Science and Young Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationists are the more learned and well-informed than most of their humanistic colleagues. They have to be. Because not only do they have to scientifically investigate the universe from a Biblical world-view, they must also do “double-duty” to understand the perspective of those who don't agree with a Young Earth perspective. They seek to find answers to the same questions, but have to use more critical thinking skills and disect biased views which intentionally exclude intelligent design, God or the historical record of the Bible as a probability. Their colleagues, however, have tunnel vision. No one is forcing them to study another perspective, so they most-often do not and will not. Not only do they not understand an Intelligent-design or Young Earth perspective, they fearfully and militantly try to shut it down, quite Orwellianly. I personally don't know any Christians who forbid their kids to seek to understand an evolutionists perspective, even if they don't agree with it. On the other hand, there is such a fear of any spirituality crossing into the humanistic perspective that they have roadblocked its entrance into most curriculum, public educational institutions, Science documentaries and books. It quite reminds me of how Jewish parents and rabbis forbid their children to speak the name of Yeshua (Jesus), instead calling him “Yeshu,” never let them look at a Brit Chadashah (New Testament), or even learn about the life of a Man who has had more impact upon the world than any other person. Ever. But what exactly is driving that fear? Is it a fear that, after all this time, by investigating something outside of their own perspective they could be wrong – that there really is a God who loves them and created everything with meaning and purpose and destiny?
Created with an Appearance of Age:
If God created the stars in our galaxy without their light already reaching earth at the moment they were created, it would have taken Adam and Eve over 4 years to even see the first star. Most of the stars in our galaxy wouldn't even be visible today because the light wouldn't have even reached earth yet. That's not even including other galaxies and stars. That's why everything was created with the appearance of age. And that's why many scientists miscalculate the age of the earth and universe. They would've looked at Adam and Eve, estimating them to be maybe in their 20s, when in fact they were seconds old.
The more I study cosmology, the more its sounds like myth-spinning and ideas built upon hypotheses that we have no way of testing, or at best, can only be marginally substantiated with any real, concrete evidence. Most of this evidence has been interpreted through a very narrow perspective (somewhat like eisegesis), rather than considering it objectively.
I think even Creationists eventually run into the most important key of God's miraculous, creative act -- that everything He made had to be created with an APPEARANCE OF AGE. This includes: humanity (they couldn't survive as infants or a conceived egg on their own); starlight (as I've mentioned before, if it wasn't, it would have taken over 4 years for Adam & Eve to see just one star, and most of the stars in the Milky Way wouldn't be visible today), all living organisms, the planets, moons, and sun moving in orbit, as well as the relative apparant age of our sun to other stars. When Jesus created enough food for 5000 men (not including women and children) out of 5 loaves and 2 fish, it was done with the APPEARANCE OF AGE. A scientist, eating the benefits of Christ's generosity, would have analyzed it and thought: "These fish are fully grown and would have taken years to mature to this size; this bread is certainly fresh, but would have taken a full season to grow, harvest, grind, and bake." But the bread and fish were moments old. He also concluded that it must be some trick where enough bread for 5000 men was hidden under a blanket or something, otherwise it would most certainly violate the Law of the Conservation of Mass. Another chemist analyzed the wine that Jesus had made from water. He anaylzed the chemical nature of it, tasted it, tested the oxidation levels and clarity of it. He concluded that the wine was well-aged, well-balanced, and clear. He boldly proclaimed the conclusions of his scientific findings, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” (John 2:10).. And yet it had just been created minutes previous. Another "scientist" began a systematic investigation into a man who claimed to be born blind and could now see. They surveyed the community, including his parents, to see whether it was, in fact, true that he had been born blind. This act, of course, had been done in violation of their sacred social constructs, authoritative structure of "peer review" and so-called "scientific means," on a day they believed it shouldn't be allowed. Deeply steeped in pride that won't admit wrong, and using an appeal to their own "authoritative consensus," they together concluded, via "peer review," that this man certainly had not been born blind. Even if they had no other explanation. It just "couldn't be true". Additionally, he had violated their scientific "laws," theories, and conclusions -- that he had "sinned" against their social constructs. They subsequently banned him from their "scientific" community, mocked and ridiculed by the club who "knows better". You see, you can't use normal, materialistic, observable, "scientific" means to make conclusions when it comes to miraculous events. Nor can you use erroneous uniformitarianistic theories when it comes to concluding the age of the Earth and the universe and historical geology.
