Tag: Truth

Thank You, Ravi Zacharias

Posted in PersonalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/19/2020

Dear Ravi Zacharias,

Today you crossed from the shadows of the here and now on Earth to the light of the latter end of your eternity. As you have seen from a brand new perspective, many are sharing how they knew and remember you. Whether that be personal interactions or published works like books, radio, speaking engagements, or even YouTube. For me, I knew you from a selection of published works you released over the years.

71osALx1tYL
Elementary Years | 2000’s

It all began with my Dad reading to me sections of your book, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, when I was in elementary school. He did so because my interest in these sorts of questions began to riddle my mind. Jump forward a bit to when I was entering high school and my life began to take more shape as I slowly was discovering what I was meant to do with my life.

It was within a period of time where I was regularly babysitting 3 kids after school at night, so that my friend Ben could go to a singles ministry once a week and have a night off. As a single dad, Ben was raising his kids essentially by himself. Taking care of his kids was just something that multiple people in the church would do to help him, so that he could have a break from time-to-time.

Anyways, on one of those nights when he returned from being out of the house, we talked first about how the movie was and then the conversation shifted to my developing interest in apologetics. If I remember correctly, he was watching Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in theaters with a friend. Either way he came back and I asked about the movie, which if you know Ben then questions always will lead to lengthy conversations.

81m9RNTj18L
Entering High School | 2011

So during that hours-long late night conversation, he interrupted my ambitions about apologetics with a strong suggestion. If I really wanted to pursue apologetics and be that leader in my high school, then I needed to read this book that he read years ago. He got up and immediately went to his bookshelf in his room to find it before coming back downstairs. The book he gave me was Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias.

One last story and this one was during my college days at the Colorado Film School. Within this period of my life in 2016, I was wrestling with purpose once again. I was quickly realizing that I didn’t feel called to be in the film industry as a director/writer anymore, yet was unsure of myself because I didn’t know what I was supposed to do next.

But God was directing my steps because there was another huge change happening in my life, which was this slow burn call to find a new church home and with that came a long period of investigating different aspects of church like denominations or where churches stood on certain issues. In addition to that, a few peers from school were asking me more complex questions about existence and God.

71D3CFftRsL
College Years | 2016

So in response to these changes in my life and trying to navigate the grey, I began some extensive research for both situations. In all honesty, I have never read so many books or done so much research ever in my life. Of the many resources I poured over for answers, one of those critical books was Why Suffering? by Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale.

Not only did these three books deeply impact me during three unique phases in my life, but your lectures and interviews as well. The amount of time I spent studying your work throughout all these years and applying it to both my own situation and eventually to help others has been immense to say the least.

With that said, none of those published works compare to what I’ve appreciated the most about your life. In fact, the reason I and millions of other people have admired you all these years was because of the genuine care you had for the person engaging in ideas with you. The compassion that was evident when you would hear a person’s inquires and walk with them to what always appeared to be an inevitable conclusion. In the same respect, you seemed to arrive to said answer in a way that felt respectful of the person standing before you as an imager of God.

Thank you not just for the knowledge I acquired in my head learning from your material, but most importantly the heart that you had after God. Thank you for helping the thinker believe and the believer think. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. RZIM at Passion City Church (June 26th, 2017)

Be A Window, Not A Wall

Posted in PoetryTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Be a window,

Not a wall.

Some stand tall,

Yet all eventually fall.

Some loom large,

While others seem small.

–

We’ve all heard the call,

But a few of us are still afraid to fall.

We’ve all failed,

But Christ has prevailed.

–

Windows let the Son shine through,

Yet walls shield people from seeing the real you.

Windows are open and transparent,

But walls are closed off and hide what sin has bent.

Windows crack and shatter,

While walls pretend to have everything together.

–

Be more like a beautiful flower,

Than this structurally unsound tower.

Let the light into every area of your life,

Before darkness hurts like an ill-intentioned knife.

If you want to grow,

Then the walls need to go.

–

There is no guilt or shame,

In the power of Christ’s name.

Be honest above all,

No one expects you to be Saint Paul.

Be a window,

Not a wall.

–

With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels

The Thorns of Life | 3-17-2018

Posted in SermonsTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: Unsplash| Updated: 5/27/2019

So in the first segment in this series on sermons, I’d like to go back and revisit sermons that I have preached in the past, in order to learn from them through self-reflection. The preparation, the prayer, the delivery, and so on for each sermon that I have given to better not only myself but possibly you as well. By learning from the past we can do better in the future and that includes improving our ability to preach.

I’d like to share a sermon that I preached in mid-March of 2018 and breakdown the process of creating that sermon. It was called The Thorns of Life and dealt with the parable of the sower as told in the Gospel of Luke. My sermon was based on Luke 8:7 and 8:14, which was about the thorn-filled soil.

Getting Started

This sermon was given to about 80 students at StudentLife‘s winter camp (i.e. The Growdown) and it was roughly 25 minutes long. I began to prepare for this sermon on February 26th, which was just over a month out from the Growdown retreat and I was pretty rusty since the last sermon that I taught was 3 years ago. Typically, I can start prepping and praying through a sermon within a week’s time, but because it had been so long I started extremely early. There was also the added pressure of this being our first winter camp as a youth group, so I didn’t want to let the other leaders or the students with a sermon that sucked.

Before I even began to work on my sermon, the four teachers (David Margosian, John Lewis, Andrew Morrison, and myself) for that retreat met up a few times to discuss the theme and pray about what we should teach through for that winter camp. Eventually, we all felt led to teach on the parable of the sower in the Gospel of Luke for various reasons. John had just taught it to his youth group, while Andrew and David did this theme years ago as the original Growdown winter camp. We figured that this year we should go with this theme to keep things simple.

