The Genesis Flood and Saving America

"The Genesis Flood" the book by Henry Morris and John Whitcomeb that came out in nineteen sixty one had a pround effect on evangelicalism which had pretty much capitulated to the supposed scientifc evidence for evolution.   They had tried to adapt to it in various ways while holding on to the inerrancy of scritupture, but that is not an easy thing to do.  I just found the Genesis Flood as an audio book and want to listen to it again, or some of it at least just to reorient myself, because I too was proundly affected by it alhtough I didn't ecome a Christian until the late eighteeies and the book had already been out almost thirty years by then.   

A

Although creationism certainly inspired me I soon found that they get into scientifc areas I just can't follow and some of them didn't even seem to me to get to any really important points from which to try to make the cast to unbelievers.  I haven't looked at a creationis t website for many years by now, and of course by now my eyes are so bad I couldn't read any of it anyway.  For the last twenty or so years I was approachinjg various problems from angles I could grasp more clearly  and a lot of it was posted at EvC forum.  Of course nobody there, all being committed evolutionists, did anything but try to find ways to get rid of everything I tryed to argue.  I never found any of their arguments convincing although I do have to admit that over the years enough got said to get me to reassess parts of what i was thinking about.  I learned new termoinology fromt ime to time, learned different facets of the sciences involved insofar as I could follow them and did built up my own thinking from their arguments over time.

The Genesis Flood at least established in my mind that the flood of Noah was a historical fact that I've never doubted since, if I'd doubted it at all before.  They aruge that the strata are the evidence for it and that the fossils were killed by the Flood.  That much is incontrovertible it seems to me.  how they made their arguments I'm going to have to review, it involved scientific work in hydraulogy for one thing to establish how the flood could have created the column of layers.  All that is important of course but at some point I just stood back and thought how obvious it is that the strata couldn't possibly represent time periods, it made me laugh and although I've gone into a lot more than that in various arguments over the years I'm straging with that here.  All you have to do is THINK about the strata, what they really are in phyiscal reality, and hoyou have to admit they could not possibly represent time periods.  Really.

The history of the earh cannhjot be made up of layers of sedimentary rocks, straight and flat for thousands upon thousands of square miles.  Cannot.  And try as you might you aren't oing to be able to made ake a cast e for their existence that supposeorts such a belief in them as time periods.  How did they get there?  Every time period of millions of years somehow got reduced down to a layer of rock?  Really?  is our own period going to have that same fate?  Really?  What would be the physical stages it would have to go through tot get to that point?  What did the other time periods go through tot get to the point of being tnothing but a flat layer of frock with dead things in it?  

Go on, try it.  the whole idea is insane and when you really do try to think it through you have to wonder how anyone manged to overlook these simple physical facts.

Go on, try it.

I went on to work out what I think is the true historical path of the strata and in doing that I chad to contradict some strongly accepted ideas that even the creationists who believe in the Flood had adccepted.  I've spelled it out in many places but I don't ahve the means to do it any more from scratch because it takes visuals I can't make use of any more without help which I on't have.

Of course everybody laughs at it all but who cares, I expect people to laugh,.  I nevertheless thingk I've come up with some good stuff, and it's suff the creationists haven't come up with unless they've done so sicne I did.

I'm going back to this in this post although the previous post was about how America is going to go under as a nation unless we correct certain things and bring back our Christian heritabge.  I know we aren't going to do that.  The forces of evil are too strong and it just isn't going to happen.  But if evolution could be killed as it so richly deserves to be it might open some yeeyhes.  

Soli Deo Gloria

Cast Out the Priests of Baal and then Maybe God Will Bless Us Again

The problem with freedom of religion is that there is a tacit agreement that we must treat all religions as equal not just in the political sense but in the theological sense as well, as we hold ecumenical prayer meetings including religions thta god surely regards as baal worship or worse.  How is He going to bless such prayer meetings?  Yet that's the kind of prayer meetings that are had in Washington D. C. for this nation.  How on earth is God going to bless such a nation?  Thou shalt hve no other gods bedore Me, He says, but that is exactly what we arfe going and yet we expect Him to hear our prayers.    

The situation in the National Ctherdral is the worlst.  That's where George bush held the prayer meeting after the attack on the twin towers, with ...  well I forget who all was there.  A ctholic priest I think, and an Imama, ...religion of peace my foot...  Native American?  Mormon?  I don't remember.    I'm not even sure He'd accept a Catholic priest's prayer despite the nominal Christianity.  Mary worship by the Pope, or the every existence of the Pope is enough to disqualify them.   Not that all Protestant demoninations are acceptable either I'm sure, but that's the only group from wihich god would be certain to hear prayer.  True Orthodox Protestants.  