I don't believe that God (the Creator) is somehow being deceptive or misleading. It just requires TRUST to understand the reality of it all. He had to create certain things with the appearance of age, otherwise we wouldn't be able to enjoy them (like starlight, the planets, the plants and animals on land and in the sea). Certainly He could have done it any way He wished, but I'd rather look up at the sky and be able to see things that are billions of light years away now, rather than having to wait billions of years before my descendents could enjoy seeing them. He could have made creatures with offspring that could survive on their own, but chose to make them vulnerable and dependent upon their parents, to show us the kind of trust we need in Him. In other words, baby kangaroos the size of lima beans couldn't survive on their own, so he created full-grown ones on Day 6. Again, made with the appearance of age. There are a multitude of reasons that He did things the way that He did, but you have to learn His heart and trust Him to uncover these mysteries. "It is God’s privilege to conceal things and the king’s privilege to discover them." (Prov. 25:2). As for the Plutonium 244, Americium 243, or even Carbon 14, Rubidium, Potassium, or any others used in radiometric dating: uniformitarians make some very strong assumptions regarding all of these. As I indicated from other examples before, any ratio or amount of these isotopes could have been created (or not created) during the original creation -- based upon what He felt was "very good" -- a most harmonious and balanced form of the universe. In which case, it is impossible to determine the age of the universe (or anything extremely ancient) based upon this method. No one can make any kind of hard conclusions regarding how much of any element or isotope existed in the beginning. It's complete speculation. Additionally, they are also making the assumption that the decay rate of any of these isotopes has remained exactly constant during the last 6000 years. If they don't, then the whole method is absolutely flawed and can not be trusted. The most difficult thing about determining a half-life that is thousands or millions or years old, is that it would take that amount of time to test the theory absolutely. Besides, numerous climactic and atmospheric changes in the Earth, like the deluvial Flood, would have drastic effects on many things. Certainly decay rates could be one of these.
When you have a bias against Jesus being part of the storyline and the process of your conclusions, you will get it wrong every time. Oh the wisdom of God, where those who seek You find truth, and those who disregard You, truth eludes them.
No Real Competitive Advantage:
One of the problems with evolutionary theory is that many of the things which distinguish phylum do not in any way present any competitive advantage. If they did, then why do "lower forms of life" such as single-cell organisms, or even multicellular organisms without tissues (like sponges) still exist? Evolution necessitates that more complex life forms always have a competitive advantage which eliminates lesser complexity (survival of the fittest). An example of this is an invertebrate called lancelets, which has a nerve cord, but no backbone. If natural selection were true enough to cause macro evolution (not just variations within species), lower forms of life would all be extinct because of their disadvantage, like the lancelets (whose nerve cord is unprotected without a backbone). Yet, this is entirely untrue, and untrue on a massive and universal scale.
Oh, the vast changes that would have to come in Science if they were to “allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Ah, but change will come. It must. Because Truth, no matter how suppressed it is, always rises to the top. The Truth always wins out. He's so gracious and forebearing, He wouldn't even make a big deal of them switching perspectives if they did – the kind-hearted Dad that He is.
As the Church, we need to start seeing anti-God scientific thought as God sees it. He treats it in the same way that he treated the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day: religious leaders. They aren't disseminating the Mosaic law, however, but rather the paradigm of a science based only on physical evidences (aka "materialism"). He never intended us to live under this kind of Greek-Western law. He set us free from the oppression and obligations of the law, which includes man-made laws. They want to be teachers of the true laws of the natural world, but they don't really know what they're talking about. He prophecies about the false teachers of scientific thought here: "Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." (1 Timothy 1:4-7)
Evolution holes:
One of the problems with evolutionary theory is that many of the things which distinguish phylum do not in any way present any competitive advantage. If they did, then why do "lower forms of life" such as single-cell organisms, or even multicellular organisms without tissues (like sponges) still exist? Evolution necessitates that more complex life forms always have a competitive advantage which eliminates lesser complexity (survival of the fittest). An example of this is an invertebrate called lancelets, which has a nerve cord, but no backbone. If natural selection were true enough to cause macro evolution (not just variations within species), lower forms of life would all be extinct because of their disadvantage, like the lancelets (whose nerve cord is unprotected without a backbone). Yet, this is entirely untrue, and untrue on a massive and universal scale.
