts of Christianity. I believe the magnitude of the realization that God is not omnipotent is on a level with Albert Einstein’s recognition that time is not constant.
2. There are only three reasons why we exist as humans: to procreate, to be born into the Kingdom of Heaven, and to witness to others so they might also enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Christians argue that this goal is achieved only through belief in Christ, but I think there must be other paths for those never fully exposed to Christianity. Everything else in life besides these three reasons for existence will eventually be meaningless.
3. The popular arguments described as Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. God used and continues to use evolution as a means to create and maintain the entire physical universe and the life in it.
4. It is not a requirement to believe that the Bible is complete, accurate, and inerrant. It is not the sole source of information concerning God; limiting oneself to the Bible and accepting all the information found there as absolute truth is burdensome.
5. No. I do not expect to go to hell for the preceding beliefs. Hell and purgatory do not exist. Except to coerce people into joining and supporting an established church by threatening everlasting torment, there is no logical reason for such places.
The Internet is a great, convenient source of information on everything, providing all the background information to support this work. Extensive arguments, pros, and cons, for all the postulates above, are available and referenced.
It is impossible to address each of the above postulates separately because they are all interrelated, and the order in which they are listed above is unimportant. But, since it’s always good to start work at the beginning, I will begin with the two most prominent versions of how the Universe began as accepted in the society to which I belong. According to Genesis 1, the Creation in the first verse states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and the creation, according to modern science, is known popularly as “the big bang.”
Like the family in the preceding joke, traditional Christians cannot be satisfied with the thorough, time-consuming, monstrous job of creating the Universe by evolution. It’s too rational and mundane and does not match their concept of God. They demand a shazam-like creation story.
There are countless versions of how the Universe, Earth, humans, etc., came to be. One has only to search the internet using the keywords “creation myths” to get an exhaustive list of creation theories which will satisfy the most indefatigable researcher. In the society in which I exist, the most common versions of the story are generally referred to as Creationism and Evolution, and the two theories are generally held to be mutually exclusive. It is my belief that they are the same thing. I believe God used the mechanisms of evolution in the creation of the entire Universe including the Earth, its plants, animals and ultimately human beings. This notion also supports the postulate number one in the introduction, that God is not omnipotent. The creation was not a shazam-like event which was completed in an actual seven day period. The creation was and is the masterpiece work of God, the ultimate physicist, and is still continuing today. Evolution functions as the automatic systems management mechanism that keeps the entire Universe functioning efficiently without any further intervention. This concept is expanded on later in the Evolution section of this work.
It is generally accepted by conservative theologians that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in the Ancient Hebrew language. Other historians believe that it is a compilation of several authors. A good source of information concerning the origin of Genesis may be found in an online Wikipedia piece entitled Book of Genesis. Book of Genesis
Regardless of whom the real author was, and given the vastness of the Universe, including the plants and animals of Earth, the Genesis creation story is exceptionally brief, only 31 sentences. Several explanations for this briefness come to mind. Like the stories written by the author James Michener, the creation part of Genesis was an excellent introduction to the book's central theme, which is primarily concerned with the history of the early Jewish people.
A popular explanation concerning the creation days mentioned in Genesis is found in the meaning of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which has many meanings besides 'day'. It may be translated as a 24-hour day, a 12-hour day, or a period of time. Unless one hates all scientific disciplines due to being forced to endure a high school physics course or suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it is not necessary to shoehorn the creation into one week. The creation could have occurred over the 14 billion-year period generally agreed to by modern scientists. One may find a complete reference to the word 'yom' in these links: Wikipedia meaning of Yom and Accuracy in Genesis
Given the stories in the rest of the bible’s books, it is inarguable that people living in the time of Genesis had no knowledge of physics or much of any science whatsoever. Even if the processes of creation were wholly explained to the Genesis writer by God, it might be that he chose to keep the explanation simple so that his readers could grasp the story. It might also be that the writer himself could not understand the science enough to even write about it. We will question the evolution of humans, animals, and plants later in this work. Still, for now, this difference between the abilities of the Genesis time humans and modern humans to understand the physics of the creation of the Universe is one of the arguments that the process of evolution does exist and creates change. No matter how stupid you may think modern man is, it is a fact that modern man’s ability to understand physical science has evolved to a considerable degree.
