"The Last Underway"

The Last Underway*

 by Alvie E. Robbins, YN3, USN

The duty day has long since been secured
They’re about to get underway, “Sailor, Pass the word!”
Watches all set, ship’s work is now done
It is now time for our shipmate’s final run

Our Supreme Commander has piped our shipmate safely aboard
To assume heaven’s duty, to receive his eternal reward
To sail free from the storms and tempests of life
To know peace and freedom from this present strife

Single up all lines, cast off, shift colors, all ahead 1/3
Soon the Eternal Patrol is underway, with nary a word
Now at sea, his vessel agilely answers her helm
Now to her course, plunging onward, to another realm

Yes, our Shipmate is underway now out of sight
For him it is fair winds in bright of daylight

No more doldrums the sailor's fright

No more fear of unseen danger at night

 For the shipmates who remain here behind,

May we keep loyalty to the Skip ever in mind

Trust in the Commander—He is there where we cannot see
Standing by for shipmates, for friends, and for family

So keep straight on and answer the Captain’s commands every day
For we too will be piped aboard, earth’s work done, we’ll soon be under way
Moorings slipped, colors shifted, on the Eternal Patrol we too will sail
Just over the horizon where winds are fair and there’s ne’er a gale

So sailor, continue ship’s work until the Lord says, “Get underway!”
Keep strong to task, keep your course straight and true
No matter the seas, the Commander will get you through
Then will come the day and just over the horizon, we’ll be there too!

“Fair winds and following seas, Shipmate!”

(c) All rights reserved

*Note:  The poem is not intended to reflect sound Christian doctrine.

From Fr Tryphon's posting

"A ship sails, and I stand watching, til she fades on the horizon, and someone at my side says, "She is gone." Gone where?

Gone from my sight, that is all. She is just as large as when I saw her.....
The diminished size and total loss of sight is in me, not her, and just at the moment when someone at my side says "She is gone", there are others who are watching her coming, and other voices take up the glad shout "Here she comes.....!"
And that is dying. "

Full article available at https://www.facebook.com/pages/All-Merciful-Saviour-Orthodox-Christian-Monastery/104578182913886

"Christian? What is Christian?"

Though much has been written and taught on the subject, such questions as are in the title may be reduced to a very simple response.  As response we will consider in a moment.

Being Christian is not a class of religious movement, though it involves a religious movement.
Being Christian is not about church, though it involves church.
Being Christian is not a worship style, though it involves worship style.
Being Christian is not a knowledge--a set of facts, though it involves knowledge.
Being Christian is not faith, though it involves faith, sometimes great faith.
Being Christian is not a matter of mercy, grace, etc., though it involves these things.
Being Christian is not a belief, though it does involve belief

Being Christian is a life-style--it is the way one lives when one is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ as Lord!

It is the way one lives because of being totally committed to the Lord, Jesus Christ living in and through his life.  It means just as Jesus' followers in His day followed Him 24-7, so too the Jesus follower of today, seeks to emulate, to conform his life to the Jesus life and His teachings.  When?  All day, everyday, in all ways.

Jesus over and over said, "Come, follow me...."  That is the key to this Christian thing--the key to being a genuine Christian!

As surely as joining a monastic order is a lifestyle, so too, being a genuine Christian, a Jesus follower, is a lifestyle--a "what would Jesus do, think, believe, say, etc. in this situation," lifestyle?

It is the Jesus who said "If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me."  Was that the cross, He was talking about?  Well, yes, but importantly it was the "cross heart" that is the heart that says, "No sacrifice too great or too small to be a genuine follower of Jesus."

So the next time you see some excess that carries the label Christian, may I challenge you to ask yourself one question, "Is this a real and genuine follower of Jesus or is it some facsimile?"

A FURTHER THOUGHT

By Richard Johnson

"Far too often we treat Christianity as if it is primarily a set of acquired beliefs or convictions. This approach is even fostered in our churches at times. True Christianity is an adventure, a journey, and a lifelong process of growing, changing, and becoming more like Christ. Christianity means discipleship - a nurturing, learning, transforming relationship with the Spirit of Christ living in us. It may be scary or intimidating to answer, but when and how profound was the last change motivated by Christ in your life? How’s that new life and new creation in Christ thing going for you?"

