Seeing God

From the department of seeing things in a different context for new meaning...the subject is: seeing God.

We read about this desire to finally see God in heaven. As a goal. A kind of event of long-waited-for resolution.

In the usual context it can give us an uneasy feeling. The uneasiness of having a supreme authority figure in our midst.

But here may be the context: finally seeing sanity. Finally being in the presence of true order and everything that is right and good. We, I think, don't often consciously sense this absence. Yet in this fallen life, in this fallen world, it's not much different from an average unpleasant dream where we are alienated from everything and moving about in a landscape of darkness and chaos.

So to be able to see God after a lifetime of this darkness and chaos of various kinds and degrees is like emerging out of a subterranean hell into light and order and goodness and beauty...not to mention no more alienation, death, and evil.

Three areas of design

There are three areas of design to focus on: 1. the remarkable fact of code (information) in the cell (DNA). 2. The amazingly intricate nano technology like machinery inside a cell. 3. The fine tuning of the universe for life.

Another big thing is how everything is designed with a purpose, or an end in view. Mechanical evolution, whether to explain life or the universe, can't work with an end in view. It can't develop an eye with an end in view for vision. It would also have to build multiple inter-working systems simultaneously. Evolution can't even answer which came first, the chicken or the egg. Sex and sexual reproduction are major problems for evolution. Among an infinity of other problems.

That evolution is garbage science is blatantly obvious, but the new thought here is how intelligent design in creation gives remarkable proof of a Designer...i.e. our Creator God. And how that gives remarkable assurance of providential care.

Christians in the past didn't know of the three things listed above. Though they may have been closer to nature in general and had witness to similar design in creation.

What Critical Text scholars and their followers are really saying...

Forget the words coming out of their mouths, what are Critical Text people telling you when they speak (I speak of purveyors of Critical Text bibles such as the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, etc., translated from reconstructed, mutilated manuscripts who call anybody King James Onlist who values the Traditional Text, or Masoretic Hebrew or Received Text of which the Authorized, King James, Version is based on), what are they really telling you, demanding of you?

"Concede, concede, Christian, concede that the Bible has error... Conceeeeede, Christian. We're going to mock you, we're going to make you feel the weight of the world's opinion until you concede, Christian..."

What voice is that?

That's the voice of the Devil.

It's the same voice heard in the 16th century Counter-Reformation. Jesuits hissing the same demand.

The demand is give your allegiance to the authority of the word of man (in the Jesuits case the authority of the Pope and Magisterium of Rome; in the modern Critical Text case the authority of the priesthood of scholars) rather than giving your allegiance to the authority of the word of God.

Fear God alone. When you do you don't fear man or man's demands or the world and the world's demands. Fear God alone. It is the beginning of wisdom.

Redux

http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-connection-between-critical-theory.html

Shallow and evil

It would be difficult to find a more purely stupid post on a blog on the internet today than this post by Peter Enns.

Can he be a pure devil while also being purely stupid? Absolutely he can. False teachers are sinning. Sin is irrational to its core. People who revel in their sinful nature and rebellion towards God actually think they can defeat God. That's how irrational (or stupid, if you will) they are.

But just because intellectually they are common village idiots don't under-estimate their pure, vicious evil.

"But he's got a degree from Harvard!" That would be evidence against him in a court proceeding determining whether he's a village idiot or not. In fact, go to Google Earth and look at Harvard. It's a clump of scattered buildings housing mostly Baby Boomer era cultural Marxists that walk around with their tongues sticking out of their mouths. God bless people who have disabilities and an excuse to walk around like that, but they're not supposed to be Harvard professors.

OK, let's be more specific. Look at the post-modern idiocy woven throughout the post. Is Enns really that stupid to adopt the latest academic idiocy and apply it to something like Christianity as if you can keep starvation at bay with rhetoric about the relative meaning of food? Yes, you have to say he is that stupid. Stupid with an accent on shallow. He also, though, is evil. His drive, his focus, his day after day unchanging desire to put forth these views. That is a mark of Satanic spirit inside him.

Never underestimate shallowness in these academics though. Just like you should never underestimate the role of drugs or alcohol in acts of remarkable violence you should never underestmate just how shallow people with degrees from institutions of higher learning can be.

This is a spectacular story

I think I might have mentioned this a year or so ago, but it is too spectacular to not mention again.

Over a 24 year period what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has been mapped three different times by, successively, three different grades of technology, the last, the Planck Satellite, obviously being the best.

The first time it was mapped it showed something strange. It showed that the Earth appeared to be the center of the universe. The scientists didn't like this and coined the term "the axis of evil" for the axis that appears in the map that shows this startling fact. They say they called it that because it cuts the knees out from the Copernican Principle, that the universe is uniform in every direction, every place, etc. It gets complicated, and I'm obviously not an astrophysicist, but I'll give three links at the end of this that explain it with good graphics. I.e. the Standard Model had been nuked. But they really called it 'evil' because it showed the Earth is NOT some cheap little insignificant planet in some dark, dusty corner of one of billions of galaxies.

