Playing By Their Rules

Playing by Their Rules


There is a constant that is required to partake in any venture or experiment and that is there are rules that must be followed. However in any discussion that involves God or the existence of God they set the rules and the rules continually change in order to fall into their own thought process. So if we are to have an every changing set of rules based upon our own free thought concerning God then should we not change the rules that apply to their concepts and ideas? The idea of this is neither preposterous nor unfair because it allows all aspects of their own standards for reasoning. When evidence is revealed, said evidence is quickly discounted based upon the rules that they have set or the rules are changed to dismiss the evidence. Their basis for this is that our knowledge is ever increasing so therefore new information changes the outcome of the argument and thereby changes the rules that first applied. However this only applies in the realm of religion or moral beliefs and not in any other area of discourse. If you were to consider that if evolution was held to the same standards then it would not only fail but fail miserably because the evidence presented is merely speculation and has no beginning by which to build on. The answer from them would be that it was a scientific fact which is false because there is no substantial evidence that would hold up to the scrutiny that they place upon creation so the facts becomes merely circumstantial and relies totally on the common thought of those who believe it to be a fact therefore claiming the majority and because the majority believes it to be so then it must be true, which denies their allegations against us that belief does not constitute truth.

The aspect of experimentation also fails regarding evolution because no experiment can prove that something can be created from nothing, even if you were to use one single cell ameba it would not turn into something without any outside influences and regardless of the amount of time that it was left to itself it would not become an intelligent being. The case for evolution was made during the Scopes Monkey trial using the concept of a human embryo to prove evolution as believable. However if we accept this as truth then they must deny the claim that abortion is viable because the embryo is actual being and not just tissue. If we are to follow their rules concerning logic we cannot accept both of these as being truths because they cancel each other out. One argument must be false. If you are to accept the result of Scopes then you must reject Roe vs Wade but if you accept Roe vs Wade then you must in fact deny Evolution, which thereby also discredits Roe vs Wade. The argument then becomes that we have made great strides since then so the decision to cancel out either argument does not alleviate the other. Now the change of the rules begins and that being the case we know that by reasoning that if we have learned more since then, then that means we were wrong then. Therefore if we were wrong then, what is the probability that we are wrong now? The reasoning we had was based on the wrong data therefore corrupting the conclusions of the argument making any new information also corrupted because it relied on the data given during Scopes and once again if you throw out Scopes then you must also throw out Roe because the two are linked based upon the precepts of life and what constitutes life.

While the basis of Roe vs Wade is about the right of privacy to her own body it was determined that the embryo was not yet a being, totally denying Scopes claim that the single cell was in fact a being thus proving the evolutionary process that something could come from a single cell. Of course the argument was made that as a single cell it had not yet developed into a being but that does not alleviate the fact it was living. In order for anything to become it must have life since a single cell removed from any outside influences will not continue to grow and when you add the fact that the heart begins beating after 21 days you end up with a clear case of euthanasia. In getting back to Scopes as proof of evolution it would then stand to reason that if the evolutionary process is indeed fact then a single cell ameba left alone without outside influences should begin to have a heartbeat at the same time an embryo does. Of course the response to this is that the conditions have to be right in order for it to happen to which I ask, what are the right conditions? If it happened once then it should continue to do so. Plus where did these conditions come from? These questions cannot be answered nor will it change the minds of anyone to whom they are asked because it is not about proof when it comes to this subject it is about reasoning and logic which is only accepted when it is apart from a thought of a Supreme Creator. The problem I see with any evolutionary ideas concerning the earth is that it just does not work. Everything in nature screams against it from trees to animals they all produce after their own kind. Oak trees do not make apple trees nor do monkeys make dogs and dogs don’t fly. The very evidence they claim that supports their ideas screams out in disagreement because they know where they come from and they don’t have to reason about it. They don’t have to use a false logic to determine their origin. Man is the only one who has to wonder and then determine based on his own reasoning. And the reason for this is because he refuses to accept the logic that is before him relying on his own logic which is flawed.