Note:  Pastor Johnson does not to this point have a blog.  Even so to read more of Pastor Johnson's writing you may connect with him through my fb account and request to be added to his email list.

"Okay, You Convinced Me, I No Longer Believe!"

Yes, that is true, I no longer believe.  What, how could this be?

You Cannot Show Me!   

You cannot show me and therefore you cannot prove to me and therefore I no longer believe.

No longer do I believe in some physical things.  For example, no longer do I believe in wind, show me wind!  Show me microwaves.  Show me radio waves.  What does electro-magnetic energy look like.  Show me a light wave-particle.  I have never seen one of these things therefore none of these things exist.

Oh then there is theoretical mathematical physics theory.  Draw me a picture of theory. Or maybe you could tell me what theory feels like.  Is it course or smooth--certainly you must have touched it.

No longer do I believe in good, show me good!  Show me love, when I touch love what does it feel like!  Prove to me rationally that love exists, quantify it for me.  Give me a formal proof that love exists.  Show me what kindness looks like.  What color is patience or what does it taste like?  So if I cannot rationally understand it, measure it, or sense it I no longer am going to accept its existence.

If you can give me a picture of any of these things I will gladly put it up where now exists a black (absence of color) square!   These things are simply absent.  But there are many more!

No longer do I believe in trust.  For the same reasons, trust simply does not exist.  What I mean is no one can show me trust, paint a picture of trust, rationally prove trust.  Therefore, trust does not exist.  Want more of what I no longer believe?  I am convinced that even believe does not exist.  Show it to me, what does it sound like, look like, feel like when touched.

One can readily see that much of what people argue gives quality to life is not longer existent in my life. Oh, there you are two more.  Draw me a picture of life.  Is it big or small?  What color is life?  Show me the other one, quality.  What does quality taste like?  Have you touched quality?  Paint a picture of quality.  "Can't do it," you say.  Okay then give me measurable formal proof or a formal rational argument that proves quality!  See you cannot do it so therefore quality goes on my list of things that no longer exist. 

Well now you may argue that Alvie has completely lost it, gone over the edge of mental-emotional health.  Okay then explain to me "it."  Draw me a picture of "it" whatever that is.  Prove to me the existence of mental--have you seen it, tasted it, etc.  If you cannot show it along with emotion to me then obviously I've not gone over any edge for if the descriptors do not exist then the edge does not exist.  There is no edge to go over!!!

Of the millions and millions of images and videos on the www, there are none of these things and therefore they simply cannot be proven or experienced and so in my new belief system they simply do not exist.

What a hopeless mess in which to live you say.  Well, then, what is hopeless?  Show it to me.  Drop on by the house with a piece of hopeless for me to see.  Do you have a formal proof?  Give me a rational argument for hopeless or any of these other things.  Oh, before I forget, the one who says that they do not agree and yet cannot prove these things tempts being arrogant for they postulate that their "I believe" will count for more than my "I no longer believe."

Besides, they do not know what it is like to "no longer believe" while I know what it was like "to believe" in these things so again, they are bested in the argument. So therefore, since none of these things exist and you argue that you "believe," whatever that is, you are then setting yourself up as an the authority for their existence and that means that you value your authority more than my authority for saying that they do not exist and such makes the one who counters my claim nothing more or less than arrogant.


Argument by Outcomes:

Simply stated we can know that these and other thing exist not because of formal measurable proof, not by rational explanation, not by some sense experience or another but by outcomes.

For example the microwave heats water, I can experience the outcomes of wave-particle light frequencies, mathematical concepts such as number make logical sense even though one has only seen the script representative of a particular number, and the way of a man with a maid gives ample proof of love.  The list goes on and on of how we cannot sense or in some cases define a reality such as those listed above.

If you then can accept the reality because of the outcome, it is not too much of a next step to look at faith in these terms.  The following does not apply to people who call themselves Jewish or Christian but to those who follow the teachings of the Jewish Torah and the Christian Scriptures.  It will be mostly termed by that which I am most familiar, Christian.