Now, it sounds *SUPERNATURALLY STUPID* to say the Earth is the center of the universe. Even to a modern day Christian. Because we've all been indoctrinated to believe the pious atheist dogma that humans are insignificant and the Earth is insignificant in the universe, etc. BUT THIS IS WHAT THE MAPPING - DONE THREE TIMES NOW! - HAS DISCOVERED. I don't usually use large caps, but it's really a remarkable, a spectacular discovery.

It gets worse for the atheists!

Picture the universe as a basketball. In the CMB mapping the Earth appears at the very center of the basketball. But here is the worse part for the atheists: the basketball has a discernible equator (that axis of evil) and that discernible equator cuts exactly through the Earth's elliptic formed as it courses around the sun. That plane.

And the map of the CMB is explained like this: imagine that equator cut through the basketball is like a bike wheel, and all the spokes start at the edge of the universe (the surface of the basketball) and go inward to the center hub which is the Earth. Those spokes are aspects of the map (that I can't describe because that part is beyond me) that the scientists have to admit show that the Earth is the center of the universe. This is supernatural. I.e. it defies a naturalism explanation. It's just strange and supernatural, like creation itself.

Here is the article with the good graphic (scroll down to Fig. 3) http://tangentspace.info/Articles/cmb1.php

Here's a short overview: https://medium.com/we-are-in-a-special-place/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732




Here's a PDF by a guy who champions geocentric issues, but he knows this subject and he does a point-by-point take down of the initial release, or the wording of the release, by the scientific establishment regarding these findings: http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Planck-Date-Release.pdf



- C.

A clear mark of evil

I recently came across a photo I can't find again. It was of a young child having his picture taken in Auschwitz (could have been any death camp or killing field of any socialist hell of the 20th century). He looked understandably scared and in a state of not understanding what was happening to him. God knows what he'd been through up to that moment.

Here's what it brought to mind. People who can carry out such evil, day after day, whatever coercion, whatever is motivating them, and can *continue* doing it even to children...are truly evil. A person with any good in them would break at that point. But that is a true mark of evil. To desire to harm children. A real symbol of innocence in this world (forget original sin, compared to adult humans (or even adolescent humans) an infant, a toddler, or a child appear as innocence in this world).

It seems, also, that the evil of the last hundred years alone took special pleasure in harming children. In seeing them suffer. In seeing their eyes imploring the adults around them for protection and denying it. In torturing them. In bringing horror into their young world and vision. This is the mark of true evil. It exists.

Our instincts are to protect young ones, and to be able to do harm to them as they are looking up to us for protection is about a clear a mark of evil as can be thought of.

Someone with any good in them at all would break at the point of doing evil to a child. Would willingly commit suicide in an act of rebellion against the evil power controlling and coercing the events he or she were caught up in.

Prior to that photo I saw a photo of two little girls born conjoined at the head. The smile (the bubbling joy) on the face of the one facing the camera destroyed me. She didn't know it wasn't supposed to be like this. She just got born. She was alive. Everything was new. But that face. The joy, the innocence. That is the face that evil can look at and want to harm. That is true evil, and it exists.

I followed the photo and found out they were successfully separated by surgeons at UCLA Medical Center and survived. That's another thing, a theme for another time...the length that will be gone to to save a life while evil is busy killing in other parts of the world as if life was worth nothing.

And, no, I'm not a moral ignoramus who can't discern between necessary acts of war and raw acts of evil.

Will there be gender in heaven?

I heard a pastor recently answer the question whether there will be gender in heaven. He said no, citing no need for the giving of birth, etc.

I disagree. Here's how I see it. When we speak of heaven we can speak in terms of what is ideal. Glorified bodies, for instance. Ideal bodies.

Now take feminine charm. Not all women have the ideal of feminine charm, yet some do, or come really close. We all have seen it to some degree, certainly perhaps in a favorite actress in some medium or another. That feminine charm is a real thing. It's like music. Will there be music in heaven? Who would say no? Will it be different, better, of more depth and transcendence and beauty and meaning? Probably. Probably music won't be limited to the diatonic scale and so forth. Maybe instruments will be able to manifest octaves within octaves within octaves, or something similar. So feminine charm as a real thing might be even more charming in heaven.

Now there has to be a vessel to contain this feminine charm, doesn't there?

The pastor said there will be no need for birth, thus... Yet feminine charm can exist and does even exist in this world separate from the dynamics of childbirth. Yes, feminine charm plays a role in conceiving a child, but it also plays a role just on its own in making the world a more pleasant and charming place. It's a *thing.* Like music.

So if we speculate that anything God created that is good or beautiful or true won't disappear from His creation then feminine charm won't disappear, thus we can say there will be gender in heaven. Different? Most likely. Obviously the biological cycles and mechanism of birth and nursing children will not necessarily be a part of it all, at least not for those uses.

There's also no more alienation in heaven, and no ability to sin. Heaven will be a very different experience, yet it doesn't seem wise to say such a fact of God's creation as the mutually harmonious fact of gender will be done away with.