The inability of Genesis humans to understand the science of creation also supports the idea that God is not omnipotent. One must ask why an all-powerful, caring God would initially create his beloved humans with marginal abilities to understand him and to be able to live with some modicum of comfort and safety when he knew full well that humankind would eventually figure it out.
So what about the evolution of the Universe? Before the early twentieth century, scientists generally concluded that the Universe was in a 'Steady State'. The universe had always existed without a beginning that required a cause for its creation. Our solar system was just part of a never-ending cycle of creation and destruction of stars and planets. Scientists were happy with this explanation. It did not touch religious issues like the Genesis creation or require belief in the existence of God.
Then around 1929, this comfortable separation of science and religion was disrupted when several researchers, including the man for whom the Hubble Space Telescope was named, concluded that the universe was not in a steady state but had a beginning. Together with the research done by Albert Einstein, the Universe was found to extend beyond our local galaxy and was expanding. So, not only did it have a beginning, it had a calculated actual creation date of around 14 billion years ago. The following link provides more information about the work of these two important scientists:
Physics of the Universe
Hurrah! At last, there was a real connection between science and the belief in God. Well, maybe not so fast. Many scientists are still uncomfortable with a Universe that has a measurable beginning and are still trying to discredit the theory that was given the derisive tag 'Big Bang'. On the religious side, many believers discredit the 'Big Bang' theory because it does not match the literal seven-day creation story, and some insist that careful analysis of the biblical record of the generations of the Jewish people indicates that the world was created just some six thousand years ago instead of the scientific age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. This idea of a “young Earth” seems to have been born in the 17th Century with a chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Usher, the Archbishop of Armagh, Church of Ireland. See this Wikipedia link for an expanded explanation: The Ussher chronology
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would so vigorously defend young Earth creationism as its adherents seem to do. However, one only needs to search the internet using the keywords 'young Earth' to discover the breadth and passion of this body of believers, all seemingly fired up over the thought that if the Bible is to be taken as the holy word of God, then it must be perfect in every last detail.
Several religious practices and beliefs, like those of the young Earth adherents, snake handlers, religious drug users, etc., elicit much derision and disrespect from atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians. Creation science does not always agree with some events in the Bible, and some Christians seem determined to alienate non-Christians with stories like the flood or the seven days of creation to the point where non-Christians do not wish to hear anything about Christ. It is unfortunate but true that this disrespect and derision gets applied to all Christians and becomes an acceptable excuse for non-Christians to continue to deny Christ and the gift of eternal life. Those guilty of professing these beliefs might consider their negative effect on bringing others to Christ and securing their eternal life, which should be part of their reason for being, as mentioned in postulate number one in the introduction. Why waste time and energy defending Bible stories like the flood when all it gets is derision from non-believers? Why must the Bible be inerrant? Could such rigid belief in the truth of such Bible stories is necessary for some Christians to maintain their faith in God?
I am not alone in believing that evolution was God’s means for creating our physical world. This good link expands on that idea: God and The Big Bang Theory This link covers the news item that Pope Francis supported the Big Bang theory: Pope Francis and The Big Bang Theory
Get over it, people. Like Einstein’s discovery that time is not universally constant, God is the master, but he does not have unlimited power. He may not be omnipotent, but he is close enough for this author.
There is a multitude of people and organizations studying the origins of the Universe as created by God. Even those scientists who are silent on God’s role in the creation have no good explanation for how the Universe came into existence by itself. What amazes me are the Christians who deny the evidence uncovered by creation science and continue to be discovered by scientists who work in this field, many of whom are Christians.
Unfortunately, most people are not scientists and need help understanding what scientists are talking about when they try to communicate information about the creation. Likewise, most scientists are reluctant even to try to communicate with non-scientists. As there are people with specific interests, such as fishermen, pilots, sailors, etc., scientists are comfortable with and prefer to associate only with like-minded individuals in their own field of study. For the non-scientist, on the other hand, it is difficult, hard work to try and understand those disciplines of geology, physics, astronomy, etc., that describe the creation. It is far easier to believe the simple explanations in the Bible, no matter how lazy that attitude might be.