The Veracity of Being a Christ Follower:
 
Scrutinize those who are Christ followers, no matter their particular label (Liturgical or not) and you will find that amidst all of the differences in tradition and practice, there has been a history of service, even at the risk of life.

It was in the "glory" of Rome and little girls were often left out in the elements to die of exposure.  Christians would go to the garbage dumps of Rome and take in these little babies and raise them as a part of their own families.

It was during the Black Plague, that Christians took in and took care of the sick and dying often in the course of those activities losing their own lives.


In Nazi Germany it was a Christian Pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer who openly withstood Nazism and paid with his life.  It was not uncommon in the concentration camps for Christians to take the place of another in the death chambers.  How many of other faiths took such courageous actions.

Looking at today's plethora of religions, you find that by enlarge there is only one which has as a central plank selfless service.  It is only one that calls upon the individual to live up to their full God given potential and it is not the Muslim, nor the Buddhist, nor the Hindu.  It is those of Judeo-Christian Faith.

It is not hard to find and read the biographies of Christian missionaries who packed what they would need at their place of service in their coffin and embarking upon the ship, knowing that their feet would never again stand upon the soils of their homeland. The only vision that was greater than their final glimpses of their homes and families was that of their place of service.

Many military bases have a memorial if not a chapel dedicated to the memory of four chaplains who gave away their life preservers to soldiers and sailors and went to their death, arms linked, and praying in their own tradition.  One Jew and three Christians.  They are not alone in those who have given their all in serving those to whom they are called.

While the Muslim even today seeks to over throw more peaceful cultures with violence, it is the Christian who goes in harms way to provide care for the downtrodden, the out cast, and the one who is in bondage.  Keep in mind Mother Teresa was not a Buddhist nor a Hindu, nor a Muslim, but a Christian woman who made the choice to spend her life in service to the lower castes of India.  She is the one who is known for her service but there were and are multiplied millions who throughout the years of church history and even today go and do the same.

Untold thousands upon thousands of pastors work to pay their own way and not be a burden on those they serve.

Many Christ followers today travel the world to serve, even in cultures hostile to their message.  Quietly serving those who are in physical, mental, emotional, and relational need.

A college classmate of mine went behind the Iron Curtain and served those in need at personal peril.  Another serves today in a place that if discovered would at the very least be deported or even killed.  Why do they go?  Simply they go because the heart changed by Jesus Christ is touched by the needs of the downtrodden, the uneducated, the sick, those in jail and other kinds of bondages and they go and go and go and go.

How and why is it that the opponents of Christian faith conveniently look past the indications of the veracity of the Christian way and look at the excesses to bolster their case?  How is it that they focus upon Northern Ireland, the sale of Indulgences, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and deviant doctrine that leads to erroneous and destructive actions and fail to see that there is a vast wealth of good done by those of Judeo-Christian faith in general and Christ followers in particular?  In fact, put on a balance the good would far outweigh the bad.

How is it that they can champion their atheistic beliefs, view people of faith as out of touch with reality and conveniently look past those atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pal Pot, and the like?  

It is Christians who even though defamed, physically attacked, and tortured when given the opportunity to respond, returned kindness to their captors.  Often those very captors and abusers have been so touched by the response of the Christians they in turn became Christians and were killed.  

It was Christians who started most higher level academic institutions (Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Cambridge etc.); Christians gave to the world hospice that gave rise to hospice, hotels, and hospitals (Council of Nicaea 325 AD); Christians gave us foundational science; the reason the Red Cross has a red cross symbol is that it was begun by Christians;  there is the YMCA--Young Men's Christian Association; and the list goes on.


Social movements?  Christians are responsible for the abolition of slavery; intervening in the selling of young girls into the sex trade, and here again the list goes on and on.  Even today while politicians and governments talk, it is Christians who are there even though in personal peril seeking to buy back young girls and even interrupting other forms of human trafficking.

As well, it does one well to remember that Christians were the ones who came to the new world to further the gospel and settled this land.  It was Christians who laid the legal foundations for our country and it was the black robed regiment that the Brits feared more than the Revolutionary Army.  See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E for a brief history of Christianity in America.

