Thought of the Day: Bad Churches

I recently spoke to a couple of friends about what initially drew me to attending Quaker meeting. The simple reason is, I had been to many different types of churches including Methodist, Evangelical and Anglican and I found many examples of very un-Christian behaviour. To give credit where credit is due, I did not find this in the Methodist church I attended and the Anglican church I attended I have heard has improved since.

Some people don't understand what I mean by this. In the Bible we are warned of those in Church authority who are not actually Godly: "And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people" - Romans 16:17-18 (NLT)

In my situation, I heard one pastor speak who said "all Christians need to turn away from sin. This means, they stop sinning for good". Well, that would make us perfect and no human (besides Jesus) is, was or will ever be perfect. Hence our need for salvation. Maybe he didn't realise the implications of his words, but if I can pick up on that and I'm not theologically trained, I think he needs to go back to Bible college before his whole congregation get the wrong idea. Another church told me that I had to be baptised in order to receive salvation and holy communion. Um, that isn't taught in the Bible either my friend.

In another church, I saw youth being denied access to the childrens and teens youth group and Bible study classes unless they could pay £2. The leader of these groups was stood in the doorway of the church bouncer-style, accepting the money and moving aside for those who paid and turning away those who couldn't. Since when did church become an elite group for those who can pay their way? I was shocked. Later on this youth leader left the church and his wife and 2 sons, for a younger female from the congregation, whom he confessed to having an affair with for circa 2 years. And this man leads Christian youth?

The Bible did warn us that in some cases these incidents would happen. God is perfect, his followers are not. More recently I have heard of churches lean more towards cult-like teachings. Make no mistake, the Quaker meeting I attend is very Godly, with almost all its members still staying true to the Christian faith. Talking to them, they are there for the same reasons as me. They also have had bad church experiences in places that don't teach the Gospel correctly.

On a side note: these Christian Quaker meetings are sometimes going by the name of 'Friends Church' now to show the reunion between Quakerism and Christianity. This is like Quakerism was back in the days of its foundation, as opposed to more recent times when some Quakers have missed the mark in trying to be accepting and pacifistic, forfeiting somewhat on their Christianity.

So if you have had a bad church experience also, I'm not telling you to run to the nearest Quaker meeting! If they're more post-modern and liberal then that will not help either. I'm encouraging you instead to check out this article by Focus on the Family about how to overcome your bad church experience. I certainly found it very useful. Good luck in finding your new Christian church home!

Some Wise Words from Charles Spurgeon

I found this today from The Evidence Bible's website and it really summarises nicely some of the struggles I face in my walk with the Lord:

“In what an unhappy condition is that person who cannot derive comfort from the salvation of his own child! Yet there are many men and women in such a state. They care nothing for the souls of their own offspring. It would bring no joy to them if they saw all their children walking in the truth nor does it cause them any concern to see them otherwise. To see them sharp in business, or fair in countenance, is their main ambition; but to have them beloved of the Lord is no matter of desire. Poor souls, their own carnality overflows and saturates their family! To some it would even cause anger and wrath to see their children turning to the Lord; they so despise true religion that, if their sons and daughters were converted, they would rather hate them than love them the more. Such is the alienation which sin works in the human mind, that it will in some instances curdle human affection into enmity, at the sight of the grace of God.” - Charles Spurgeon

Why The Theory of Evolution is Wrong - Hands Down

I warn you now that this post is going to be VERY long! On the plus side, I'm referencing where I'm reading the theory of evolution from and directly responding to each section of it. As much as you may think I'm "ignoring the facts", you can see that I'm not :)

So we all know in short, that the theory of evolution is the process by which it is believed humans and other animals 'adapted' to their surroundings and environment via 'natural selection'. This theory is accepted due to apparent 'evidence,' which is what I'll be focusing on. We know the theory, the flaws in the theory that come from the lack of evidence is what I'll be focusing on in this post.

Fossils

So one thing we're told is that fossils show how species 'evolved' from one type to the next. If you go to my first reference from Berkeley University you'll see a page about horse fossil samples. The page explains that these fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution, did indeed exist. I disagree.

This shows similarites between animals that existed years ago and those that exist in modern day. Just because the fossils are very similar, this does not prove in anyway that the first one became the last. Showing a bunch of fossils together and saying they're the same thing doesn't tell me anything other than speculation.

Anatomy

On Berkeley University's page on evolutionary anatomy, you can read about animals and their dewclaws. The page claims that because animals like pigs have 'reduced dewclaws', this conclusively proves they once had more 'digits' that then became reduced. I wonder why they have made this assumption. For some reason it's talked about it as if it's common sense. For all scientists know, these 'reduced dewclaws' could have some purpose that hasn't been discovered yet. There was a time when science thought smoking was harmless, but now we know better. Maybe the same would happen there is scientists put more time, thought and research into it.

There is also a section on how monkeys and humans have similar chest structures. Actually I think that points more toward a creator than to evolution. There's a reason for their chests being similar as the page explains. It's to do with the need for their shoulders and arms to move. I think this shows a creator using the same blueprint, as it were, for both species. He knows what works for each kind of animal.