Churches do not seem to be much help in this regard. People attend church and church functions where they can interact with others who share their particular beliefs concerning religion. It is much more comfortable to receive feedback from others when it supports one’s beliefs than to hear contrary opinions. When we ridicule and shut out what scientists communicate about the creation, we sabotage our responsibility for bringing others to Christ, as outlined in postulate number one of the introduction.
I believe that what scientists have determined about the creation of the Universe does not conflict with the Biblical account but fully corroborates it. Unfortunately for the lazy, this story of the creation and the creator does not come in a written word like the Bible account does. It comes in physical evidence, numbers and laws, without which our world could not exist. Like the physical things we can ascribe to unknown animal and human creators, there are physical things in our world that cannot be satisfactorily explained by accidental creation and must have been created by an intelligence outside our physical Universe. Sometimes this physical evidence requires putting several things together to understand the significance, and sometimes it just needs a broader understanding.
For example, if we were tiny beings with limited vision living near the base of the rock formation shown in the following picture, we might think it was just a green field at the bottom of a natural cliff.
Most believers profess to know God’s exact nature, plans, and desires. But the sheer variety of these beliefs, no matter how strongly felt, seems to prove the opposite.
Accordingly, many beliefs in the Christian faith have puzzled me throughout my life, beginning with my earliest recollections of church attendance with my parents and continuing well into my adult life. However, being old, I’m free from the requirement for accepting generally held beliefs. So, having ruminated on these matters for many years, I have arrived at my conclusions about the nature of God, the Universe, and human beings. These ideas are distilled into the five major points listed below. My reasoning for arriving at these opinions is covered in the following pages. Be warned; however, if you are emotional to the point of becoming hysterical or physically sick when your beliefs on these subjects are discussed and challenged, it might be better if you read no further.
1. If the word omnipotent means an infinite ability, then God is not omnipotent. Clinging to the belief in God's omnipotence requires believers to adopt herculean imagination and creativity when understanding or explaining biblical events and precepts of Christianity. I believe the magnitude of the realization that God is not omnipotent is on a level with Albert Einstein’s recognition that time is not constant.
2. There are only three reasons why we exist as humans: to procreate, to be born into the Kingdom of Heaven, and to witness to others so they might also enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Christians argue that this goal is achieved only through belief in Christ, but I think there must be other paths for those never fully exposed to Christianity. Everything else in life besides these three reasons for existence will eventually be meaningless.
3. The popular arguments described as Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. God used and continues to use evolution as a means to create and maintain the entire physical universe and the life in it.
4. It is not a requirement to believe that the Bible is complete, accurate, and inerrant. It is not the sole source of information concerning God; limiting oneself to the Bible and accepting all the information found there as absolute truth is burdensome.
5. No. I do not expect to go to hell for the preceding beliefs. Hell and purgatory do not exist. Except to coerce people into joining and supporting an established church by threatening everlasting torment, there is no logical reason for such places.
The Internet is a great, convenient source of information on everything, providing all the background information to support this work. Extensive arguments, pros, and cons, for all the postulates above, are available and referenced.
It is impossible to address each of the above postulates separately because they are all interrelated, and the order in which they are listed above is unimportant. But, since it’s always good to start work at the beginning, I will begin with the two most prominent versions of how the Universe began as accepted in the society to which I belong. According to Genesis 1, the Creation in the first verse states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and the creation, according to modern science, is known popularly as “the big bang.”
7 Days or 14 Billion Years
A joke that must have teen created during hurricanes by exhaustive TV coverage, goes like this: A family, trapped on the roof of their home surrounded by water up to the eves was earnestly praying to God to be saved when a power boat came by and offered to take them to dry ground. The father declined the offer saying, “We are Christians and believe God will answer our prayers and rescue us.” The boat moved off to find others in greater peril. The family continued praying and was interrupted by a giant inflatable captained by a Coast Guardsman who offered to take them off the roof. Again the father declined. In a few minutes, a helicopter appeared, and a rescue swimmer was lowered to help the family into the hoisting apparatus. Once more, the father declined the offer explaining loudly over the rotor noise that God would save them. A short time after the helicopter flew away, the house collapsed; the family drowned and went to Heaven. During their initial interview with the welcoming angel, the perturbed father asked, “Why didn’t God save us?” After a moment’s thought, the astonished angel answered, “He sent two boats and a helicopter. You turned them all down.”Like the family in the preceding joke, traditional Christians cannot be satisfied with the thorough, time-consuming, monstrous job of creating the Universe by evolution. It’s too rational and mundane and does not match their concept of God. They demand a shazam-like creation story.