It seems to me that the prudent would take a look, a very serious look at the Christ followers who have so much good and yet remain under greater attack than any other philosophy, belief system, or whatever.

Even today there are multiplied millions across the earth who are becoming followers of Jesus despite living in repressive cultures.  Why would people who know that to become a Christ follower is to tempt the possibility of being martyred still by the millions turn to follow Him?  And yes in answer to your questioning thought, they die by the scores for their decision.

Conclusion: 

It follows then that if you can argue by outcome for the veracity of wind, love, kindness, belief, etc., then by that same sort of argument you should be able to argue by their activities for the veracity of the Christ follower and then by implication the veracity of the existence of a Christ.

"Truth--Assumption, Presuppostion, and Frame of Reference"

Puzzle Instructions.  Without making an "X" in the following diagram, draw two perfectly strait lines, two dots per line which at some point intersect.  Can you do it?   Here is the diagram.

 

FRAME OF REFERENCE 

 

Though from the world of physics, frame of reference has become employed in other application not the least of which is in the study of truth (alethology). It most often has to do with what one presupposes or one one's assumptions.  That is to say that what one assumes to be true has great power in the life of the individual for such is necessary for in order for one to arrive at some conclusion or another.

When in a disagreement, be it major or minor, most often the difference is in the divergent assumptions.  Therefore, one might safely conclude,

"It's all in the presuppositions!"

Since such is so, it is incumbent upon each of us to make a thorough examination of one's frame of reference.  Such is necessary for one to ascertain the genuineness or we might say the legitimacy of one's reality (truth).  A failure to do so will leave one afloat in the world of theoretical speculation.

So then we might conclude that it is all in the assumptions that one takes to be true.  It is presupposed assumptions that provide the capstone that holds one's truth paradigm together and consistent within itself.  If the capstone fails or is proven faulty then like an arch with a failed capstone, the truth structure then falls apart.

There is nothing more unfortunate than one who holds a faulty truth paradigm because they are unwilling to have their assumptions tested.  An example is found in the likes of the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who were and are unwilling to debate the issue of evolutionary theory with other scientists some of whom are not even creationists but see form and order in nature.

Open or Closed System

For almost all of recorded history there has been an assumption of an open system in which God or gods had a part in one's truth paradigm.  Such a paradigm allows for the intervention of God or gods.  In Western thought it was most often Judeo-Christian while in other places it might be a pantheon of gods, some other notion of a deity, or even ancestor worship.

Even such practices as magic (not to be confused with slight of hand magic), shamanism, etc. were only possible because the practitioners and followers accepted open system theory.  However, man was to "progress" beyond open system, after all such gave room for there to be the divine and the divine sometimes is just inconvenient!

Then with the Enlightenment came rationalism and such discounted outside influence.  Left with a closed system then those who assumed this position sought to explain all of life's processes in a cause-effect modality.  This falls within the context of Western Modernism.  Those who still embraced some form of Deity took the position then that God created and left (Deism).

The difference in the two systems (there are others) was in the assumptions about outside influences.  On the one side were the open system assumptions and on the other the closed system assumptions.  Of course when pushed out to their logical ends the outcomes were truth systems that were ever diverging.

Then to the mix add the assumptions of the Post-modernist who rejects all assumptions that lead to a notion of a consistent truth paradigm.  While the Judeo-Christian position and the Modernist position at least hold that there is truth of some sort, the Post-modernist mantra goes something like, "Who says so and what do they know?"

 

Contributions to Assumptions 

 

As surely as one makes a contribution to a savings account, there are less material goods that contribute to one's assumptions.  What might contribute to such a system of assumptions?  One has noted that contained within one's assumed frame of reference are "...a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc...."*  Of course there is a healthy dose of life's experience, upbringing, formal education, informal education, etc. that contribute to one's frame of reference.  

As well one cannot over estimate the power of what the word pondering.  Found in the writings of Moses and others it is a Hebrew word which contains the idea of mentally comparing and contrasting ideas and notions. 

