I'm Thinking of Making a Rose...

I'm thinking of making a rose, and I'm going to do it from nothing.  I'll need to make a seed that has programmed DNA that would tell it to produce tap roots that would, of their own volition, seek after moisture in soil and send the liquid vertical for the nourishment of the plant.  The DNA would then have the plant grow a stem, branches, and leaves that were capable of the process of photosynthesis.  It would have to make its own needle-sharp thorns (they are such a curse), and of course the rose buds.  These would automatically blossom into what I'm aiming at - a beautiful rose.

The flower itself wold contain the usual male and female parts - the pistol and stamen - for reproduction after its own kind.  Then there's the process of pollination that will need to take place, and for that I will need to make sure there's an aroma, and a radiant color that will attract bees.  I'm not sure how to do all this, but give me time.  Time is the key.  Time.

There's also the production of nectar that the bees can turn into the sweetness of honey.  When the rose dies it will have to produce its own seeds, so that it can reproduce after its own kind.

Well, I've had time to think about this and it's getting a little complicated, mainly because I have to make all this from nothing...as it happened in the beginning.  Making a rose from nothing should have been easy because intelligent scientists say it wasn't designed with any intelligence.  But I feel a little dumb because I don't know where to begin.

OK, I've given it some serious thought.  Making a rose from nothing is way too difficult, and I don't think I could do it.  Not in a million years.  No, I think I will leave the rose and try something a little easier - like a bee.

The preceding was taken from the March edition of the livingwaters.com newsletter.

Green Parking Spots

I haven't blogged in a long time. At first I was extremely busy with finishing up the spring semester for seminary. Then as soon as that ended, my work schedule picked up significantly. Add to the mix that my wife and I are expecting baby number 2 in about a month, and I'm a busy guy. Hence the shortage of posts. But even with all of that, I couldn't pass this up.

I was just over on Facebook and noticed that the seminary I attend had posted photos of the new campus construction. The seminary has been building a new building since selling their existing property to the local hospital. Every month or so they post pictures of how the construction of the new building is coming. As I was perusing through the newest batch of photos, I saw this:


The caption for the photo reads: "Since going green, the seminary will also offer great parking spots to those who drive hybrid vehicles." I don't know if I've ever seen anything so asinine. First of all, I find it completely ridiculous (and foolish and ignorant) that the seminary has "gone green," and even more preposterous that the seminary is offering premier parking spots for those who drive hybrids. I really don't know what else to say. I'm kind of ashamed. To think that those who drive hybrid vehicles somehow deserve a better parking spot because of their "green-consciousness" is absolutely ludicrous. I literally don't know what else to say.

That's it. Back to work.

Will We Be Vegetarians In Heaven?

So, I was listening to the rebroadcast of Jan Markell's radio program today, and she was interviewing Christian apologist, Dr. Ron Rhodes. Rhodes has recently written a book about heaven, and most of Jan's questions centered around Rhodes' interpretation of scripture regarding eternity. Dr. Rhodes brought up an interesting thought that I had never considered before, and I've found myself thinking about it all day: will Christians be vegetarians in heaven?

Now, before I go any further in fleshing out this idea, let me preface my thoughts by saying that whether a person agrees or disagrees with this idea, it certainly isn't something that Christians should fight over. This isn't a vital issue, and there's really no way to determine a concrete answer to the question. We can only look at the scripture and make some educated guesses. So consider that before you start a church based on Christian Vegetarianism. That being said, I think there's good evidence to support the idea that all the inhabitants of heaven will be (and are), in fact, vegetarians.

Rhodes supports this idea by first citing Genesis 1.29 - And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food." Rhodes (and many other good theologians) asserts that in the pre-fall earth there was no death. In other words, the Garden of Eden was the perfect place since there was no sin: there was no pain, no sadness, no death, no suffering, no disease, etc. Everything was perfect - very much like what the Bible says about heaven (note: this is not to say that the Garden of Eden was heaven in and of itself, but rather that the Garden seems to share several, if not most or all of the qualities of heaven).

Rhodes also says that the animal kingdom was included in this environment of peace and perfection. Thus the instruction to Adam and Eve to eat only fruit and herbs. Scripture seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were not killing and eating animals - just herbs, and as Rhodes sees it, if animals were being killed for food, then Eden would have ceased to be an environment of peace and perfection, because death would be included in the mix. And death has nothing to do with peace and perfection. It even seems as thoughanimals only ate the herbs and fruit, and not each other. In other words, there were no predatory or prey animals - they all got along and ate the vegetation. Genesis 1.30 - "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food."

In fact, the eating of animals isn't mentioned in scripture until chapter nine of Genesis. After Noah and his family are off the ark, God seems to finally allow them to eat animals. Genesis 9.3 - Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. God then goes on to give them instructions as to HOW they should eat the animals. So it would seem that this is the first time in the history of the earth that animals are killed and eaten as food.

The first physical death that is reported by scripture is the killing of an animal by God in order to make coverings for Adam and Eve, after they realized they were naked, and after the fall into sin. So once the environment of peace and perfection had been infiltrated by sin, death was a new reality.

All that to say that there was no death in the Garden of Eden - the most heaven-like environment in the history of the earth. Scripture teaches that there will be no pain, suffering, death, or even tears in heaven either. So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that there won't be any killing in heaven - not even of animals, and not even for the sake of food. Meat wasn't a necessity in the Garden of Eden. In fact, it would seem as though meat was completely contrary to the whole idea of the Garden of Eden. So then, wouldn't it likewise be contrary to what we know heaven to be like? If we did eat meat in the kingdom of heaven, that means that something would have to die in order for us to have it. That doesn't seem to jibe with the kind of environment that heaven is.

So what's the conclusion? I don't know. Rhodes' idea seems to work scripturally. But I wouldn't worry about it if you're a Christian who enjoys a good rack of ribs. Like Paul Washer says, you'll be way too busy trying to figure out God while you're in heaven to even be concerned about what's for dinner!

More Reasons To Trust God With Our (His) Planet

Did you hear about this? It's a report that says that arctic ice levels have returned to the same point they were at in 1979. That's 30 years ago, folks. Looks like we're actually not as bad off as the global warming freaks want us to think we are.

The story goes on to say that the ice re-froze in about the past seven months. That's an incredibly quick rate of freeze - in fact, it's extremely improbable, if not impossible, according to what scientists "know" about these sort of things. Lesson learned: we don't "know" too much about how the earth works, let alone the kind of effects that mankind has on it.

I also appreciated the last line of the article: "In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing." Well, I think we can take the polar bears off the threatened species list now that their habitat is as large as it's been in the last 30 years (not to mention the fact that scientists say the polar bear population is INCREASING - seriously, where do people get off with doing this crap?).

For example, take a look at the L.A. Times' original story that declared the polar bear as a threatened species: "The animal, whose habitat has been shrinking with the melting of Arctic sea ice, is the first to be designated as threatened with extinction mainly because of global warming." There are at least three things about that sentence that are not true: 1) the polar bear's habitat is not shrinking; 2) polar bears are not threatened with extinction; and 3) global warming has nothing to do with shrinking sea ice or the polar bear population.

If nothing else, this article shows us that a lot of global warming / greenhouse effect / climate change people are just a bunch of knee-jerk reactionists (except the interesting thing is that it turns out there was nothing really to jerk their knees or react over).

If anything, this story just gives us even more reason to be good stewards of our resources, and trust God to take care of HIS creation.