Comparative Anatomy

Again on my third reference from Berkeley, there is a page comparing the anatomy of a whale with that of a hummingbird. The page says, "Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years". I'm thinking, 'Does this person hear themself?!' We're supposed to believed that naturally and accidentally modification occured in these animals? And people think I'm deluded for believing in a Creator? Interesting.

Secondly, just look at these two animals! Just because they both have ribs, skulls and hind limbs, scientists believe they're clearly related. Right.

Snakes with Legs
If you check out my fourth reference you'll read about how scientists think that snakes used to have legs, but evolved/adapted not to have them anymore. (Sounds counterproductive to me, but let's separate logic from opinion). Maybe the 'limb buds' spoken about, that can be observed in the embryo, aren't actually that for a start. We look kinda like sea horses with a long section sticking out our backsides when humans are embryos, so I guess we evolved from seahorses then? Because we look kinda similar as embryos? Plus, it's said "some" species, so where did the other snakes come from? The ones that never had legs? Since we seem to think everything had to come from something else?

Maybe, instead of one becoming the other, there were 2 different species of snake and one died out? But they were so similar to each other that you think one was a snake that evolved into a modern day snake. I'm seeing a continuous pattern here than in science terms, things observed to be similar must basically be the same, or were previously the same.

Whales with Teeth

This is pretty much the same thing as the snakes. A skull was found that looks like a baleen whale but it has teeth, when these whales actually lose the teeth they are born with. Firstly, let's review again that baby baleen whales have teeth that they loose. Maybe this is also a baby whale skull that didn't lose it's teeth yet? It could always have been that way for all they know. Or maybe this was an anomalie? These things happen. Just because you found one, doesn't mean you can say "All whales used to have teeth all the time. They don't know, so they must have adapted/evolved to lose them. For some unknown reason. Fact". Nothing has been proved there in terms of evolution.

Molecular Evidence

Berkeley's page on molecular evidence says "Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry". Note there: striking similarities. Scientists are still using things that are similar to argue that said things were once the same. Still not buying it really.

It seems this whole theory of evolution business stems from someone really wanting everything to have come from the same origin. It's reminiscent of why we discredit Freud as a scientist. He had a theory and collected only evidence that would support the theory, rather than the other way around. (Evidence collected leads to a theory). We think Freud's evidence lacks scientific credibility, but not the theory of evolution. Again, very
interesting.

Natural Selection

When talking about dogs descending from wolves, this page says: "These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors". Well isn't that convenient? Science says that some animals have different DNA, look different and act different, but they're still related. I see no logical basis for this argument at all. What science are they going on then to establish this 'relation?'

Ecology
If you'd be so kind as to click here, you'll see a page about sparrows that says: "House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss—both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection".

Here's a thought - maybe they were always like that and 2 different types of sparrow existed for that very reason previously mentioned. Why did the sparrows have to be the same and then change due to their environment? I think this just suggests a clever creator who made them that way. Why would they need to survive, or adapt, or evole, if they were pure accident? Furthermore, how could they?

It was previously mentioned that, "In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not". Well surely, everything would just die out? Firstly, for the reasons I just metioned, they surely would have no reason or capability since they were an accident as a result of primordial sludge. But this process we're told took millions of years. They would be dead before they could make those changes.

Consider this: my parents are fairly average height. I have 3 brothers who are all tall - over 6ft. My dad isn't. I'm not. My grandparents weren't tall, my great uncles weren't tall. It goes on. Where did that tall trait come from? Secondly, there is no guarantee that it will pass on to my nieces and nephews and it certainly didn't exist before (if at all) for at least 2 generations. Passing down traits is too sporadic to be "natural selection". A trait that doesn't appear to exist suddenly appears in 3 out of 4 children, yet a trait that is apparenly carried may never be passed on. Secondly, why did my brothers need to 'evolve/adapt' to be taller?

With this logic, We don't need to worry about global warming and carbon dioxide, because we'll all just adapt to breathe that instead of oxygen. We don't need to worry about smoking, drugs and alcohol because we'll all just adapt to deal with that too. No you say? Surely by evolutionary logic that is in fact true. It will just take millions of years. Meanwhile, in case you didn't notice, people are dying of these things before they can develop and pass on that trait!

Finally, these are all environmental factors and it's scientifically accepted that environmental factors can't
actually be passed on. E.g. if I can cope really well in the heat, doesn't mean my kids will. So how would environmental traits ever pass on? Even before we consider the fact that animals would die out beforehand.

Experiments
This page explains why species die out, not how they adapt or evolve, by using an example of fish. Evolution is still not proven by these means either.

Science Strikes Back

So now to conquer this error, scientists have come up with 'punctuated equilibrium'. The suggestion that these environmental changes happened rapidly, e.g. in response to flood or drought. So there you have it, if that's possible then we definitely don't need to worry about how global warming will affect human life! In which case, why did it take millions of years for other species?