The point of all of this is that in order for us to come to know the truth, that is genuine reality one must enlarge his frame of reference.  Certainly there are limits to such but overall most people struggle with weak or faulty truth paradigms because they are not willing to enlarge their frame of reference.  

Want to have a look at the puzzle again?  When you saw the first rendition of the puzzle what did you assume?  Did it have anything to do with the box around the dots?  If you are like most people you made the assumption that the lines had to stay within the box which was never in the instructions.  So then what effect did adding a larger box have on your view of the puzzle?

Assumption's Contribution

 

Think then about the contribution which comes of one's assumptions.  Perhaps the greatest contribution is that of leading and guiding one to genuine reality (truth).  Truth, genuine truth is durable and so any testing thereof, inquiry into, challenge, dissecting, etc.of the genuine will leave it unscathed and perfectly intact.

As well valid assumptions provide safety.  It is as one's life experience undergoes scrutiny, that those things then contribute to one's assumptions which then provide a frame of reference for the identification and avoidance of danger.  Such is not always in a physical sense.

Continuing, it is the assumed frame of reference that allow "...an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior."**  So it is as Judeo-Christian Scripture teaches, that which is inside is connected to that which is outside.  So if the inside is filled with faulty assumption that which ends up on the outside (words, attitudes, and actions) will be faulty.

 

Enlarge Your Frame of Reference

 

 The point of all of this is quite simple.  We do well to examine quite carefully what we believe, compare it to other things we know, seek to enlarge our frame of reference, and keep the process going.  Remember this, "Genuine truth is durable and eternal.  It will stand any and all tests." 

However, keep in mind that man in his design and construction was never, ever intended to superintend such processes alone and without regard for the Divine.
____________________
*quoted in part from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame+of+reference
**Ibid.

To What is Your Ship Anchored?

The ship was a shallow draft, Fetcher class Destroyer (USS Marshall, DD 676).  She was a left over from World War II and the Korean Conflict.  Now she was relegated to the somewhat less than glorious task of training reserve sailors.  That is she had a skeleton crew, which was to be completed by a reserve crew (Rescrew) that could be called up to man her in wartime or in time of national need.

However, most of all she served as a floating school house for dry land reserve sailors on their two weeks of annual training.  She deserved more than that but in the wisdom of the Department of the Navy that was her lot in life and certainly better than more of her peers who had been sold for scrap.

Oh, yes, she was a she, not an it, because she like most ships had personality and much more, that defined her.  You see you could have two ships built from the same plans and both would have different ways about them.  That is why most sailors speak of one ship that they road and to which they relate, as if she was a spouse of sorts.

This cruise had been to take her from Seattle to Treasure Island, San Francisco Bay, California so the Rescrew could attend fire fighting school.  After all at sea, you had better take care of your ship for it was a long swim home.  

On the way back to her homeport, we made a stop for "Liberty" in Vancouver, B.C.  However, as it turned out the channel master could not board us until the next morning so we anchored just outside the harbor to await his arrival.  That is when the following took place.

Sometime earlier the Bridge had called for the "special sea and anchor detail."  So it was that now she is in the hands of those who not only had great skill at the helm but knew best how she answered the helm.

Soon the Bridge called, "All stop" and the constant vibration of the engines slowed to quiet and thus without power  she gradually lost her "way."  There we were "dead in the water" and soon the call came from the Bridge, "Release the anchor."  The anchor chocks had already been removed in anticipation and so at the call of the Bridge, the chain brake released.  It was then the air of the fo'c'sle  was filled with the clatter as the anchor chain which had been stowed under deck in the chain locker, ran out.  

Before long the anchor caught the bottom and once again the chain brake was set.  It was then that the Bridge called for "reverse engines" and slowly if not imperceptibly the anchor was made secure to the bottom.  Most of the slack was then taken out of the anchor chain.  When all was secured, the special sea and anchor detail was secured and since it was late in the afternoon much of "ship's work" was also "knocked off" for the day.