After the theme was decided upon, we went our separate ways to prepare. Since I was rusty, Andrew reviewed my outline over gmail twice to help me stay on track for the retreat. He aided in keeping my sermon the right length for a 20 to 30 minute teaching.

When I actually started, I read the text and prayed a lot about the theme for my teaching. What was going to be the main idea to explore and share with the students? What did they need to hear that afternoon on March 17th, 2018?

The Text, the Title, and the Elevator Pitch

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Anytime I prepare to teach, I always look for three things first: a basic understanding of the text, a title, and an elevator pitch. To determine the basic understanding of the text you need to comprehend the context. To accomplish this, read past the given text.

For this teaching, I wanted to pinpoint the big picture. When it was reported to Jesus that his Mother and Brothers were trying to get to him through the crowd listening to Him teach, He replies that “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it (1).” Elsewhere, we get more clarity from Jesus when He says to His disciples, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments (2).” The basic understanding of this text was identifying the true believer.

If we are true believers in Christ, then we will naturally obey him. David and Paul Watson put it perfectly when they wrote that “it appears that God spells love o-b-e-y (3).” The seed that falls on the good soil is the true believer because they obey God.

From there, I asked the opposite question: who does not obey God and why? The text I was given focused on the thorn-filled soil. What happens when we are pricked by a thorn? We are distracted by the pain. This was the basic crux for my sermon.

For my title, I took that basic understanding and distilled it. Making it brief and to the point. For me, the title has to be the main theme of the teaching. It must be the anchor that I can refer back to over and over in the sermon. So I called it “The Thorns of Life.”

Lastly, an elevator pitch is a one sentence description of a story. My elevator pitch was my basic understanding of the text summarized. That being that the thorns of life are the distractions of life. Next, I got into the bulk of sermon prep. Analogies, cross references, exegesis, research, and all that other good stuff. That’s usually my favorite part of the process.

Once my outline was complete, I moved onto revisions and verbal practice. This was roughly two weeks out from the retreat and I was really afraid it was going to flop. During this time I mostly prayed and would practice maybe a dozen times before finally delivering my sermon. I found that prayer would calm me, so I prayed before I practiced verbally delivering it.

The Day of and the Delivery

When we all left for the Growdown, I barely ate. During that Friday and Saturday I only had two meals. When I get nervous, I can’t eat because I get really sick to my stomach.

Had a long day of winter camp stuff and trying to run everything as a leader, so when it finally came to preaching I had about an hour and a half to get prepped one last time. As worship was closing, my anxiety and nervousness just kept increasing. Prayed a lot of little prayers inwardly. Too afraid I was going to forget something, I poured over my outline making last-minute changes and rehearsed a few more times.

Andrew came down and prayed over me. It helped reassure me that this teaching was put on my heart by God, so I didn’t have to rely on my own ability or talent because the Holy Spirit would guide me. Worship ended and I waited a minute intentionally before heading up. I told Jason Best, the worship pastor, that I wanted there to be an awkward moment of silence before I enter the room to set the tone.

This little stunt played into my theme of being distracted. Also, I wore a pink morph suit and did some goofy stuff to distract the students before telling the story of my best friend Zach’s car accident. This was all in the hopes of using body language, humor, and other visual cues to reinforce the effect that a good distraction can have on someone not paying attention.

The silly sermon illustrations went okay. Some landed, some hit an abrupt thud. As a public speaker, you’ll know when what you did worked or didn’t.

I think of the 25 minutes I spent, 5 to 10 minutes should have been used better. I started strong, but felt I wasted the opportunity for a strong ending. I ended up cutting out the Value of Time segment completely because I knew from practice it probably wouldn’t make the cut. I liked it, but it wasn’t necessary for this audience.

Had some obvious slip-ups and an over reliance on my outline, yet I felt positive about the delivery afterward. The students got a kick out of my ridiculous introduction and the call to action seemed to stick that night during the altar call, which resulted in praying with a student named Abe for almost an hour as we cried our eyes out before God. That was the highlight of the teaching for me: seeing a young man run back to God that night.

Overall, loved the time I spent on this teaching and it gave me confidence to return to preaching. Next time, I’ll share my sermon on Exodus from May 3rd, 2018. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. Luke 8:21b
  2. John 14:15
  3. Contagious Disciple Making: Leading Others on a Journey of Discovery, P. 45

 

 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of God

Posted in PersonalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of God

Photo Cred (1) | Updated: 9/23/2019

So I’ve been asked several times by others my opinion on politics and I usually never give them an in-depth answer to those questions. From police brutality to immigration, I’ve been asked what my views are on many political topics. What I usually do is provide possible solutions, but never really say what I believe on a given subject matter. Not that I don’t care about politics, but I’d rather have an opinion after personal research before going public with my view on any given topic.

What I mean by that is I would rather look into an issue on my own before giving my opinion on anything political due to the vitriol reaction that seems to be the only response that anyone can give online. When it comes to subjects that I am not sure where I stand, I’d rather talk it out in-person. When I do have a firm idea of where I stand on an issue, then I’ll usually go about talking on that issue online with no hesitation.

With all that said, I do not side with one of the two binary American political parties (Democrats and Republicans) or any political party for that matter. I believe in voting for individual people, not for a political party. I have no allegiance to any political party and I do not think I ever will.

Honestly anyone who is running for political office that is associated with a particular political party means very little to me. This is because during the campaign trail, a candidate will promise lots of great stuff and then when they get into office they only get about a third of it done. Even then, what is actually accomplished is corroded by donors, PACs, Super PACs, and any other special interest group hoping to get their hands on a new bill or law. There are just too many cooks in the kitchen and that affects every branch of American politics.

If I had to summarize my political worldview in one sentence, then I would say that I am for life, liberty, and the pursuit of God. Now let me explain each part of my political worldview in more detail. Let me start with why I am for life.

