Makarios

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:27:00 +0000

Isaiah 66:2 - This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:25:00 +0000

“When examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from chaos, or form emerging from formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things.

What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something ever more remarkable than Paley’s watches. Paley finds a “watch” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than that watches themselves?”

Stephen Barr, “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith,” 111

Occam’s Razor

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:22:00 +0000

The odds of our mathematically precise, finely tuned, life sustaining universe coming into being by accident is so astronomically improbable that it’s been described as randomly throwing a dart at the universe and hitting the correct proton.

Now, if that in fact happened, as is the case for our universe, you have two options to consider:

1) Something outside of nature or something Supernatural caused this to happen. In other words it was rigged to happen, or

2) There are an infinite number of universes that over an infinite amount of time with an infinite number of possible constants and quantities that finally resulted in a life sustaining universe such as ours.

Which would a rational person abiding by Occam’s razor use? Number one

Which would an atheist choose abiding by Occam’s razor? Number two.

As long as it keeps out Creator God, no hypothesis is too complicated, no amount of evidence too absent for atheists.

In reality, our universe is deigned for life because Someone designed it that way.

American Music Awards

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:03:00 +0000

As secular culture celebrates the best it has to offer, progressive atheists find their poster boy in Adam Lambert.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:12:00 +0000

Zechariah 8:16,17 - These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbour and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this declares the Lord

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:11:00 +0000

“You cannot explain an improbability of this magnitude (universe coming into being by accident) by simply pointing to our presence on the scene to ponder it. There is still a massive improbability that needs to be accounted for.”
Dinesh D’Souza “What’s so great about Christianity

Bluff and Bluster

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:03:00 +0000

What do the following things have in common? Science has nothing to say except in a lame and pathetic manner to suggest that they’re all an illusion, or to suggest they'r some mythological creation. Just as atheists have been forced into the ludicrous, “matter has always existed,” or "matter came into existence without a cause," so too, in the near future will atheists tell us that “Life has always existed. Life didn’t have a beginning. Life didn’t have a cause. Life has always been.”

Here are just a few things for which science has nothing of value to say:

- The Beginning of Life

- Consciousness

- Rationality and Morality (How do we know what is true)

- Science can't tell us why kindness is better than cruelty - yet we still believe it to be true

- Science can't tell us how the laws of mathematics and logic came to exist or why they came to exist but we still live as though they do exist. If the atheist says these laws exist to prove science s/he is arguing in a circular manner.

- Science can't explain or prove metaphysical truths;
. there are minds other than my own
. the external world is real
. the external world didn't begin to exist ten minutes ago appearing as aged.

- Science can't prove or disprove ethical beliefs
. Whether the Nazis did anything evil

- Science can't rule on aesthetic judgments
. Beauty and goodness can't be proven

Science itself can't be justified by the scientific method of inquiry.

Don't fear these atheists. They're all bluff and bluster. They've surrounded themselves with a barrier of misinformation. Give them eyewitness testimony and they'll say eye-witness testimony isn't reliable. Give them teaching that was learned from an eyewitness and they'll reject it as hearsay.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:28:00 +0000

Exodus 23:1,2 - "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favouritism to a poor man in his lawsuit just because he is poor.

Life Starts With a Code

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:26:00 +0000

Each and every DNA molecule, including the first, is an algorithm in biochemical code with a capacity for transcription and replication.

“The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes.” Richard Dawkins, “The Devil’s Chaplin: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science and Love” 28

Implications Of The Big Bang

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:12:00 +0000

Earlier I said that atheists try to avoid the “Distasteful Implications” of the “Big Bang.” In a tone of what I perceive to be feigned wonderment, I’ve been asked, “Why, whatever could you mean by that?”

Well, that’s easy. If there were no “God As Cause” implications attached to a universe with a beginning, atheist scientists wouldn’t be straining themselves to get rid of the simplest solution to the origins of the universe, by inventing manifestly complicated hypotheses to its origin. Atheism’s hostility to religion has made the elimination of the Big Bang theory its top priority, causing it to posit more and more preposterous ideas as the years go by.

