When Time Shall Be No More

“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” [Matthew 24:3]

According to Discover, brought to my attention by a friend of mine:

“The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.” (emphasis mine)

Here is my question to: “The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.””

If time does not exist, what does that do with the rest of science’s theories based on time? Would they then become nonexistent as well?

Oh, to understand the mind and magnificence of the Almighty, Holy God, though a lifetime would not allow such mortals as us to comprehend.

---

Retirement (Book III, Hymn 45, page 583)

Far from the world, O Lord, I flee,

From strife and tumult far;

From scenes where Satan wages still

His most successful war.

The calm retreat, the silent shade,

With prayer and praise agree;

And seem, by Thy sweet bounty made,

For those who follow Thee.

There if Thy Spirit touch the soul,

And grace her mean abode,

Oh, with what peace, and joy, and love,

She communes with her God!

There like the nightingale she pours

Her solitary lays;

Nor asks a witness of her song,

Nor thirsts for human praise.

Author and Guardian of my life,

Sweet source of light Divine,

And, -- all harmonious names in one, --

My Saviour! Thou art mine.

What thanks I owe Thee, and what love,

A boundless, endless store,

Shall echo through the realms above,

When time shall be no more.

William Cowper

Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry

Looking in the blog world of Atheism, again we have the use of the term bigotry. Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Coming from the title “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” we have a discussion of:

“Try to imagine what would happen if video got out in which one of the Presidential candidates used the dreaded "n-word." That campaign would be over in an instant. Why? Because that type of bigotry would not be tolerated and would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American people as grounds for disqualification. Unfortunately, other types of bigotry are not only accepted but are actually an important strategic component of many Republican campaigns. I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”

First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.

Now, I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without, but even this issue remains different concerning each. For a person to use the “n-word” (as noted by the writer) is a derogatory word used against the entire race or directly to the individual it is said to, whereas stating that Biblically speaking homosexuality is wrong and immoral and atheism makes one a sinner or lost is not the same type of speech.

Why do I say this? Because skin color is not something someone can change or needs to be repented of, whereas homosexuality and atheism is a rejection of the truth, thereby sin, and needs to be repented of to the holy, almighty God.

Now, back to the topic of the writer, they write, “And yet, bigotry directed at the secular and GLBT communities is not only acceptable but appears to be an intentional part (some would even say a central part) in the campaign strategies of many Republicans.”

The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.”

Let’s face it, the atheist cry of bigotry is due to the idea that the presidential candidates wish to claim or promote their theistic beliefs. But, would they not be willing to embrace the candidate which claimed atheism over theism, and desired to rid the country of the “Pledge of Allegiance”, “In God We Trust”, “Moment of Silence”, and any other objectives atheists have presented to the courts of America?

Simple facts:

Theism says there is a God, therefore denies atheism.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore denies theism.

Christianity believes Scripture declares homosexuality a sin, therefore denies it is moral.
Atheism believes Scripture is not authoritative, therefore denies homosexuality is a sin.

Although Christianity and Atheism agree to a certain degree on some moral issues, the morality of Christianity and Atheism varies based on the authority given such, and to the ideas which pertain to each thought.

Again, “Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

I agree one should not be abused, hurt, etc. simply because of race, religion, or sexual choice, but the fact remains that each person is laced within their being with ideas which are “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Trying to say “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” would be simply removing every candidate from ever running for office.

An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.

Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them, just as the Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them.

I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.

Make a Joyful Noise unto God

The Scripture is full of verses asking us to Make a Joyful Noise unto God, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs of praise, not only to ourselves but also to others.

There is probably not a Christian that would object to such teaching from Scripture, even from those which may not sing aloud themselves while sitting in the pews during worship services.

The thing I would like to ponder is the idea of children verses adult singing specials in the church. In fact, I’ll just come right out and ask the question:

Why do we accept and applaud a child that sings a special, though it may be off key, but seem to dare not let an adult sing that does not have the “voice of angels”?

Is it simply because they “look cute” and the adult may not? I know that sounds silly, but it appears this is indeed the reasoning behind it. I mean, what else could be justifiable reason to allow a child that does not have the prefect voice to sing, but not the adult?

Should not the underlying factor be the heart of the person desiring to sing? “Why do you want to sing a special in church?” should be the question we ask, not make them audition for a singing solo. Am I wrong to think this way? I heard a pastor once say, “Sometimes the only reason people want to sing specials in church is because they can’t sing anywhere else.” Meaning self gratification is the reasoning behind it, and not the love for God.

Consider the child that sings, or wishes to: Is it truly their heart wanting to glorify God by their praise to Him in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, or is it their parents which desire to see their child upon the stage in church bringing notice more to their child’s voice (a talent from God) than to God Himself?

Indeed, we can become too legalistic in trying to peer into each heart before we allow them to sing within our churches, but have we not done so by allowing talent to judge whether one is worthy to sing unto God within the church service?

Now, with this said, I am not against special music in church and most often enjoy it, so I am not saying that we need to cast out special music in church but to allow each heart the opportunity to sing praise unto God. I say, “Let the children sing unto to Lord, but hinder not the heart of the adult who wishes to Make a Joyful Noise unto God.”