Life

I am for life in many regards. I am for the protection of endangered species, marine conservation, protecting national parks, and environmentalism in general. The more we do as a species to protect the environment, the better our lives will be for future generations to come.

I am also pro-life, which means that I am against both abortion and euthanasia. The only case where I would be for abortion is when the life of the mother is at stake, then I would say abortion is okay. This sort of situation can occur due to any number of problems like an ectopic pregnancy where internal, life-threatening bleeding could kill the mother.

I am for abortion in these rare situations because the chances of the mother surviving from said problems during the course of a pregnancy are much higher than the chances of the baby. If I had to theoretically choose between an abortion to save the mother’s life or going on endangering the life of the mother and the baby, then I would advocate the abortion option. Saving one life is better than risking the death of two lives.

I am for life in the justice system. For the equal treatment of all types of people whether in arrests, investigations, prosecutions, or any other aspect of the judicial process. All people were created equal and hence all people should be treated equal with the utmost respect for their human dignity.

I want to see prison reform in the sense that the punishment should equal the crime, but that life should be respected at all costs. Measures should be taken for those that are truly done with their life of crime and want to live in society again in a proactive way. Measures such as more community service and less time in prison for crimes that do not deserve a prison sentence. If people are willing to change their ways, then they should be given opportunity on a case-by-case basis to get their life on the right path.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, I believe should only be implemented for certain criminals like child molesters, mass shooters, serial killers, and serial rapists. Because they have lost all respect for other life, I believe that these types of people should not live. By taking their life through capital punishment, we can potentially save the lives of countless others.

When it comes to healthcare and UBI (Universal Basic Income), I believe that we as a nation have the capacity to provide the most basic needs free of charge to legal citizens. Not every expense, but the bare necessities. I’m still working through in my own mind how that could work, but I think there is a way that would benefit almost everyone. I do believe in some form of UBI and universal healthcare being implemented in American society. Yet these two beliefs are not as refined as my other beliefs, so grant me grace in that regard.

Liberty

I am for liberty in a lot of ways. Liberty for all to live however they see fit as long as it does not infringe on the liberties of others. For the sake of time I’ll just share two examples: free speech and marriage. Let me start with marriage.

I believe that anyone can marry whoever they want as they are both consenting and adults. I may disagree with who marries who, but that does not mean that said people cannot get married in America. For instance, an LGBT+ couple should have the freedom to get married whenever and however they want, but that does not mean that I agree with their decision to get married. I affirm everyone’s freedom to choose, but not their choices within said freedom. Nevertheless, two consenting adults in America can marry whoever they love.

Then again, I believe that certain social traditions should not be operated by the government like marriage. I do not believe that marriage should be done through the government in any capacity. It’s a decision between two people and the witnesses chosen to uphold that couple’s vows. The government doesn’t need to be involved in marriage.

I am for liberty in the sense of free speech. I believe everyone should have the freedom to express themselves in any verbal way that they wish. Free speech should only be limited when a minor is involved because certain speech can affect their growth as individuals like verbal abuse or mature subject matter that is simply not appropriate for them to hear at their current age. This stance of mine on free speech applies to both in-person and online communication.

Also, the obvious things like yelling “bomb” at an airport or shouting “fire” at a movie theater shouldn’t be said either. Outside of that, let discourse and discussion thrive through the civil expression of ideas. With proper social cues and standard politeness, anything can and should be said.

Without free speech, I wouldn’t even be able to write this blog-post without punishment from the government. Let that sink in the next time you wish certain speech was removed from society. One of the signs of a healthy community is the disagreement between two people on a belief or idea, yet the respect they have for each other as human beings. Freedom must always be greater than fear. If not, we lose everything.

The Pursuit of God

Now of the three pillars of my political worldview, this final pillar does require some explaining. There was a man named John Locke who argued that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property (2). In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although I do believe that property should be an unalienable right as it is a basic human instinct to have shelter and that happiness can be a good thing, I believe that the pursuit of God matters more. That’s why I have altered this saying to include the pursuit of God instead of either property or happiness into my political worldview.

For it is in the pursuit of God that one can find the greatest joy imaginable: ultimate meaning, purpose, and value. With property, a basic human need is met, but that cannot replace the inner void within those who have not known God. What is the point of having shelter to stay alive, if you do not know why you are alive in the first place? For me, the pursuit of God supersedes the right to property.

Happiness cannot be the answer either because it is completely subjective. It’s a neat idea, but in practice no one and that includes the government can sustain your desire to be happy. For happiness like all other emotions doesn’t last long. I would rather have lifelong joy pursuing God than situational satisfaction rooted in nothing but my current mood. When it comes to politics, I stand firmly for life, liberty, and the pursuit of God.

In conclusion, these are not all of my views within politics. I haven’t even gotten to the economy, gun control, the minimum wage and maximum wage debate, recreational and medical drug use, transgender military participation, or everything else for that matter. But I think this should give some of you a good idea of where I stand on certain issues.

It’s a work in progress and these views are in a constant flux as I learn more each and everyday, so don’t be surprised if they change eventually. In time, all things will work together for those that trust in God for their life and liberty. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/
  2. http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497

Alvin Plantinga + Autism

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

About two years ago in the month of June, I was on a road-trip with my Dad and a few of our friends. On the way to and from our destination, I was finishing Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief and came across an interesting statement that he makes in his book. In fact, it’s not necessarily apart of the main narrative, but is rather just a footnote at the bottom of a page in the chapter entitled “Sin and Its Cognitive Consequences.” In this footnote, Plantinga writes

71Q6zl3JwEL
Source: Amazon

“It is no part of the [Aquinas/Calvin] model to say that damage to the sensus divinitatis (2) on the part of a person is due to sin on the part of the same person. Such damage is like other disease and handicaps: due ultimately to the ravages of sin, but not necessarily sin on the part of the person with the disease. In this connection, see Jesus’ remarks (John 9:1-3) about the man blind from birth (p. 214, fn. 22).”