We ask how it is thta Islam has only becomje more, rather than less, influential in the nation sinxece nine eleven.  All we have to do iw look at that prayer int he National Cathedral for starters, but all the other ecumentical prayers held in Washington every year.  We're committing massive sin against God ith such meetings.    How is the nation ever going to properly repent and ssk God when we can't get that much straight?

Oh, probably a rabbi too.  No, Judaism is not an acceptable prayer partner.  Denying the Messiah Jesus disqualifies them.  They are not praying to the true God and shouldn't be included in prayers for the nation.

\We can talk all we want about the need for prayer and looking to God to save us from this dire situation we are in, and surely we should, but it's futile if we're violating this basic requriement for such seeking of Himj.    He hasn't been blessing us as we sould hope, He hasn't given us the revival we so desperately need and pray for.  Islam is more powerful in the country than ever.  If He'd been hearing us that wouldn't be happening.  \\\\

Sure it's all our national sins as well, bortion and all the resto of it, but none of that is going away either.  Something is wrong at the core of things.  Maybe it's God's unwillingness to bless us, but maybe it's something we are doing to prevent Him from blessing us.    Mayube the first thing we should repent of is this blasphemous ecumenical prayer thing.  

Unfortunately it would praobably have to be at the national level.  I suppose if groups of citizens did it there might be some benefit, but when we are talkinga bout a national reason for the national's being cursed, the remedy has to be at that level.  \\\\\

They've actually had many idolatrous religions represented in prayers for the opening of Contgress.  Even Wicca.  how is God going to bless that?   We're going under for sure if that is our stance.\\\

Later:  After writing this post I've been feleling awfully remiss at having neglected this subject for so long, even forgetting it as I think instead in terms of God's simply giving up on us for our isnfulness nin general.  Because after writing this I think it's the core problem and I've been failing to do my job, follow my calaling which I know He's given me.  He's given me various topics to cover here though I often wantder off into my own preferred topics I'm afraid, but this one comes from Him.    This is the nuimber one thing the nation needs to repent of.  We need to cleanse the sanctuary as the Maccabees did after Antiiochus had desecrated it.  We've desecrated it.  I don't mean just the literal National Cathedral althoughthat would certainly be an obvious place to start, but I mean refusing to have prayer meetings with anyone who is not a follower of Jesus Christ.   There would be a horrendous uproar.  So what.  We're used to the uproars of the ungodly by now aren't we?  The woke, the lying left, the politically correct, we're called racists and we'll be called worse for this I'm sure.  So what.  God is to be our AUthority, not these men whose breath is in their nostrils.

Whatever

I'm lonely, that's the problem isn't it?  I have only my blog to talk to and unfortunately it doesn't talk back.  If it could I couldn't read the converation anyway.  

\\

Oh I have people to talk tgo, just not about the things that matter to me.

nd still the world is burning down around us.  Well I've given some thought to how I would go about trying to fix it but I don't have the means and talk is cheap.

The Moral Sense of Unbelievers

 A post or three down I said that I thought a few of the Ten Commandments might be acceptable to today's secular moralists but I've thought further about it and don't think so.  Stealing is now promoted as gangs of shoplifters are free to drive businesses to shut down.  Lying is just fine because they all lie and I doubt they'd say much against it.  there was a time in America where there was enough Christian morality that you could count on people having enough of a conscience to check themselves when lying was a temptationj.  Stealing and lying.  Oh and murder too of course is just fine as long as the victim is a fetus as they prefer to call it to avoid the fact that it is a human eing.  And eucthanasia is OK though that is really murder too.  And of course it's just fine to assassinate anyone you disagree with.

So, sure Dawkins human beings have some sofrt of moral sense without God, but when you think about what it amounts to, it ain't much.

Good questin?

 Shy am I spending so much time trying to kill evolution and defend Christianity against Richard Dawkins when the world is burning down around us?  

I've Got To Get Off This Dawkins Stuff

 He keeps carrying on about evolution by natural selection as the answer to everything we can ask about life and God and so on, and the way he thinks of it I suppose it is the answer.  But he has this ridiculously simplified idea of it.  Natural selection just always selsects the most useful thing.  Well I suppose why not.  But what about amillion other possibilities that would keep cropping up oin a frandom genetic system that would not cause any hard tm to an organizsm, wouldn't they just be retained there useless though they are?  maybe he has an answer to that but I don't know what it is.  Supposely such things drop out but I don't see why if possibilirties just go on cropping up and natural selection keeps selecting the best.  Oh time time and more time.  Time will solidify the selected ones as they will confer greater survivaility even in a small amount to the possessors, while the others will eventually drop out that don't confer any benefit, but why should they drop out?  What makes them drop out?