There are countless versions of how the Universe, Earth, humans, etc., came to be. One has only to search the internet using the keywords “creation myths” to get an exhaustive list of creation theories which will satisfy the most indefatigable researcher. In the society in which I exist, the most common versions of the story are generally referred to as Creationism and Evolution, and the two theories are generally held to be mutually exclusive. It is my belief that they are the same thing. I believe God used the mechanisms of evolution in the creation of the entire Universe including the Earth, its plants, animals and ultimately human beings. This notion also supports the postulate number one in the introduction, that God is not omnipotent. The creation was not a shazam-like event which was completed in an actual seven day period. The creation was and is the masterpiece work of God, the ultimate physicist, and is still continuing today. Evolution functions as the automatic systems management mechanism that keeps the entire Universe functioning efficiently without any further intervention. This concept is expanded on later in the Evolution section of this work.
It is generally accepted by conservative theologians that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in the Ancient Hebrew language. Other historians believe that it is a compilation of several authors. A good source of information concerning the origin of Genesis may be found in an online Wikipedia piece entitled Book of Genesis. Book of Genesis
Regardless of whom the real author was, and given the vastness of the Universe, including the plants and animals of Earth, the Genesis creation story is exceptionally brief, only 31 sentences. Several explanations for this briefness come to mind. Like the stories written by the author James Michener, the creation part of Genesis was an excellent introduction to the book's central theme, which is primarily concerned with the history of the early Jewish people.
A popular explanation concerning the creation days mentioned in Genesis is found in the meaning of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which has many meanings besides 'day'. It may be translated as a 24-hour day, a 12-hour day, or a period of time. Unless one hates all scientific disciplines due to being forced to endure a high school physics course or suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it is not necessary to shoehorn the creation into one week. The creation could have occurred over the 14 billion-year period generally agreed to by modern scientists. One may find a complete reference to the word 'yom' in these links: Wikipedia meaning of Yom and Accuracy in Genesis
Given the stories in the rest of the bible’s books, it is inarguable that people living in the time of Genesis had no knowledge of physics or much of any science whatsoever. Even if the processes of creation were wholly explained to the Genesis writer by God, it might be that he chose to keep the explanation simple so that his readers could grasp the story. It might also be that the writer himself could not understand the science enough to even write about it. We will question the evolution of humans, animals, and plants later in this work. Still, for now, this difference between the abilities of the Genesis time humans and modern humans to understand the physics of the creation of the Universe is one of the arguments that the process of evolution does exist and creates change. No matter how stupid you may think modern man is, it is a fact that modern man’s ability to understand physical science has evolved to a considerable degree.
The inability of Genesis humans to understand the science of creation also supports the idea that God is not omnipotent. One must ask why an all-powerful, caring God would initially create his beloved humans with marginal abilities to understand him and to be able to live with some modicum of comfort and safety when he knew full well that humankind would eventually figure it out.
So what about the evolution of the Universe? Before the early twentieth century, scientists generally concluded that the Universe was in a 'Steady State'. The universe had always existed without a beginning that required a cause for its creation. Our solar system was just part of a never-ending cycle of creation and destruction of stars and planets. Scientists were happy with this explanation. It did not touch religious issues like the Genesis creation or require belief in the existence of God.