That night as those thing that happen aboard naval ships happen, evening chow, "Sweeper, sweepers, man your brooms, sweep down...," evening call to colors, the movie on the mess decks, lights out, the tides came and the tides went.  The ship rose and fell, as she rode that anchor chain some 360 degrees.  She was secured to her anchor and her anchor held to the bottom. 

This of course brings up a question.  It is a question that one is wise to ask.  To what are you anchored and how secure is your anchorage.  In the ebb and flow of life, various tides and currents seek to drive us in this direction or that. You see we live in the midst of a post-modern, secular, ego-centric culture where truth if it exists at all is seen as relative and ever changing.  Again, to what are you anchored?

Could it be that our skyrocketing suicide numbers, overflowing mental hospitals, counselors with full to overflowing case loads, etc are related to our disconnect and even disdain for God and His values?  Indeed are not our western societies populated by people who are confused, insecure, and easily victimized because they have no secure anchor point. Nothing which will weather the storms and uncertainties of life.

For most of the 10,000 years or so of recent history, western man has been stabilized by a belief in a god of some sort.  To cast off from that notion, as we have in the last 150 years or so since secularism has gained traction, is to leave one adrift and vulnerable as the winds of life blow and the tides of adversity run.

You see that ship avoided drifting into the shallows or the shoals that night and thus suffering damage or loss because her anchor was secure in that which would not move.  It was secure enough except that for a few sailors on deck watch fore and aft and others on watch throughout the ship, little concern was paid to her drifting.  She was as secure as that to which she was anchored.

"Does the God Gene Prove God?"

As If God Needed Someone to Prove His Existence!

There are I suppose two positions one might take when it comes to genuine science.  One can join the weight of history and view science as that which reveals and explains Scripture and faith.  There of course is another option.  It is that one can join the relatively recent (post enlightenment) group and seek to discredit Scripture and faith by using Science.

The discredit crowd will choose their particular issue and claim that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular could have said something about it.  Of course, such would turn the Bible into a science book rather than what it is, the revelation of just who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.

Then too, it really would prove nothing for the skeptical would find some other lack and make the same claim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are invalid because they do not treat ____________ (you fill in the blank)l

That being said the Bible does contain a great deal of indirect reference to matters of nature.  For example Jesus talked about the coming day of the Lord in terms of various activities in the Jewish household.  Since the coming day of the Lord is a point in time event and since being in bed, grinding, and being in the field would point to that which we call time zones or different parts of the day occurring at the same time.

Another is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon writes of wind currents and the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Then too consider that much early science was accomplished by people of faith.  Now there were differences in doctrine but the following men were committed Christians.

Copernicus, the first astronomer of the scientific revolution

Galileo discovered the laws of dynamics and is known for his achievements in astronomy. 

Kepler, the German astronomer, a contemporary of Galileo

 Newton on the Scriptures

Newton's mathematics influences optics, mechanics, and celestial dynamics*

These are but a few of the men who are joined by women who made a difference not because they devalued Scripture by their science but because they valued both Science and Scripture.  In fact, if you read the article cited below you will find that Newton wrote over a million words in his discussions of Scripture.  

Well, then what happened?  Why the change?

 

"Shifts in Thinking"

Perhaps the greatest influence was as the result of the Great Enlightenment and the coming of rationalism.  The point of agreement between Judeo-Christian (European thinking) and Rationalism is that there at least is genuine reality.  They did not agree on what constituted truth but they at least could agree that there was such a thing as truth.  Such difference was largely based upon the difference between revelation and rationalism (Modernism).

Again, there were different beginning points the outcomes were many times divergent but at leas there was an agreement that there was some kind of genuine reality.  However, a third movement would enter the picture--a movement that begin with yet another starting point.  The movement is Post-Modernism and further distanced itself from Scripture and matters of faith. 

Beginning some 150 years ago, the shift became more pronounced with a further move away from the Divine and toward secularism.  Secular Science came to the fore with the result that it was not even willing to exist along the side of Faith and Scripture.  In many cases it sought to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. 

Hitchens

 

"Extensions of Science"

As many will know, if you follow mathematics, physics, etc. out far enough they begin to merge into a philosophy as opposed to what we think of as algebra or geometry.  When that happens others enter the discussion, philosophers.  So it is that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not only enter the discussion but as their thinking gains traction, they begin to influence what happens back up the process and in the arena of research.