Now as someone who has been diagnosed with high spectrum autism disorder (3), this quote stuck out to me like a sore thumb when I first read it. I’ve always had a curiosity on the subject of those with special needs and their cognitive ability to know God, but this really gave me more of a drive to study it further. To think and see if someone with malfunctioning cognitive faculties (i.e. intellectual disabilities) can consciously choose whether or not to believe in God.

There is a lot packed into this brief footnote, so let’s break it down in context. The footnote is attached to a section of the chapter where Plantinga is describing the worst effect that sin has on us and our sense of God. He writes:

“The most serious noetic effects of sin have to do with our knowledge of God. Were it not for sin and its effects, God’s presence and glory would be as obvious and uncontroversial to us all as the presence of other minds, physical objects, and the past. Like any cognitive process, however, the sensus divinitatis can malfunction; as a result of sin, it has indeed been damaged. Our original knowledge of God and his glory is muffled and impaired; it has been replaced (by virtue of sin) by stupidity, dullness, blindness, inability to perceive God or to perceive him in his handiwork (p. 214-215).”

In other words, Plantinga argues that our knowledge of God is the most damaged aspect of our sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity). If our sense of God was not impaired, then we would be completely aware of God in everything. But because everyone has been born into sin, we all have a malfunctioning sense of God. Like a broken window, our view of God is distorted before we accept the Gospel. After we accept it, then our sense of God is restored to what it was always meant to be since the beginning.

Yet, we all don’t have malfunctioning cognitive faculties. Is this footnote indicating that some may have a harder time understanding the Gospel because there are more mental roadblocks that may inhibit their path to genuine belief in God? Not to say that our own sin directly causes this malfunction, but that sin itself has caused this malfunction in the cognitive faculties of some.

For example, no one is morally responsible for a person being born with a heart defect, but rather this defect is directly related to the natural consequences of the Fall. The unnatural breaking down of the human body as the world ages away. Original sin is the root of these malfunctions for the most part, not the individual sins of others. For more on that, let’s turn to the Gospel of John.

The passage of Scripture that Plantinga points out in the already mentioned footnote is John 9:1-3. In this passage, Jesus comes across a blind man who has been blind since birth. Inquiring to know why this man is born blind, the disciples ask Jesus whether it is due to the man’s own sin or that of his parents.

As if to say, whose sin caused this consequence? Who is responsible for this man’s poor condition of being blind from birth? Jesus succinctly replies “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” What does Jesus mean by this exactly?

is-john-piper-happy-viuzi7xj
Source: Pulpit & Pen

John Piper of Desiring God (4), spoke on this very subject and makes an important point. “The explanation of the blindness lies not in the past causes but the future purposes,” says Piper. For this specific case, the blindness from birth was not a sinful consequence, but rather a predetermined act of God. This disability was given, so that God might have the glory in the healing of it. By healing a blind man from birth publicly, Jesus caused others to see things spiritually. Thus, leading to people naturally giving God the glory.

In Genesis 50:20, Joseph speaks about how God can take something evil like our physical ailments or malfunctioning cognitive faculties and turn them into something good. This can be seen when a family is closer to each other when compared to other families because of the attentive care necessary for one of their family members that may have an intellectual disability like autism. If not for having a family member with said disability, there are many families that would probably be more distant to both each other and God. Like usual, God can answer a series of evils with one good thing.

boy-child-country-551576.jpg
Source: Pexels

But that stills leaves our question unanswered: can people with malfunctioning cognitive faculties consciously accept or reject belief in God? Can they ever have a repaired sense of God? To put it simply, of course they can and a good portion of them do have genuine belief in God.

Even though someone may be at a mental state where they are equivalent to that of a small child or may have an IQ lower than normal, they still have the ability to receive the Gospel. In Mark 10:15, Jesus clearly states that “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” If we base our faith in our own intelligence and knowledge, then we have not received the Gospel like a child and are not actually Christian.

We have made up our own God at that point because faith in the kingdom of God is childlike, not complex and complicated. Either we believe that Jesus is Lord and confess that God raised Him from the dead or we don’t. It’s as simple as that and for someone with malfunctioning cognitive faculties, they too have the ability to receive or reject belief in God on these grounds.

One last thing. Like anyone who comes to faith in God, the moment of salvation is completely by the power of the Holy Spirit. We cannot do this on our own. We cannot have our sense of God repaired and our souls redeemed, unless by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

So whether someone has an intellectual disability or not, we need the Holy Spirit during this transformation from death to life. From disbelief to genuine belief in the one true, triune God. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot be born again. But by the power of God the Father in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, we can all be born again. We can all be made alive in Christ. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  2. Earlier in this chapter, Plantinga defines sensus divinitatis as “a disposition or set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various circumstances, in response to the sorts of conditions or stimuli that trigger the working of this sense of divinity (p. 173).” This sense of divinity or this sense of God is the bedrock for which the A/C Model hinges on and is one of the main themes discussed in Warranted Christian Belief, along with the rest of Plantinga’s Warrant trilogy. The name sensus divinitatis was originally penned by a French theologian named John Calvin.
  3. It is possible that my original diagnosis of high spectrum autism disorder by Stanford University may have been a mistake. As Thomas Sowell argues, a number of cases in the past that were diagnosed as ADD, Autism, and so on could have been just children with what he dubs “Einstein Syndrome.” Also known as late-talkers, Einstein Syndrome is named after Albert Einstein due to a theory that he began to talk at a later age than usual due to certain portions of his brain developing faster than normal. If a child’s parents are extremely gifted in mathematics or music, then the child may be more likely to be a late-talker, according to Sowell. To learn more, click here.
  4. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-was-this-child-born-blind

Don’t Judge Me By The Color Of My Eyes

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Updated: 5/27/2019

A while ago, my older brother John wrote a really powerful Facebook post about the state of racism in the world. He considered the matter and concluded that racism is nothing more than a categorical error. The idea that because of a sole variable (i.e. the color of one’s skin), those that share that variable are less than those who do not have that variable (i.e. those of a dissimilar skin color).