Here's the proof: evolution supposedly occurred so quickly that there wasn’t time to leave any fossils as evidence. (AKA, there is none, since the previous sections of the theory relied heavily on fossils). Isn't that convenient? Once again. It seems again that the 'evidence' is being molded to fit the desired theory. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed only as a way to explain the lack of fossil evidence for evolution.

To Summarise

There is no concrete evidence to support the theory of evolution. Thus, I will not support it, believe it, or force students in schools to learn and believe it. But for argument's sake, let's say evolution can be proved. What it will never prove, is that there is no God. If that's your excuse to deny the Lord, you'll have to try harder.

I leave you with this:

In his book 'Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth', Swedish embryologist Soren Lovtrup writes, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology… I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

(This section taken from an article by: The Evidence Bible)

My Take on 'Gossip' Magazines

There are many people, especially girls, who enjoy reading 'gossip' magazines. To clarify before I go on, I'll define what I mean by that: magazines that feature scandalous stories about the personal lives of celebrities.

Examples of these are:

• Heat
• Now
• OK!
• Hello
• People
• Star
• Us Weekly

Many girls think it's harmless fun to read these magazines and have no issue spending upwards of £3 per issue on each one. For some reason, our society has got to a stage where we are so obsessed with celebrities that we want to know their every move. People will spend money, sometimes daily, so that they can track what's happening in the life of their favourite celebrity: what they're wearing, who they're dating, who's marrying, who's divorcing, who's cheating, how they're working out and what they're eating.

Here's why I would never spend a penny on said magazines and why I find them sinful to read even if you didn't buy one and you're feeling bored in a doctor's office:

• Gossip magazines are notoriously known for reporting speculation, rumours, lies and distorted or exaggerated facts. So tell me why you want to read something you know isn't completely, if at all, true?
• Would you want people looking at awful photos of you that have been taken without your awareness or permission? No? Then why do you want to look at such photos of other people?
• You are paying companies for the privilege of reading lies. People can actually make a living from creating fake stories about other people. Would you want someone to profit from selling lies about you? It's hurtful to hear something false said about you, before knowing someone got paid to tell it!
• Paying people to write lies also encourages their bad behaviour. Why would they stop if they know you'll pay for it? Why should they report the truth if you're satisfied with lies? They want to get your money not report what's true. The truth is, if you won't pay for it, they won't write it!
• The Golden Rule: seriously, you can't get upset if someone says something nasty about you if simultaneously you're reading potentially nasty stuff about other people e.g. look how much weight X celebrity has gained! Is Y cheating on her husband?
• The Bible also says that gossip is a sin. Leviticus 19:16 says it's sinful to slander someone (definition: the action of making a false spoken statement about a person that's damaging to their reputation). Psalm 34:13 says, 'Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking lies'

There you have it, why I despise gossip magazines. So please no more comments about how it's over-exaggerating to refrain from reading them. My beliefs are clear and non-negotiable :)

Reflection on Today's Meeting 14/08/11

This post is just to share some of my thoughts during Meeting today.

Firstly, I was astounded at the contribution during Afterword by a young woman I'll call 'Ella'. Ella was born blind. She looked beautiful today in a pretty purple summer dress with a glittery black shawl. She spoke following on from ministry given by another person in the meeting about suffering.

The ministry was about the sin that can evolve from feeling like you're suffering as a result of not having the material things others have. The wealth others have. But how it's always possible to turn from that feeling and not let it develop into the sin of hating or stealing.

Ella said that she felt the same "material suffering" growing up and that it did make her feel hatred and resentment for people. But she overcame it by realising that she was in control of those feelings. But also, that those feelings will result in just punishment and overcoming them will result in just rewards. I thought it was amazing how she was able to overcome resentment in her situation and that she didn't 'play on' her blindness.

She highlighted that material suffering isn't the only suffering we face, but it is often the one most talked about. But even the suffering she faces by being blind and the difficulty it brings, doesn't make her resentful. That would cause her to sin and damage her character. She avoids it. But she admitted that she does slip, but agian faces the jst consequences of that. I thought it was powerful what she said. I wish I could have written that down word for word.

The second thing that happened today, was the shared lunch. I thought it was lovely that as Quakers we can bring different foods, homemade and purchased and share them all together. It was so nice to eat with each other and talk about various different topics. But at the same time, we remembered those in less fortunate circumstances. We pause for silence before we eat and when we're done. Giving a moment of thanks and appreciation without diving in to fill up as quickly as possible. At the same time, we thought about the famine in Africa and donated money on a plate that would be sent to help that cause.

To Those Who Play the Blame Game

I was having a conversation in Meeting today about people that play the blame game. When things don't go right in our life, like when we don't have the things we want, the money we want, the things everyone else seems to have. Or when something goes wrong, like a child being born with a condition, a diagnosis of something terminal, etc, we look for someone to blame.

Why do people blame God? Why do we think He does this to people? That He is the cause of these things?

I follow the Evidence Bible on Twitter and the other day this wonderful article was posted: click here to read it

I encourage you to check it out, because it explains why people like to blame God for what goes wrong in their life and why it's wrong to do so. Many people won't like the answer, it's not what they want to hear. They would prefer to run and hide. But it's the truth