Now the outcome of research is that it is not so much science but philosophy and so instead of provable science you now have speculative or theoretical science with it emphasis on probabilities etc.  Of course the more speculative and probability you add to the discussion the more one's biases and presuppositions can enter into the discussion and such is not without influence in the outcomes.  Empiricism is now lost.

 

"The God Gene"

Now add the "God gene" into the discussion.  Of course such spawns a plethora of discussions and debates.  What secular science cannot answer is the reason it is there for it serves no evolutionary purpose.

For those who accept the notions of there being a Divine designer and Creator, the idea of a God gene is not problematic.  Such being a genetic reality (if it is true) is consistent with something that Christians have been saying for years.  God created man with a need for the Divine.  The Bible tells it this way, "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:19).  Once again, the Bible is not a science book but peaking through its pages is science.

On the other side of the discussion the secular evolutionist would say that such is simply a mutation, a quirk of the evolutionary process.  Further they would argue that this is a genetic dead end and that one day it too will mutate away and man will become completely free of the need for religion.

 

"Secular Spirituality"

Of course, this presents another problem.  What is one to do to meet the need fostered by the God gene when it is activated?  The answer is a fairly recent division of spirituality and religion.  That is to say that one can have a spiritual dimension in life without the inconvenience of Scripture, doctrine, creed, and denomination, etc.   

At a recent lecture on the subject, it was presented that things that speak to the deepest parts of man, speak to this spiritual dimension.  Such things as poetry, music, other of the arts, and a whole host of physical experiences will plunge the individual to a revelation, a consciousness of this arena of the individual.  Even Richard Dawkins give some credence to the notion of spirituality calling it "sexed up atheism." 

+ + + + + +

In closing, it seems to me that this notion of there being a spiritual dimension to man even though conflicted still in all takes us back to the beginning point of this post.  It seems to me that it takes us back to the Judeo-Christian notion of revealed reality.  However, since God is not involved this time it is getting in contact with the inner self.

That being said, would it not be easier just to give in to the God that is, rather than seeking the god that is within.  Remember the God that is, is infinite while the god within is finite and temporary.finite and as fragile as our mental capacity to understand and choose our way.


An interesting treatment of the "God gene" may be found at http://www.bethelcollege.edu/users/berkebj/Marian/God%20in%20Our%20Genes%20TEXT%20ONLY.pdf 

___________
* see article at http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm

"That Which Confuses the Evolutionist"

There are many, many things that evolutionary theory cannot explain.  Yes, I know that I used a general term for the theory and that there are different schools of thought and different strata within those schools of thought.

Of course the old adage, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."*  So now we have among many the notion that it is no longer a theory but proven fact.  Actually science cannot prove it and any read of the history of Darwinian evolutionary theory will show that as true and genuine science has discovered more and more the theory has had to be flexed, adjusted, and changed to meet the inclusion of new information.


Leaving alone for the moment the question of ultimate beginnings, there are other questions that should cast a deep and dark shadow on this theory.  These questions begin with something that is very familiar to us--ourselves and how we interact with and deal with life.

There is within each of us the spiritual-emotional-volitional elements of man's makeup that when expressed in some way or another mitigate against or at least call into question evolutionary theory.  These are things that the evolutionist cannot explain. 

We will get to these in a moment but for those who point out in Intelligent Design there are questions that are unanswered, that would be true.  However those questions are indeed gaps in understanding and not inconsistency or that which mitigates against the notion of Intelligent Design.

For example the whole notion of love and attachment does not fit with the survival of the fittest.

Then in the rational area, there is another problem for the evolutionist.  It is the capacity for delayed gratification which again is a challenge to the notion of survival.

Then there is in the social arena, the inclination of mankind to decide for the greater good.  This was discussed in another posting, "What Does Man's Sense of Right Mean?".

Then from the Rev/Dr. Richard Johnson of First united Methodist Church and Mt Beulah United Methodist Church, Munfordville, KY,** the following thoughts. 