Even if both groups shared almost every other variable (i.e. culture, DNA, religion, etc), they were and are still identified by a variable that bears little to no significance when compared to more appropriate labels of identification like one’s birthplace or cultural upbringing. With his permission and in light of the anniversary of Martin Luther King Day, I wanted to share his thoughts with you (1). So, let’s see what he said.

–

I’ve heard so much talk lately about “black” people and “white” people. Unfortunately, every single post has missed the point entirely. We live in a world where we’ve been taught to categorize by color. A process that if not taught to you since you were born, would make absolutely no sense. In fact, you would find it ridiculous because if you step back and think about it, color does not represent anything.

You would never consider categorizing people by eye color. It would be so stupid to even try. Close your eyes for a second and try to imagine a world where people were categorized by eye color. The whole idea is just stupid, right? Well, open your eyes. This is your reality.

So why don’t you even give it a second thought when someone says “white” or “black” people? The very moment that you define someone by their skin is discriminatory. That is the birth of racism. Allow me to explain.

The deep rooted problem lies in our fundamental thinking process that we all are guilty of being indoctrinated into believing. Somewhere in our messed up ideology we discarded categorizing other people by real connections like culture and heritage. Instead, we have substituted appropriate labels with something more superficial and shallow: the color of our skin.

The way we use the word color itself is ridiculous. Everyone’s a different shade of brown. Have you ever actually seen a person with white or black skin? Me neither.

Also, the word “race” is entirely incorrect in the context that we use it in when talking about people. If there is no biological difference between people of different shades, then there is only one race. I’ll say it again. If there is no biological difference between people of different shades, then there is only one race: the human race.

If you really break it down, there is only one thing that people of the same skin shades have in common: the way society views and treats them. This is the only thing that creates the bond between people who look similar and separates those who look different. But the way society treats you has entirely nothing to do with you.

Now we’re back to agreeing that there is really no difference, except the one that we created in our minds. So I leave you with this: as long as you yourself define people by categories of skin “color,” you are reinforcing racism. If you want to change society, then you must first change the way you think.

–

Again, I love what John wrote about this issue. Really spoke to me and I hope it speaks to you in light of MLK Day. So what’s the takeaway from this Facebook post written by John?

If you change the way you think, then you will naturally change the way you speak. Don’t judge others by the color of their eyes or skin, but instead judge them by the inner condition of their identity. Now before you go, here is some more food for thought from two very important men in history speaking on the same subject:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” – Christ Jesus (NRSV John 7:24)

With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. John also gave me permission to make minor edits that help fit the format of a blog-post, as well as fix any grammatical errors present in his original Facebook post.
  2. For more from John Cribari, here’s his personal training business: https://lessons.com/ca/simi-valley/personal-training/cribari-training
  3. Disclaimer

The Cosmo-Quattro Argument

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Rather than writing on something currently on my mind, I just wanted to upload a response I gave a couple years ago on a Facebook group to someone who posted a meme about theism. The post revolved around how theists cannot provide adequate answers to support their belief in God. I don’t remember which group on Facebook it was, but I think off the top of my head it was either Atheist Beings, Atheism Uncensored, or Atheism United. Either way, I wrote this particular response on Google Docs as well and have just kept it over the years in my Google Drive. So with minor adjustments for clarity and conciseness, here is my response:

Okay I’m back. Sorry for the delay, I had a long day at work and then after work I was busy for quite some time. Finally have a little time to sit down and write back to you all. In a previous comment, I said that I would lay out the Change Argument and William Lane Craig’s Kalam-Cosmological Argument for those who are following this particular thread. First let me start with Dr. Craig’s argument and then proceed with the Change Argument:

The Kalam-Cosmological Argument (Source: On Guard by William Lane Craig)

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now this argument is airtight in its premises. The logic likewise flows as follows and is simple in its presentation. The conclusion is that this universe has a cause. Simple enough. Now let’s take this one step further with the Change Argument:

The Change Argument (Source: www.peterkreeft.com)

1) The material world we know is a world of change.

2) When something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being.

3) Other things must be involved.

4) Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then.

5) Nothing changes itself.

6) No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

7) The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are.

8) The whole universe is in the process of change.

9) But change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it.

10) Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by “God.”

11) Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change.

12) But it does change.

13) Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe.

14) But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other.

15) Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

With Craig’s argument and Plantinga’s argument in mind, we can conclude a series of things:

  1. The universe has a cause.
  2. This cause logically must be immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.
  3. It cannot change because it is the unchanging source of change.
  4. Therefore, the cause of the universe is changeless, immaterial, space-less, and timeless.

Adding these figures together we move onto the next argument that reasonably follows: The Teleological Argument. It is the argument that Christopher Hitchens considered the greatest argument for the existence of God. Even today, many atheists consider it to be the most formidable argument. The argument goes as follows:

The Teleological Argument (Source: On Guard by William Lane Craig)

1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3) Therefore, it is due to design.

Gathering our conclusions together, let’s now attribute factors to this mysterious first-cause. In order for something to be the first-cause it must fit this specific criteria that we have just observed together:

  1. The universe cannot cause itself into existence nor be the first cause (See: The Kalam-Cosmological Argument).
  2. The first-cause of the universe must be immaterial, space-less, and timeless (See: The Change Argument).
  3. The first-cause of the universe must be changeless (See: The Change Argument).
  4. The first-cause of the universe must be the designer of the universe (See: The Teleological Argument).
  5. Thus, the most reasonable and logical explanation based off of the evidence is that this first-cause must be and is God.