Then around 1929, this comfortable separation of science and religion was disrupted when several researchers, including the man for whom the Hubble Space Telescope was named, concluded that the universe was not in a steady state but had a beginning. Together with the research done by Albert Einstein, the Universe was found to extend beyond our local galaxy and was expanding. So, not only did it have a beginning, it had a calculated actual creation date of around 14 billion years ago. The following link provides more information about the work of these two important scientists:
Physics of the Universe
Hurrah! At last, there was a real connection between science and the belief in God. Well, maybe not so fast. Many scientists are still uncomfortable with a Universe that has a measurable beginning and are still trying to discredit the theory that was given the derisive tag 'Big Bang'. On the religious side, many believers discredit the 'Big Bang' theory because it does not match the literal seven-day creation story, and some insist that careful analysis of the biblical record of the generations of the Jewish people indicates that the world was created just some six thousand years ago instead of the scientific age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. This idea of a “young Earth” seems to have been born in the 17th Century with a chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Usher, the Archbishop of Armagh, Church of Ireland. See this Wikipedia link for an expanded explanation: The Ussher chronology
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would so vigorously defend young Earth creationism as its adherents seem to do. However, one only needs to search the internet using the keywords 'young Earth' to discover the breadth and passion of this body of believers, all seemingly fired up over the thought that if the Bible is to be taken as the holy word of God, then it must be perfect in every last detail.
Several religious practices and beliefs, like those of the young Earth adherents, snake handlers, religious drug users, etc., elicit much derision and disrespect from atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians. Creation science does not always agree with some events in the Bible, and some Christians seem determined to alienate non-Christians with stories like the flood or the seven days of creation to the point where non-Christians do not wish to hear anything about Christ. It is unfortunate but true that this disrespect and derision gets applied to all Christians and becomes an acceptable excuse for non-Christians to continue to deny Christ and the gift of eternal life. Those guilty of professing these beliefs might consider their negative effect on bringing others to Christ and securing their eternal life, which should be part of their reason for being, as mentioned in postulate number one in the introduction. Why waste time and energy defending Bible stories like the flood when all it gets is derision from non-believers? Why must the Bible be inerrant? Could such rigid belief in the truth of such Bible stories is necessary for some Christians to maintain their faith in God?
I am not alone in believing that evolution was God’s means for creating our physical world. This good link expands on that idea: God and The Big Bang Theory This link covers the news item that Pope Francis supported the Big Bang theory: Pope Francis and The Big Bang Theory
Get over it, people. Like Einstein’s discovery that time is not universally constant, God is the master, but he does not have unlimited power. He may not be omnipotent, but he is close enough for this author.
The Voice of the Universe
The Bible is undoubtedly the best source of information on how the ancients perceived God. Still, we short ourselves by restricting our study of the physical world by only using the Bible as the one source of information concerning God. The evidence for the existence of God is right in front of our faces. One only needs to look around our present-day surroundings and listen to what scientists have discovered about our physical world. As King David wrote, “1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens, he has pitched a tent for the sun. 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” (New International Version, Ps. 19). There are many similar references to the Universe in the Bible. A good internet list of them may be found using this link: Bible Verses like Psalms 19There is a multitude of people and organizations studying the origins of the Universe as created by God. Even those scientists who are silent on God’s role in the creation have no good explanation for how the Universe came into existence by itself. What amazes me are the Christians who deny the evidence uncovered by creation science and continue to be discovered by scientists who work in this field, many of whom are Christians.
Unfortunately, most people are not scientists and need help understanding what scientists are talking about when they try to communicate information about the creation. Likewise, most scientists are reluctant even to try to communicate with non-scientists. As there are people with specific interests, such as fishermen, pilots, sailors, etc., scientists are comfortable with and prefer to associate only with like-minded individuals in their own field of study. For the non-scientist, on the other hand, it is difficult, hard work to try and understand those disciplines of geology, physics, astronomy, etc., that describe the creation. It is far easier to believe the simple explanations in the Bible, no matter how lazy that attitude might be.
Churches do not seem to be much help in this regard. People attend church and church functions where they can interact with others who share their particular beliefs concerning religion. It is much more comfortable to receive feedback from others when it supports one’s beliefs than to hear contrary opinions. When we ridicule and shut out what scientists communicate about the creation, we sabotage our responsibility for bringing others to Christ, as outlined in postulate number one of the introduction.
I believe that what scientists have determined about the creation of the Universe does not conflict with the Biblical account but fully corroborates it. Unfortunately for the lazy, this story of the creation and the creator does not come in a written word like the Bible account does. It comes in physical evidence, numbers and laws, without which our world could not exist. Like the physical things we can ascribe to unknown animal and human creators, there are physical things in our world that cannot be satisfactorily explained by accidental creation and must have been created by an intelligence outside our physical Universe. Sometimes this physical evidence requires putting several things together to understand the significance, and sometimes it just needs a broader understanding.