No Preaching Zone

Taking a glance over at Atheist Revolution, it appears that one may “Curb "door-to-door disciples" in your neighborhood!” by purchasing a “No Preaching Sticker ” or “"No Preaching Allowed" door plaque ” from Ring of Fire Enterprises.

Interesting…

Mark of the Beast Confusion

Sent to me, by a friend of mine, was a news article from FOXNews.com about a young man who had apparently “believed he bore the "mark of the beast" [and] used a circular saw to cut off one hand, [and] then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.”

There has been discussion concerning “mental health” in these articles, but they all seem to leave a lot to be desired as to fully understand the context of what may have transpired for this man to do such. The article truly falls short when it comes to much of the story, but I noticed they made sure to include the Scripture references of Revelation and Matthew. They are as follows:

Revelation 14:
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Matthew 5:
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

First off, these two references quoted are two totally different contexts. Revelation is speaking of prophecy of the Tribulation period, concerning the Antichrist and end times, whereas Matthew is speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, concerning what the things of God really mean (concerning our daily lives) verses what the Pharisees claimed they meant.

Second, when it comes to the mark of the beast, it will not be “thy right hand offend thee”, but the heart and depravity of the individuals which “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand” instead of placing faith in the One True Holy Almighty God.

They will be deceived by the beast (Antichrist) and the false prophet, whereby they will setup a system that only those which receive the mark may partake, but shall be cast into the lake of fire by God, along with Satan and all those who take the mark and reject Christ.

Repent and put faith in Jesus Christ, and He will forever keep you from taking the mark, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Ekleipsis: In the Land of Erde - Review Proposal

Beast, a regular, Atheist commenter to Splinters of Silver has proposed the following concerning my recently finished book Ekleipsis:

---

Books, books, books: You seem to be churning them out by the dozens! Am I supposed to be impressed?

May I propose this to you: Send me a softcopy of your book, and then I will evaluate it and write a book review, after which you can put it up on your blog.

As with all my comments, I will be as objective and truthful as I can.

Dare you accept the challenge?

Beast

---

Beast,

As concerning your proposal of me sending you the PDF file of my book, Ekleipsis:

You propose:
“May I propose this to you: Send me a softcopy of your book, and then I will evaluate it and write a book review, after which you can put it up on your blog.”

You claim:
“As with all my comments, I will be as objective and truthful as I can.”


My reply and stipulations:

1. I will send you the current, complete PDF file for my book entitled Ekleipsis. This will be the file that has been edited and reread by myself, before the proof copy has arrived and I have had the chance to reread it one final time.

2. You will agree to not alter the PDF file in any way, and to refrain from distributing or making available the file in anyway (whether free or for monetary gain) to any individual besides yourself, unless first approved by myself.

3. You have the right to be “objective and truthful” concerning all comments regarding your review of my book, Ekleipsis, which should be sent to me via email.

4. I reserve the right to refrain from posting your review if I, and those I may share it with, feel that it is not “objective and truthful” in our opinion. Although, you do have the right to post your review on your own blog, if you feel lead to do so.

If you agree with the terms, please reply back stating as such, also sending me the email address as to where I should send the file.

Tim

Book Two: Daegsteorra - Introduction

Continuing in the Land of Erde, where book one, Ekleipsis, left off, will be book two, entitled Daegsteorra. I have actually been writing on this book since November 2007, while book one was going through editorial corrections. Now that Ekleipsis has been completed, I can give Daegsteorra my full attention.

As with the title of book one, using the Greek word for “eclipse”, Ekleipsis, I have decided to use the Old English word for “the day star”, Daegsteorra, for the title of book two.

With Ekleipsis newly out, I would hate to give too much insight into book two, Daegsteorra, at this point, fearing I may spoil the excitement and story of book one.

As book one, Ekleipsis, begins with:

Ekleipsis (Greek, eclipse): Judarius claimed that darkness would one day overcome and destroy all light. The name of that day, he called thus.

Book two, Daegsteorra, begins with:

Daegsteorra (Old English, the day star): The Ekleipsis cometh but for a moment, then shall the daystar yet arise above the Darkness.

I hope that you will enjoy book one, Ekleipsis, as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Please continue to check back often for updates and information concerning the Land of Erde series.

Check out: http://www.landoferde.com/

Ekleipsis: In the Land of Erde - Published!

Good news!

Today I uploaded the “final” corrections to book one, Ekleipsis, to Lulu for publication. It is now available for purchase, although I have just placed the order for my proof copy. Once I have read through the proof copy and am satisfied (which should already be), it must be approved through Lulu before it will be available at Amazon, Barnes and Nobles, and other stores which wish to carry it.

I will update the Land of Erde blog as to when I have officially approved the book, and please remember to register by January 31, 2008, for your chance to win a free autographed copy.

Any questions or comments before or after purchase, please contact me.

Check out: http://www.landoferde.com/

ISBN: 978-0-6151-8434-0

Trying to Silence a Moment of Silence

According to the Dallas Morning News, “An atheist couple whose children attend a Carrollton-Farmers Branch elementary school have filed a complaint in federal district court arguing that the state's mandated moment of silence in public schools is unconstitutional.”