Lastly, in the Greater Than Argument I argue that God must be multi-personal due to Him being beyond our limits as the first-cause of the universe. My argument goes like this:

The Greater Than Argument

1) Every human is a single person.

2) God is greater than a human.

3) Since God is greater than a human, He therefore must be multi-personal.

4) The Christian Trinity is the best explanation of His multi-personal nature.

5) Therefore, God is a tri-unity of persons, yet remains one nature.

From this lengthy and exhaustive breakdown, we can also conclude that this first-cause (i.e. God) is indeed personal and is a transcendent creative mind. Just as a painter creates a painting with a specific purpose in mind, God must have personally caused and created the universe with a specific purpose in His mind. What purpose did God have in making the universe?

In the Judeo-Christian worldview, God caused and created the universe for His own glory. In other words, everything was caused and created for the glory of God. In Revelation 4:11, it says “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

Branching off of this, why should we glorify God? Well He made us and that should be enough reason to glorify Him. We are in eternal gratitude that God would want and will for us to exist because He desired for us to glorify Him by tending to the Earth in response to His love towards us (2). It’s a relationship that God desires from us because it’s in that relationship that those who choose to love Him back are glorifying Him to the fullest extent. As the Gospel of John writes, “We love because He first loved us (3)” and that’s why in the Judeo-Christian worldview, we desire to love everyone equally because Christ loved us first.

But before this can take place, everyone must first repent of their sin. The very thing that separated this relationship God and mankind once had together is blemished by our own sin. Yet, God (the Father) so loved the world (humanity) that He gave His only begotten Son (the Christ) that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

To conclude, you must repent and believe in God, so that you can now determine to glorify God in all that you do. The ultimate aim in Christianity is to know God, to be known by God, and to make God known. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels
  2. Genesis 1:26-31
  3. 1 John 4:19
  4. Disclaimer

How Should Christians Talk?

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Within Christian circles, there has been a long and great debate over how we believers should talk. Whether that be with others in social settings, before a congregation at a church, or even by ourselves. There are many sides to this discussion and I think for the sake of brevity, I will outline the more popular sides before giving my two cents on the situation.

Some say that according to such passages of Scripture as Ephesians 4:29-32 and Colossians 3:8, we should not swear or say anything remotely close to “those” words. This is because Paul the Apostle, the author of both Ephesians and Colossians, follows up both passages with a contrast between the old sinful self and the new sanctified self (2). His frequent mention of this spiritual duality puts a special emphasis on outward distinction from how the rest of the world operates. This should presumably include the way we speak.

On the flip side, there are other believers who insist that because the Bible itself and some of its most famous historical figures used swear words (3), like Paul, that we should have the freedom to use them too. Many on this side refer to such passages as 1 Samuel 20:30 and Luke 13:31-32 where people like Jesus seem to use curses towards others as a way of describing them or of telling the truth of a certain situation. They argue that because these heroes of the faith use these sorts of words, that we too should have the freedom to use them as well in the proper context.

Several months ago, I was apart of a great community group at Peace Mennonite Community Church called Thrive and the discussion for one night revolved around “unwholesome” speech. At the time, we were going through the book of Ephesians and this particular night was focused on the latter half of chapter 4. We all gave great and thought-out answers, but today I’ll just share with you my input with the group that night.

There are many passages in the Bible that to me are more profound than other passages because they give insight to who Jesus was during his quieter moments in His 3-year ministry. Moments like that in Mark 10:13-16 where Jesus explains the Kingdom of Heaven to both His disciples and the children that wanted to be there with Him. But the moment that I referenced in this small group was from Matthew 14:13-14.

In this passage of Scripture, Jesus has just received news that one of His dear friends, John the Baptist, has been killed by King Herod. After hearing the awful news, Jesus goes away to a secluded place in Bethsaida and travels there by boat (4). The disciples and apostles went with Him, in order to rest and eat. Not long after arriving there, the crowds showed up and this is the beginning of a more famous part of His ministry where He feeds the 5,000 with loaves of bread and fish.

Now what interests me most about this passage is how Jesus responds to the death of a friend during a very busy and exhausting portion of His ministry. He removes Himself, along with His disciples and John’s closest followers to seek rest. When thinking about how the followers of John the Baptist must have felt during this horrible tragedy, I then turned my focus to what Jesus must have been thinking and/or saying about His good friend. That friend being the very one who baptized Jesus and was there at the very beginning of His ministry.

To be more precise, how did Jesus talk to others, to Himself, or even to His Father in Heaven about His deceased friend while He was on that boat headed to Bethsaida? Was He angry and because of that, spoke curses concerning the situation or towards King Herod? What was His attitude and response? How did He handle the situation?

Branching out even further, how does Jesus speak about you when talking to the Father? How would He talk about you? We should talk, whether in social settings or by ourselves like Jesus would talk in social settings or just by Himself. We should talk to one another and when talking to ourselves like Jesus talked when He was on Earth.

It would appear that the thread that links the way Jesus spoke about anything was that it had to be necessarily true. Necessary in that it needed to be said in that moment of time for that specific situation about those certain persons, places, or things. It also had to be true because Christ Himself claims to be the truth (5), so He cannot do otherwise then speak the truth. In more simpler terms, he said it as it is and/or said what needed to be said.

In fact, this seems to be the pattern with every single word Jesus has ever said. He always only said what was necessary and true. Nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes, it would be blessings onto His most faithful followers and other times it would be curses onto those who knew better than the way they lived. Everything that has ever been said by Christ had to be said the way that it was said and it was always true.