The flaw is not in the right to think but in the direction of the thought, with direction meaning purpose and ultimate conclusion in regards to the affects on others. It does not mean that we don’t have the right to question because we need to question and that right extends to all proposed thought not just ones of a religious nature. The concept that has been developed is that any thought that does not agree with the proposals of those against religion in any form is therefore wrong; is this not the same thing that the Catholic Church did in times past? The very bondage that was placed on people then is being placed on them once more. The ideas of the Catholic Church were not biblical ideas but mans own ideas which lusted after power and wealth. Their purpose was not to promote God but their own agendas and to keep people under their power they set up rules and regulation which restricted free speech and kept people in the dark. This same concept was extended during the reign of Hitler and all other communist regimes in which those who opposed were persecuted or executed. If we truly look at the logic that they propose we see the limitations being set in place that would relinquish our rights to the freedom of thought that they propose, but by creating a mind set that we are the ones limiting free thought they make it politically correct to be intolerant of our beliefs. The only way to accomplish this is to indoctrinate the concept into the minds of the children at an early age and then convince others that their rights are being violated by us. By generating chaos they expect to be able to create order.

Is there any way possible to reach those who are convinced that their logic is correct? In my mind there is nothing that we will be able to do to reach these people for Christ and neither is it up to us to do so. It is up to us to but be obedient in being able to answer every man and it is up to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. I admit I get discouraged as I write these things and as I study these different principles but then I am reminded it is not up to me. I get discouraged as I see the influences within the body of Christ and how we so eagerly invited it in not just into the church but into our homes and I am reminded it is not up to me but to Christ. The only thing I am to do is to be obedient to what He lays on my heart to do. We are not going to be the losers in this battle but the victors. We need to realize that it is not just faith, that we have been given the very evidence that He has provided to us since Creation that justifies that faith. We have confidence in that evidence because we have seen each creature procreate after their own kind; we have confidence because the seeds we plant produce after their own kind; we have confidence because two cells meet and begin to create an unimaginable feat that takes shape over a period of nine months and provides the purest example of love between man and women; we have confidence because on the third day He arose, defeating death and providing a promise of eternal life with Him. We have confidence because if He did not rise we would never have heard about Him; we have confidence because we know that He IS coming again to gather His own unto Him, and we have confidence because His glory is manifested throughout all His creation. Do we use reason? Yes, we do but we also use evidence and that evidence is provided in every secular means possible. It is historically sound; it is confirmed not only in documents but in architecture. It is cosmologically sound; regardless of their claims and regardless of equipment we find solid truths concerning the cosmos recorded in the scripture and while they claim that it was written much later Isaiah has been confirmed to be written earlier than they contend based on archeological findings. It is scientifically sound; even though they attempt to discredit the translation claiming it to be misquoted it has encouraged every early scientist to push the envelope in their experiments and while they claim that these scientist were really humanist, if one were to read their actual works they would find that their devotion was to God. It is sound logically; as the Creator of logic we will never while on this earth be able to comprehend His logic and try as we might we cannot achieve a fraction of it. It is sound morally; the desire to remove morals from society does not detract from Gods viewpoint of the requirements of morals. Regardless of the belief or unbelief of a person we must all one day stand before Him and be accountable for the things that we have done. Our reasoning will not matter, our logic will not matter, our denial of Him will produce the judgment deserved and the sentence will be just and the punishment will be eternal. If every nation of people had some concept of a higher being and while not acknowledging Him as God knew that there was something more would it not stand to reason that there is One who is there. Even though the entire city of Jericho heard of what He had done; they still did not repent save one family. We hear it, we see those who will stand for it, but we do not want to acknowledge it because then it would mean that we will have to be accountable for all that we do.

Logic and reasoning put aside
I could not deny Him, although I tried
Though all around me put Him down
No fault in His Word could be found
With all creation screaming His Name
To believe in myself would be a shame
So on my knees I shook and cried
His love for me is why He died
A new life for Him I now begin
And eternal life since He rose again
So how can I deny He Exists?
And others so readily resist
With all creation screaming His Name
To rely on ourselves is a shame.