For example, atheists state just as though it’s been proven that there are:
. Multiple universes where everything that can happen, does happen.

Others have declared that our origins come from an:
. Oscillating universe,
. Or a parallel universe,
. Or maybe we came into existence via a black hole
. Or that all of this takes place in imaginary time which requires no past, present or future.
. Some propose that space aliens brought life to earth and someone reading this right now will be thinking, in all seriousness, Hey! Aliens? Maybe. I never thought of that.

Occam’s razor has absolutely no place in the repertoire of the atheist scientist when it comes to explaining how our universe came into being. As Stephen Barr says, “It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes.” Beyond that, atheist scientist completely ignore the finding of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which states that any model of an expanding universe, be it real, such as ours, or imaginary, such as those in the minds of atheist must have a definitive space-time boundary ie. a Big Bang type of singularity.

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,”

This beginning demands an answer to Why did this take place?

Not only is it logical to say that the universe had a beginning and a cause, not only is it reasonable to say that the universe had a moment of Creation (Big Bang), but the Bible presents that beginning exactly as science is now “discovering” that it happened.

Here is what we know scientifically:
. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
. The universe had a beginning.
. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause.

That takes care of the silly question, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?” Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God. However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe. God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal. Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent. Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.

We must choose between matter as infinite and Creator God who is Spirit, as infinite. Reason states that it must be One and not the other for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically, nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself. Again, it is impossible for matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past.

Now, Richard Dawkins says that a complicated God is very improbable. Maybe, but improbable is better than impossible. As well, whose to say that God is complicated? He may be capable of doing complicated things but that is another issue. Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins has absolutely no problem with highly improbable odds when they suit his cause.

The Creation Event is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.

Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”

Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”

Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.

A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter. Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. If the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist.

Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.

It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.

Those then are the distasteful implications of the Big Bang.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:25:00 +0000

The Pastor on our oldest daughter's reserve is telling people that getting the H1N1 shot is a sign of a lack of faith. Grrrr

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:16:00 +0000

Ram Bahadur Bamjan, a Nepalese teenager is revered by many as a reincarnation of Buddha. Mr. Bamjan's followers believe he has been meditating without food and water in the jungles of southern Nepal since 2005. Believers say he spends months without moving, sitting with his eyes closed beneath a tree.

Good thing they haven’t seen me over the last couple of weeks. They’d be worshipping me by now.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:15:00 +0000

Exodus 22:21,22 - "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him. Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan.

That Didn’t Happen

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:12:00 +0000

Or as atheists would say, “Create your own reality.” Whether Stalin or Pol Pot or leaders in present day China, atheists are masters of reinventing themselves and history itself. Here’s an example. Do you remember something called the Tiananmen Square Massacre? If you do, chances are you don’t live in China. Like modern atheists in the West, atheists in China’s government don’t like admitting guilt either. In fact, the official line is that Tiananmen Square never happened.

Just the same, atheists in the west just change reality to suit their desires and opinions. Examples:

Divorce is good
Adultery is good
Porn is good
Living common law is good
Pride is good
Selective / relative morality is good

Having thus reinvented themselves atheists say, “See? I don’t need God in order to be a good person.”

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

Palin on Palin

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:19:00 +0000

Sarah Palin does a parody of Sarah Palin

“If God didn’t want us to eat animals, why did He make em out of meat?
Sarah Palin

That is just too funny.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:37:00 +0000

Isaiah 26:3 - You will keep in perfect peace those whose minds are steadfast, because they trust in you.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:36:00 +0000

“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

cosmologists - Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel

If I Understand You Correctly

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:29:00 +0000

If I understand atheists correctly, our morals and obligations are actually invented, made up as we go along.

At one point rape really was ok, and then it became not ok. On atheism, that could change again.

At one point racism really was ok, and then it became not ok. On atheism, that could change again.