The claim is that one of their children was apparently asked to be silent for a “time for prayer” during the normal morning “moment of silence”.

Apparently the father also claims he doesn’t believe “there is any secular reason for a moment of silence” and that a moment of silence is just a way to allow prayer in school without calling it prayer. He asks the question, “Is there any study showing a moment of silence helps education?” But I would also ask if he has done any research to show that a moment of silence hurts education.

I fail to understand why this couple would like us all to believe that a moment of silence is synonymous with prayer. That is simply not the case. How often do we take moments of silence throughout our daily lives, even Christians, and it is not spent praying but considering what we are to do next, examining something we are working on, or simply just taking a break?

The law apparently states that one is free to “reflect, pray, meditate or engage in any other silent activities” during the moment of silence, but it seems the only requirement is to remain silent to keep from disturbing others that may be taking part in reflecting, praying, meditating, or engaging in any other silent activates.

What I find most interesting is, atheists claim they do not believe God exist and do not believe prayer does a single thing, then why such a fight against a moment of silence whereby the student is free to ponder any thoughts they seem right in their own eyes?

The father, Mr. Croft has apparently said, "I don't want my children exposed to people telling them the supernatural is real." Oh, but it is okay for all other children to be denied a moment of silence and to be told God is not real?

"I completely reject Judeo-Christian monotheism,” says Mr. Croft, and thus the matter is settled: It is clear this has little to do with the Constitution or a moment of silence, and more about his personal rejection of God.

I am glad the one Trying to Silence a Moment of Silence has been silenced: Federal Court Upholds Texas Moment of Silence Law, Allowing Students to Pray or Meditate

“God Doesn’t Want Me To Be Unhappy”

I have heard this statement more than once, and largely in the context of a wife desiring to leave (divorce) her husband. Where exactly does such a thought arise? I find it not within the writings of Scripture, so who then is the author of such?

First, I would like to take a look at the central word, which is interestingly “Me”. Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but usually when a person centralizes their thoughts upon self they are considered to be self-centered. A synonym for self-centered is selfish, meaning “devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.”

Now, I am not going to assume that everyone (or anyone) that claims this line of reasoning, when considering the idea of divorce, may not have a legitimate reason for separation from their spouse (though Biblical justification is very limited and seldom adhered to), but I do believe this says more about their spiritual condition than it does of the marital condition of why they feel justified in leaving.

If by chance, there were such a teaching as “God Doesn’t Want Me To Be Unhappy”, how exactly would that work toward a family? For a moment, let us consider this analogy a bit:

Husband + Wife + Children = Family

Wife (or Husband) wants out and claims “God Doesn’t Want Me To Be Unhappy”. They are finally awarded a divorce, and apparently (but probably not) find happiness in it.

Has the Husband (or Wife) and Children found happiness also, given only the desires of the other to leave the Family has been granted? Does not God want the other spouse and children to be happy also? What child is ever happy at the divorce of their parents? The logic simple does not add up.

Honestly, I don’t find the teaching “God Doesn’t Want Me To Be Unhappy” anywhere in Scripture. What I do find is God telling us that we will find joy in obedience to Him. To look and desire joy outside of the Word of God is to enjoy the pleasures of sin but for a season. Remember sin is any transgression against the law of God (both internal and external acts).

When one entertains the thought of divorce (or any other act) one must first examine their personal relationship with God. Are we in tune with the Spirit and adhering to the Word of God, or have we simply placed “ME” in the center of all that is and have just become selfish in our thinking?

Though we may think we are making our future happy by putting asunder what God has joined together, happiness for ourselves, our spouse, and our children is not what will be found.

As I once heard a pastor say, “If one would put as much work into the marriage as they do to get out of the marriage, most likely the marriage and happiness could be restored to the entire family.”

There is one truth to “God Doesn’t Want Me To Be Unhappy” and that is God has given us Scripture whereby to live our lives, and has sent His Son Jesus Christ that we might be forgiven of sin and be given eternal life. When we reject His Word and/or His Son, there is no true happiness to be found.

Resolutions ‘08

Here we go again, a new year and some new resolutions. Each year, come January 1st, quite a lot of people find themselves making promises to themselves which they hope to stay committed to for 365 days. I often wonder how many last past the first 30 days.

As I consider resolutions, I can’t help but recall the hymn I Am Resolved, by Palmer Hartsough.

The very first verse should be the desire of every professing Christian, and for the repentant heart which comes to Christ for salvation:

I am resolved no longer to linger,

Charmed by the world’s delight,

Things that are higher, things that are nobler,

These have allured my sight.

And to those which know not the loving Savior, Jesus Christ, and to the backslidden Christian, such is the refrain of hope to which we pray their hearts will be moved:

I will hasten to Him, hasten so glad and free;

Jesus, greatest, highest, I will come to Thee.

I will hasten, hasten to Him, hasten so glad and free;

Jesus, Jesus, greatest, highest, I will come to Thee.

Let not our resolutions be fixed solely upon the desires and wants of the flesh, but let them be spiritual in thought, whereby we may live as one who shall hear, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”