For example, if we were tiny beings with limited vision living near the base of the rock formation shown in the following picture, we might think it was just a green field at the bottom of a natural cliff.
But we are not tiny beings, and we can view the entire scene below, from which
the picture above was extracted. One can see that it is just a portion of an
image of the well-known assemblage of rocks known as Stonehenge.
Looking at the complete picture, any rational human being would know immediately
that this formation of rocks could not have been placed as it is through natural,
random geological processes.
Stonehenge has been studied for years and has undergone many changes in arrangement, construction, and usage. The scientific tools of carbon dating, archaeology, and chemistry support the notion that early man created this site. And while the exact date that the present arrangement of stones was made and the particular group of people that did the work here cannot be determined, one must agree that its appearance suggests humans must have created it. No one argues differently. For more information about Stonehenge, see this link: Wikipedia about Stonehenge
While it is impossible to view the entire Universe in one picture that will satisfy the argument about intelligent creation, we are able, just as in the case of Stonehenge, to put many pieces of scientific information together to fashion a convincing argument about who created it and when.
As with Stonehenge, it would be wonderful if it were possible to start with a simple visual impression of God’s creation. But in reality, that cannot be done. One is reminded that countless billions of pictures show the creator's awesome power, unlimited ingenuity, and majesty. The following picture is one of many taken from space and belongs to a group of photos entitled the Blue Marble.
Stonehenge has been studied for years and has undergone many changes in arrangement, construction, and usage. The scientific tools of carbon dating, archaeology, and chemistry support the notion that early man created this site. And while the exact date that the present arrangement of stones was made and the particular group of people that did the work here cannot be determined, one must agree that its appearance suggests humans must have created it. No one argues differently. For more information about Stonehenge, see this link: Wikipedia about Stonehenge
While it is impossible to view the entire Universe in one picture that will satisfy the argument about intelligent creation, we are able, just as in the case of Stonehenge, to put many pieces of scientific information together to fashion a convincing argument about who created it and when.
As with Stonehenge, it would be wonderful if it were possible to start with a simple visual impression of God’s creation. But in reality, that cannot be done. One is reminded that countless billions of pictures show the creator's awesome power, unlimited ingenuity, and majesty. The following picture is one of many taken from space and belongs to a group of photos entitled the Blue Marble.
This actual image could not have been seen before 1950 AD, and yet King David,
in just looking up from this cloud-covered vantage, could see that only God could
have created the Universe.
As with Stonehenge, the science underlying the physical Universe declares a designer. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., writes, “More than two dozen parameters for the Universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.” Ross, Hugh. The Creator And The Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993. Print. See what Goodreads has to say about the book The Creator And The Cosmos.
The first of these parameters described by Doctor Ross is the forces that bind protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. Referred to as the strong force, it is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. Two of the others are gravity, with which we are all familiar, and electromagnetic force, which holds many items to our refrigerator doors and provides that annoying static cling with which you are aware. The fourth is the weak force, familiar primarily to nuclear physicists. Unlike gravity, the strong force only works on protons and neutrons that are 1 to 3 proton diameters away from each other, and the force is the same regardless of that exact distance. The strong force is millions and millions of times the strength of gravity when considering the weight of a single proton or neutron. For the mathematicians among us, gravity is about 10-38 times smaller than the strong force, and unlike the strong force, gravity works over great distances, even holding our galaxy together. The critical point to remember about the strong force is that it was precisely designed by God to be at the exact value at which it exists and is effective only for a short distance. If it were any larger, there would be no hydrogen in the Universe. All the simple hydrogen atoms would have been combined to make heavier elements, hence no water, which is essential for life to exist. If the strong force were much smaller than it is, no heavy elements l ike carbon, oxygen, etc., would be possible. The rest of the parameters listed in Doctor Ross’s book also exist in a precise range that could not be considered accidental. God is the master physicist who set the whole Universe in motion.