But can the same be said of us when we speak? Do we say what is necessary and true or do we find ourselves saying a bit too much and a bit too little? I think we can all agree that we are the latter. We seem to always say too much or too little, but we never seem to tell the truth enough. We never seem to say what needs to be said. So before you ever ask yourself if you should say this or that word and this or that phrase, ask yourself if it is necessarily true.

Just as the tongue has the power to build up and destroy the subject that stands before it, so too do you have the ability to speak the truth or a lie. To speak life or death and praises or curses. Whatever encounter you find yourself in next, pause and ask yourself this question: is what I am about to say necessary and true? With that said, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/
  2. Colossians 3:9-11, Ephesians 4:22-24
  3. https://markoftheredpen.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/curse-words-in-the-bible/
  4. Mark 6:14-32, Luke 9:7-11
  5. John 14:6
  6. Disclaimer

The Coin Argument

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

I have heard many ask “If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?” and there are many responses to this question all throughout history. There are even great Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga and Ravi Zacharias who have delivered great responses to this problem of evil. If I was asked this question, here is one way that I would respond and that is with the coin argument.

If God exists, then why is there so much good in the world? The question in its very nature is problematic because it relies on a partial-variable. It depends on the assumption that God and evil cannot both exist.

If this assumption is true, then God and good cannot both exist. Thus, leaving the universe amoral, which we all know is a flawed and true conclusion. It is true based off of basic deductive reasoning from our previous premises, yet flawed because evil and good are both quite evident in our universe.

For examples of evil look no further than the horrors of war, famine, pestilence, natural disasters, and the like. For instances of good look no further than the sacrificial love of a mother for her child, giving to those that are in need, treating others the way you want to be treated, and so on. The existence of evil and good is too evident in the world to ignore.

Let me use an analogy to further my point: let’s say I have a coin. You say that if I flip this coin 100 times with it landing on heads every single time in a row, then there must be no coin maker. Now I say if I flip this coin 100 times with it landing on tails every single time in a row, then there must be a coin maker. Let’s surmise that such a scenario occurs where you’re right: the coin lands on heads 100 times in row. Does your conclusion logically make sense that there is no coin maker? No and neither would mine any more so than yours because it is focused on the coin’s mathematical probability of landing on heads or tails. When the focus should shift to “where did we get the coin in the first place?”

That’s the root issue here. Where do objective moral values come from in the first place? For the sake of time, objective moral values will be abbreviated to OMV. In my analogy, the coin represents OMV and likewise each side of the coin represents one side of those OMV (heads = objectively negative moral values -> “evil” and tails = objectively positive moral values -> “good”).

Therefore, as is the case with all things there must be an objective standard to determine what are objectively negative moral values (evil) and what are objectively positive moral values (good). This objective standard can only be 4 things: from something less than myself [nature](1), from something equal to myself [individual](2), from others equal to myself [society](3), or from something greater than myself [God](4).

Now, how am I obligated by something less than me [nature](1) to obey these OMV? There’s no need to be obligated by nature since nature is beneath mankind. Why should I lower my standards to comply with values of nature? When something within nature kills it is survival of the fittest, yet when we kill it is murder. So, should I obligate myself [individual](2) to these OMV? Do I have that absolute authority? If so, I myself can remove that absolute authority if I want to, which throws out the second conclusion all together making it obsolete.

Then can others [society](3) obligate me to OMV? Why does the majority have that absolute authority over the minority (myself)? How does a single variable like majority vs. minority suddenly change who can enforce OMV? If there is a society that can, then which one? And if there is one, what happens when that society eventually crumbles like every society before it has in the past? Thus, this objective standard must be greater than myself [God](4) because it (He) is superior to me and can rightfully demand obedience to these OMV as He is greater than I.

Hence, evil and good can only exist if there is a set of OMV determined by an objective standard [God](4) that can enforce these OMV onto us. This is the most logical and reasonable conclusion. God as the objective standard gives us the ability to discern what is evil and good. Without Him, nothing is sin while everything is live and let live. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/

The Value of Time

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

Time. It is the most valuable resource in the universe and in life. As Charles Darwin put it, “A man who dare waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life.” Time is a mysterious thing.

What Is Time?

It is not quite like other resources, such as water or oxygen because it is not limited by the boundaries of space. In fact, it does not actually inhabit any space or  physical matter like water or oxygen. Time is simply here, but is hard to comprehend sometimes why it is here. Some argue that time is its own dimension or reality.

Why is the universe limited by an ever increasing range of numbers that eventually will stop when God decides that it is time for a new earth and a new heaven (2)? Why even place this limit upon the universe? Why didn’t God just create an eternal universe, instead of a transient universe? Why is time so valuable you might add?

Unlike water or oxygen, time can never be stored or saved for later. Time is ever ending. It’s like a bowl of sand being poured out slowly, but surely until the bowl is completely empty. Once the bowl is empty, that’s it. Time has run out. As scary as that sounds, that is the reality of time.

Another way of understanding time is that it is like throwing a stone or firing a gun at a specific target. Both the bullet and the stone will travel for awhile at various rates of speed before colliding with the target, thus ending their course. Time is like the distance the bullet and the stone travel. The “trigger-man” so to speak is God and He caused everything into being, which includes the starting point of time and the endpoint.

Then again, is time even linear to begin with in the first place? Some say time is linear, while others propose it is cyclic like a cone (i.e. the Big Bang Model), along with a few that say it may even be an ever expanding sphere of sorts (i.e. a balloon being blown up). Now I’m no scientist, so I cannot determine which view is correct. What I can do is present each theory briefly to help us better understand time.

For the traditional view of time, that camp argues that there was a first cause. Since that first cause, there has been a sequential series of events moving on a horizontal plane to an unknown end. Think like a ruler or a simple line with two end points.