On atheism, no one is in a position to judge Hitler’s actions as right or wrong.

Right now having sex with animals really isn’t ok but as atheist Peter Singer predicts, one day bestiality “will cease to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.”
Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting,” a review of Midas Dekker’s dearest Pet: On Bestiality (2001)

At one point pornography was not ok. Because of moral relativism that goes hand in glove with atheism, that has changed.

At one point having sex with children was wrong. Because of moral relativism that goes hand in glove with atheism, that is changing.

On atheism we first invent morality and then it becomes right.

Now atheists are correct when they say, we should be good for goodness sake, not because we think someone might be watching. The problem is, atheists say that we alone decide for ourselves what is good. So when we’re pretty sure that no one is looking a high percentage of people (those who disagree with the society in which they live) are actually not so good.

Atheists say that the community should decide what is right and wrong, but that only works if the community agrees with what atheists think - eg, no prayer in school, same sex marriage etc. In those cases atheists say, “It doesn’t matter what the community thinks. It only matters what we / I think.”

The problem is, there is only room for one God in any given universe. When your god and my god are forced to share the same space, or to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, something has got to give. On atheism, might decides what and who is right.

If I understand atheists correctly, atheism is absurd on virtually every level.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:11:00 +0000

“For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man.”

John Stott

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:49:00 +0000

“Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.”

microbiologist from the University of Illinois, Carl Woese

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:47:00 +0000

Isaiah 25:4 - You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat.

Atheists demand their rights

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:36:00 +0000

Nothing but curious amusement strikes me when I hear once again of atheists demanding to pay the full price of their own sins. Goofs like Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens are offended by the unfairness of being able to off-load the guilt that is clearly theirs, onto an innocent scape-goat - Jesus.

Of course, as atheists, these men and others like them are denied the deeper and profound meaning as Christ confronts what we cannot confront and endures on our behalf what we cannot endure. None of us, and this is true to several orders of magnitude for atheists can comprehend the depths of our sin because we cannot bear the truth. The spiritual darkness in which we live is such that the light of God’s righteousness is painfully blinding. That is why Jesus did what He did on our behalf.

When atheists look at this event they don’t see the offer of a lifetime -

“Accept My love and you’ll receive eternity in Paradise.”

Atheists look at this and because their minds are already determined to reject God and His forgiveness and His freedom they can only hear,

“Accept my love or burn in hell.”

Here is what makes the atheist position seem so childlike in it’s understanding of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, and in it’s reaction to that understanding. First, the atheist, full of bluff and bluster rants at the offer of forgiveness. “We are the ones who have committed the crime and we are the ones who should suffer the consequences.” Then, when God responds with a sorrowful, “Then you shall indeed bear the cost of your sins,” the atheist roars back at how monstrous a thing is that proposition.

Atheists seem a wee bit out of the loop on this count. You see this isn’t a case of Jesus doing for us what we should be doing ourselves. Jesus is in fact doing for us what we CANNOT do for ourselves. We have destroyed a relationship that can only be healed by the other partner in the relationship. It’s a bit like a five year old breaking a window and the atheist next door saying, “Well, you’ve broken it. Now it’s up to you to fix it.” Yes the child broke it but it’s the Father who will have to bear the cost of fixing it for the child holds no such ability or resources on h/her own.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:52:00 +0000

Isaiah 11:2-4 - The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him - The Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of power, of knowledge. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:50:00 +0000

“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes [of which there is no evidence] or design that requires only one [of which there is evidence]. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”
cosmologist Ed Harrison

Ask Kim Kardashian

noreply@blogger.com (Makarios) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:29:00 +0000

I’m not kidding! There is actually a section in Time Magazine - this is a top shelf News Magazine - or so I thought - where people have written in to find out what Kim Kardashian thinks about stuff. Dear God how is our planet ever going to survive? Now, I don’t know who Ms. Kardahian is but I am absolutely confident that the world will be better off if no one EVER finds out what Kim Kardahian thinks. O Crap, I should have died while I had the chance.