For people like Doctor Ross and those who can read and understand his and other similar books, these revelations are more intoxicating than the Bible and constitute a body of belief as described in the website: Reasons to Believe Website.
Bible stories and the witness of current Christians are anecdotal, representative only of what others believe. At the same time, the physical evidence that we can touch and see around us is proof of God’s existence. It’s the difference between seeing what one might assume is a father and son in church every Sunday and having the DNA proof of their relationship.
The book that Christians refer to today as the Bible was first translated into Old English in the 7th Century and did not exist in its present form (books included) until the 16th Century. While there are dozens of English translations of the Bible, the standard King James version completed in 1611 is easily the most widely used, according to a Purdue study conducted in 2014. If one considers the Bible to be inerrant, does that mean that before the 16th Century, it was errant?
I have included the following reference in its entirety because there was no way I could have expressed the following ideas any better than Davis D. Danizier.
Copyright (c) 1998, 2006, 2012 Davis D. Danizier /
Word Wizards.
Have you ever wondered why God, with his infinite powers, would bestow on his beloved humans the bothersome animal instincts of overeating, jealousy, the propensity for domination over fellow humans, and the sometimes destructive urges for sex? Religious leaders tell us it was not this way until sin entered the world when Eve disobeyed God and picked the forbidden fruit. But therein lies a conundrum: if God had infinite power and cognition, he would have to have known that Eve was going to do it. This is analogous to making drugs available to your child, knowing full well that the child will become addicted. God would also have known that he would eventually have to send his son to save mankind.
Thus, the generally accepted explanation for man's temptation and fall is not rational. Something else must account for human fallibility, and the acceptance of the idea that God has done the best he could do by employing evolution in creation may be the answer.
As with Stonehenge, the science underlying the physical Universe declares a designer. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., writes, “More than two dozen parameters for the Universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.” Ross, Hugh. The Creator And The Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993. Print. See what Goodreads has to say about the book The Creator And The Cosmos.
The first of these parameters described by Doctor Ross is the forces that bind protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. Referred to as the strong force, it is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. Two of the others are gravity, with which we are all familiar, and electromagnetic force, which holds many items to our refrigerator doors and provides that annoying static cling with which you are aware. The fourth is the weak force, familiar primarily to nuclear physicists. Unlike gravity, the strong force only works on protons and neutrons that are 1 to 3 proton diameters away from each other, and the force is the same regardless of that exact distance. The strong force is millions and millions of times the strength of gravity when considering the weight of a single proton or neutron. For the mathematicians among us, gravity is about 10-38 times smaller than the strong force, and unlike the strong force, gravity works over great distances, even holding our galaxy together. The critical point to remember about the strong force is that it was precisely designed by God to be at the exact value at which it exists and is effective only for a short distance. If it were any larger, there would be no hydrogen in the Universe. All the simple hydrogen atoms would have been combined to make heavier elements, hence no water, which is essential for life to exist. If the strong force were much smaller than it is, no heavy elements l ike carbon, oxygen, etc., would be possible. The rest of the parameters listed in Doctor Ross’s book also exist in a precise range that could not be considered accidental. God is the master physicist who set the whole Universe in motion.
For people like Doctor Ross and those who can read and understand his and other similar books, these revelations are more intoxicating than the Bible and constitute a body of belief as described in the website: Reasons to Believe Website.
Bible stories and the witness of current Christians are anecdotal, representative only of what others believe. At the same time, the physical evidence that we can touch and see around us is proof of God’s existence. It’s the difference between seeing what one might assume is a father and son in church every Sunday and having the DNA proof of their relationship.
The Bible
The book that Christians refer to today as the Bible was first translated into Old English in the 7th Century and did not exist in its present form (books included) until the 16th Century. While there are dozens of English translations of the Bible, the standard King James version completed in 1611 is easily the most widely used, according to a Purdue study conducted in 2014. If one considers the Bible to be inerrant, does that mean that before the 16th Century, it was errant?
I have included the following reference in its entirety because there was no way I could have expressed the following ideas any better than Davis D. Danizier.
Copyright (c) 1998, 2006, 2012 Davis D. Danizier /
Word Wizards.
communications -- all rights reserved
But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own
"infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing. The Bible in its current compilation
didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why
are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't
even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and
prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a
whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems,
songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never
imagined their writings would ever be considered divine. They are just like
modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their
works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words.