In the cyclic (cone) group of thinkers, they presume that time is a lot like the way people understand the universe in that both are expanding in the shape of a cone. There was a starting point where the first cause occurred, but since then it has been expanding. These thinkers use the phenomena of red-shift stretching across space as proof of this theory.

The third camp does likewise in that they use red-shift as evidence for their view, but to a different extent. They argue that time is a lot like a big ball that is slowly growing in size until it finally pops. An easy example would be to refer to the way oxygen fills up a balloon until it explodes. In a way, they believe time is a swirling twirl of cause and effect colliding in an incomprehensible pattern that is interwoven like a ball of yarn. A chaotic masterpiece.

Why do I bring up these various ideas of time? Because I want you to know how much we do not understand about time. How much we barely know. How much we as human beings under-appreciate time and undervalue it. Life’s most valuable resource.

What Does The Bible Say About Time?

The Bible, God’s inspired Word, has a lot to say concerning the concept of time. The actual word “time” appears in the NASB translation of the Bible 626 times. To say that time is important to God is an extreme understatement. Some passages of Scripture that come to mind would be Ecclesiastes chapter 3 where King Solomon reflects on the concept of time and seasons. In the chapter, he asserts that “there is an appointed time for everything.” Essentially, every single moment in time matters. There are no coincidences, but only opportunities. With this in mind, nothing can be random because something caused those “random” moments.

Time is a lot like the wind. We cannot actually see it, but we can observe its effects on our environment. Time is an effect-full, yet invisible force of nature that guides everything within the universe, including the universe itself.

Time is also like a loan from God. When God first created the universe, a countdown was started. From that point onward, time has been counting down to the moment when the universe ends. With this in mind, everything within the universe also has a beginning, a middle, and an end. We are born, live our lives hopefully to the fullest, and then die. It is the cycle of everything in the universe.

Because we are limited by time, we are also on a countdown to our own inevitable end. Eventually, our time here in the material realm will be done as we transition into the spiritual realms of either Heaven or Hell. If you adhere to the Naturalist worldview, then this is it and you have nothing to look forward to after death. Those who hold to a theistic worldview can look forward to a better or worse eternity. For the Naturalist, nothing. Even in this life there is nothing. From the Naturalist’s worldview, you have no meaning, purpose, or value.

Now let’s observe the other position. That there is meaning, purpose, and value because there is something beyond the material as the theistic worldview asserts. Where does this meaning, purpose, and value come from? Just as the meaning, purpose, and value of a work of art comes from the artist giving their artwork these qualities, we too find these same things in God.

Since we derive our meaning, purpose, and value from God it would only make sense that those must be fulfilled in this life. I mean why would God instill these desires in our hearts, if not to see us follow His plans for our lives and satisfy these desires within our lifetimes? C.S. Lewis once spoke of this predicament when he said “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists” (3).

The question remains: how do we fulfill these desires and how does this tie back into the value of time? Well, let’s go back to what the Bible has to say on the topic of time in a bit more detail. This will clue us in on how to appropriately answer this question in a way that is both emotionally and logically reasonable. If time is a variable in which we are contingent on, then how do we use it to our benefit to satisfy our ultimate desires? In the book of Exodus, reflection and remembrance is a key theme that carries throughout this book in the Old Testament of the Bible.

Specifically, Exodus 13:10-14 where the LORD instructs the Hebrews on how they are to reflect and remember how God delivered them from the land of Egypt by taking them to the Promised Land. This aspect of reflecting and remembering time is also of note in Exodus chapter 34 where an entire chapter is dedicated to this idea of remembrance, particularly Exodus 34:21 where the Hebrews are commanded by God to rest. The key lesson here is that there is a time and a place for everything. God formulated this philosophy when He created the universe by spending six days working and one day resting. Thus, fulfilling what we would call the work week.

Next, we jump to Nehemiah 2:6 where we can use time as a measurement to map out our lives or God can for that matter (4). Yet at the same instant, be men and women of our word. Nehemiah did this when he gave King Artaxerxes, accompanied by the Queen, a definite time of when he would return. A promise was proclaimed.

There are “God-Moments” when God enters time and accomplishes His will for His glory by allowing us free agents to bring about these so-called “God Moments” (5). Time can peel away inner heartache that can unveil who we are or what we have become (6). Time is a witness of the past (7) and is always brimming with opportunity (8) for us to fulfill our God-given desires.

Final Thoughts

How do I spend my time? Good question. How should I spend my time? Better question. If time is a loan from God, then how much time has God given me? No one knows. I don’t know and you don’t know. That is what makes this life so interesting and so risky. Our time is set, yet we are not informed of how much time is set.

That is why we must use our time wisely, in order to make the most of the time we are given from God. We must redeem the time (9) as we wait expectantly for the appointed time to be fulfilled and remain alert for that to pass (10). We use our time wisely when we set out to fulfill the God-given desires of our hearts by abiding in Christ, which will in turn satisfy our craving for ultimate meaning, purpose, and value.

Love your loved ones. Fellowship with friends. Work hard and do not become sluggish in what may end up being your final moments. The past grows as the future shrinks, so this is the time to seek God. This life that you and I live is an ever ending marathon. A journey one might say that is not over until we enter eternity.

This is just a brief summary of why I uphold the value of time and treasure it far above anything that this life can offer. How will we use this gift? What will we do with our time? Well, that’s up to you. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/
  2. 2 Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 21:1-5
  3. Mere Christianity (bk. 3, chap. 10)
  4. Exodus 9:5; Psalm 75:2; Daniel 2:16
  5. Judges 16:28
  6. Job 36:10, 15
  7. Isaiah 30:8
  8. John 7:6
  9. Ephesians 5:16
  10. Mark 1:15; 13:33