So his simple openended change naturally selected to produce only the best and refine it would do what he says it would do, only it can't exist.    Again selection of new phenotypes can only occur with the loss of genetic variability which over many generations would lead to the inability to produce more change.  

More Dawkins: The Improbability of the Existence of God

 Dawkins keeps coming up on my You Tube page, which makes sense of course since it keeps finding more of the same of whatever it is you spend time on, and it is tempting to listen to some of it and when I do I usually get provijed into saying something about it.  So an interview he had with one Alister McGraw came up and they are discussing hte probability of the existence of God and what faith is and that'sa as far as I've gonve to this point.

I long ago got tired of arguments for the existence of God based on mere reasoning because none of it proves anything in either direction.  The onlyu argument tht convinces me is the one from scripture, The Bible of course not any other scripture.  Christian theology it seems to me answers all the relevant questions and nothing else does.  I don't care if God seems provable or improbable to the antheists I think you have to have a proposition about the existence of God directly experiencesd by people which is what is found in the Bible.  Personal testimomnies on top of that may help but personal testimonies without that are of no use iether.    If or course you've found the Bible so odious you couldn't believe it for that reason alone, which is apparently Dawkins' position, then there is no place to go from there.  But his rejection of it on those tgrounds is misguided as he just has no feeling for the context of the actions he is vilifying, as I discuss in a post a few days ago.

It is only the Bible that gives us a n explanation for our common experience of a sort of blankness when we think of God, hwe have no experience,k ono eability to recognize a God, it's not in us you wcould say.  That is true for the entire human race as we find ourselves in this world.  And it's only the bible that gives us the explanation of the Fall or Original Sin as havigng deprived us for the ability to sense the presence of God.  Dawkins mocks tht idea too of course, but as with the rest of his mockerings it's just hthat he has no rael understanding of the meaning of "total depravity" as it is put in the arguments about Calvin's theology.  Tottal depravity does not rmean we are wholly evil as so many  seem to think, it means we are cut off from the highest good at the very least and cannot make a right judgment or right decision about God and His moral Law because of our deficiency or depravity.    

Of course he have some sort of moral sense.  We have a conscience.  We are all made in the image of God, Christians don't deny that.  There is a goodness in us considering the depravity and so on.   Howeverk, if the claim is that we don't need God to make right judgments accurtely all the time that is wrong.  Huamnity without God thinks abortion is just fine for instance, or pornography, or divorce, and has no problem with covetousness which is one of the vforbidden ten of the ten commandments.  Most would accept murder and lying and stealing as sins or moral failures or whateve they want to scall them, maybe not so much adultery and as I said not covetousness, and certainly nothe five commancments of the first table, loving God above all others, having no other gods, not taking His name in vain, honoring the Sabbath and always honoring parents.  All that is problematic to one degree or another to humanity without God.  So while we have some moral sense it's not the same as the one we'd have through the Biblical God.But then they just say they are right and the Bible is wrong and so what.

When I first understood the idea of Original Sin during the years when I was reading my way to God as it were, I was thrilled because it seemed to me to answer a million questions I hadn't even formulated clearly.  Why there is evil in the world at all for instance, why there is war, why there is so much hatred and so on.  Why there is murder, how there could be a Ted Bundy or a Stalin and so on.  Finally getting a sense of iroriginal sin added to the faith in God that was started to grow although I didn't yet grasp much about the role Christ played, what the cross had to do with any of it and so on.  I wasn't reading the bible, thoughj I was getting quotes from it in many of the books I was reading.  

I don't think you can conclude much of anything about ehe existence of God without the Bigle, and apparently that doesn't do it for a Dawkins either though for me it makes all the difference.

Fatih is the substance of things hoped for, tevidence of things unseen.  Well, yes, God is Spirit, we can't see Him.  If we are born again we have a sense of HIs presence at times but He's not physical and we can know Him only through faith.  Christ once walked the earth and was a real physical presence for those who knew HIm but we have to know Him by faith now.  And we know all the tenets of the religion by faith, that we are saived by belief in His death of r us on the cross and so on.    That's what faith is.  I tdon't think other realigions have faith in the true sense of the term.  People seem to think it merely means you believe there is a God.  Pretty minimal idea though.  Faith in the biblical sense tells us a lot about God and allows us to grow in knowledge of Him.  That can't happen in a religion that doesn't even describe God as the Bible does.  The bible shows us God in many diffedrent contexts so we accumulate a sense of Him far beyond the notionj  of some vauge entityu.