They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before
their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament
prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will
be added to the canon. Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established
scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that
some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12 "But to the
rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I
speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..." (emphasis added).
Good Christians don't need to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God to
understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of universal compassion. After all,
the early Christians themselves did not have an "infallible Bible" to carry around
with them -- it wasn't even compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain
insights and understanding from modern writers and commentators of today, without
claiming that they are divine and infallible, we can gain insight and
understanding from ancient writers, as long as we consider their works for what
they are, with critical thinking and common sense -- not just blind faith.
We should accept the Bible for what it is: it is often wise and inspirational but
often filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic and the
original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has
developed. Still, its words must be discussed, analyzed, and evaluated on their
merits -- as the writing of men, not God. It does not claim to be anything more.
Evolution
Have you ever wondered why God, with his infinite powers, would bestow on his beloved humans the bothersome animal instincts of overeating, jealousy, the propensity for domination over fellow humans, and the sometimes destructive urges for sex? Religious leaders tell us it was not this way until sin entered the world when Eve disobeyed God and picked the forbidden fruit. But therein lies a conundrum: if God had infinite power and cognition, he would have to have known that Eve was going to do it. This is analogous to making drugs available to your child, knowing full well that the child will become addicted. God would also have known that he would eventually have to send his son to save mankind.
Thus, the generally accepted explanation for man's temptation and fall is not rational. Something else must account for human fallibility, and the acceptance of the idea that God has done the best he could do by employing evolution in creation may be the answer.
Just the inclusion of the above picture will enflame the passions of many
Christians who, from early childhood, have been taught that God made Adam and Eve
on the sixth day of the Genesis creation story. However, the same individuals will
smile and take pride in man's achievements, as told in the following pictures.
It is impossible to ignore the progress made in animal husbandry and agriculture
that has occurred in recorded history, albeit with human intervention. The
corncob we take for granted today, which may have up to five-hundred kernels,
evolved from a wild plant called Teosinte with only five to twelve kernels, which
was cultivated and bred by early Mesoamericans. See this link:
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/corn-evolve/
These examples of evolution required human intervention in the order of 10,000 years. Why would anyone think God’s intervention in so-called natural evolution would be any less spectacular?
The most noted and complete work on God’s evolution is probably the book 'The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man', written by the man almost universally hated by Christians, Charles Darwin. But even he acknowledged the creator on page 468 of that book, saying in answer to whether savages believed in God or not, “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” New York: The Modern Library by Random House, Print.
Not only did God use evolution to shape the Universe, our solar system, and Earth and ready our world for our introduction of us, but he continues to use evolution to keep the entire process running efficiently and allow living things to adapt to constant changes in the environment.
It is possible to recognize the similarities in the physique and functions of different animals and, in particular, the taxonomic family of primates known as Hominidae, covered in this link: Wikipedia Hominidae. Biblical ancestors may have been able to overlook these corresponding traits in favor of the biblical notion that humans are entirely different from other animals and have dominion over every living creature. However, the modern sciences of genetics and genetic origins make that a daunting task.
These examples of evolution required human intervention in the order of 10,000 years. Why would anyone think God’s intervention in so-called natural evolution would be any less spectacular?
The most noted and complete work on God’s evolution is probably the book 'The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man', written by the man almost universally hated by Christians, Charles Darwin. But even he acknowledged the creator on page 468 of that book, saying in answer to whether savages believed in God or not, “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” New York: The Modern Library by Random House, Print.
Not only did God use evolution to shape the Universe, our solar system, and Earth and ready our world for our introduction of us, but he continues to use evolution to keep the entire process running efficiently and allow living things to adapt to constant changes in the environment.
It is possible to recognize the similarities in the physique and functions of different animals and, in particular, the taxonomic family of primates known as Hominidae, covered in this link: Wikipedia Hominidae. Biblical ancestors may have been able to overlook these corresponding traits in favor of the biblical notion that humans are entirely different from other animals and have dominion over every living creature. However, the modern sciences of genetics and genetic origins make that a daunting task.