"Humans are not created to be godless.  If we don’t know the true God, we will make our own deities – and that is exactly what the Israelites did.  It’s a sign of our finitude, and a subconscious awareness that we need direction, purpose, and relationship with something, someone bigger than ourselves.  God created us for relationship.  God created us to be in relationship with Himself and with one another.  Tragically, we broke that relationship but we have not lost our genetic makeup which needs and must have that relationship with the Almighty."

So what is the point of this paragraph, you might wonder?  

Well, there are two worth considering.  First, evolution cannot explain man's need for God.

Within culture after culture across the world, though expressed in many, many ways there is a common element which seeks to develop some kind of a relationship with a deity.  To be sure the expressions may even be in diametrically opposed fashions but still there is the common threat of a deity which involves the worship of same.  That leads to the second observation.

Second, if you do not acknowledge the God who is, then you create a god.  Of course there are many choices.  In western materialism they may be position, power, possession, etc.  In undeveloped countries and those isolated from the West it may be more spiritual.  The point is not how, it is that there is no culture which in its privimative form did not have some kind of a superior deity.

 __________________
*"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Goebbels was not, however, an SS officer. He was Minister of Propaganda and succeeded Hitler as Chancellor, but only for a single day. The next day he and his wife poisoned their six children then took their own lives. 

from http://www.ask.com/answers/18639961/

**If you wish to get on Rev/Dr. Johnson's email list please forward a request to me and I will forward it on to him.  My email is arobbfam@yahoo.com.  Thanks.

"What Does Man's Sense of Right Mean?"

Think about it.

In every person of any age at all, there is a notion of right.  That is to say that whether the person is a narcissist, a sociopath, an eccentric, a humanitarian, a humanist, a creationist, or an atheist there is within that person a sense of something that tells that person that this is the way you should behave.

That is not to say that such is the same for the humanitarian's sense of right and that of a sociopath will be radically different.  Still in all, there is that instinctive sense of right and wrong, a standard of some sort.

Why?  Why is it that there is within each of us some sense of standard by which to measure right or wrong behavior?  Some would argue it is a product of material naturalism.  Others would argue that it is a product of divine creationism.  How would you answer the question?

There is however another attendant question.  It goes like this.  Why is there such a common threat which runs through the various cultures of mankind?  For example, there is a sense in most people of behaving for the greater good.

There is a universal though unwritten sense within people of the need to care for infants.  Only the hard hearted among mankind do not respond to the pitiful cry of an infant.  Yet, there were those Canaanites and others who sacrificed infants by placing them in the red hot hands of an idol made in the likeness of their god Moloch. 

Why would people do such a thing?  The simple answer was that they thought that by doing so their god would be appeased and thus any anger that might interfere with their having a fruitful harvest would be appeased.

There are other universal standard which are found in the preponderance of mankind.  Other examples would include but not be limited to the following.

Property – the unit of ownership, that is to say the unit that owns property may be the individual, the family, or even the village but there is some sense of owner/non owner.

Murder - how murder is defined may differ but murder is seen as being wrong

Justice – though standards may be different there is a sense of justice

Family – though the family structure may differ (polygamy) the structure of the family is present.

Love – not the self centered love that demands fulfillment but the giving of one’s best to another.

Ancestors - how it is expressed may differ but there is respect for one’s fore-bearers is present.

Children – Again how it is lived out may differ but the care for children is prevalent in culture after culture.

Self-sacrifice – the example would be the sacrifices of a parent for a child.

To be sure there are others.

Now comes the question.  How did these and other universal standards come about?  And for the material naturalist who embraces the premise of “survival of the fittest” maybe you could answer the question as to how such could be more than a questionable theory (as opposed to a law)?

 The question deserves an answer when you consider that some of the items listed above property ownership, justice, family, etc. would seem to militate against such being true.  If this notion is not true, then how many other of man’s good ideas are not to be trusted?

The writer of the Proverbs, King Solomon of Israel observed this two times in his writings.

"There is a way which seems right to a man, but its ends is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25, NASU)

Continuing the question that deserves an answer then is this.  When you push the answer out to its logical conclusion, just where do you find yourself?