This is from my own research by the way, not just "copied and pasted"]. Dr. Peter Castro (Marine Biologist at Calif. State Polytechnic University) makes a remarkable statement in his article "The Octopus Complex Brain": "The cephalopod [a class of the phylum Mollusca] and vertebrate [phylum Chordata] brains evolved independently from each other. Their development in different but remarkably parallel paths, however, has stimulated the search for the origin of complex behavior and intelligence..."
The brains in cephalopods and vertibrates which have supposedly developed separately have remarkable similarities. What are the chances that evolution, working independently in vastly different branches of evolutionary tracts, would develop (at the same time) similar organs in two distinct phylum branches? The probability of developing a central nervous system through genetic variation, chance, and natural selection is extreme enough, much less to develop similar ones in mutually exclusive phylum. I would go so far as to say it is not just improbable, but impossible.
Many things that Science claims are “adaptations” are really inherent traits of design – they are abilities which the life-form already possessed, which may even be somewhat dormant (or unexpressed), but are expressed when it is placed in a different environment which requires it. This is seen in the way “adaptation” is misused in reference to humans all the time. People are given difficult situations and are pressed to find answers or live in a way they never had before. It doesn't mean that the ability to survive or even thrive in this hard “new world” wasn't there or that they recently acquired this trait. It simply means that it was there all along, but not needed until this point.
Created with an Appearance of Age:
If God created the stars in our galaxy without their light already reaching earth at the moment they were created, it would have taken Adam and Eve over 4 years to even see the first star. Most of the stars in our galaxy wouldn't even be visible today because the light wouldn't have even reached earth yet. That's not even including other galaxies and stars. That's why everything was created with the appearance of age. And that's why many scientists miscalculate the age of the earth and universe. They would've looked at Adam and Eve, estimating them to be maybe in their 20s, when in fact they were seconds old.
The more I study cosmology, the more its sounds like myth-spinning and ideas built upon hypotheses that we have no way of testing, or at best, can only be marginally substantiated with any real, concrete evidence. Most of this evidence has been interpreted through a very narrow perspective (somewhat like eisegesis), rather than considering it objectively.
I think even Creationists eventually run into the most important key of God's miraculous, creative act -- that everything He made had to be created with an APPEARANCE OF AGE. This includes: humanity (they couldn't survive as infants or a conceived egg on their own); starlight (as I've mentioned before, if it wasn't, it would have taken over 4 years for Adam & Eve to see just one star, and most of the stars in the Milky Way wouldn't be visible today), all living organisms, the planets, moons, and sun moving in orbit, as well as the relative apparant age of our sun to other stars. When Jesus created enough food for 5000 men (not including women and children) out of 5 loaves and 2 fish, it was done with the APPEARANCE OF AGE. A scientist, eating the benefits of Christ's generosity, would have analyzed it and thought: "These fish are fully grown and would have taken years to mature to this size; this bread is certainly fresh, but would have taken a full season to grow, harvest, grind, and bake." But the bread and fish were moments old. He also concluded that it must be some trick where enough bread for 5000 men was hidden under a blanket or something, otherwise it would most certainly violate the Law of the Conservation of Mass. Another chemist analyzed the wine that Jesus had made from water. He anaylzed the chemical nature of it, tasted it, tested the oxidation levels and clarity of it. He concluded that the wine was well-aged, well-balanced, and clear. He boldly proclaimed the conclusions of his scientific findings, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” (John 2:10).. And yet it had just been created minutes previous. Another "scientist" began a systematic investigation into a man who claimed to be born blind and could now see. They surveyed the community, including his parents, to see whether it was, in fact, true that he had been born blind. This act, of course, had been done in violation of their sacred social constructs, authoritative structure of "peer review" and so-called "scientific means," on a day they believed it shouldn't be allowed. Deeply steeped in pride that won't admit wrong, and using an appeal to their own "authoritative consensus," they together concluded, via "peer review," that this man certainly had not been born blind. Even if they had no other explanation. It just "couldn't be true". Additionally, he had violated their scientific "laws," theories, and conclusions -- that he had "sinned" against their social constructs. They subsequently banned him from their "scientific" community, mocked and ridiculed by the club who "knows better". You see, you can't use normal, materialistic, observable, "scientific" means to make conclusions when it comes to miraculous events. Nor can you use erroneous uniformitarianistic theories when it comes to concluding the age of the Earth and the universe and historical geology.
I don't believe that God (the Creator) is somehow being deceptive or misleading. It just requires TRUST to understand the reality of it all. He had to create certain things with the appearance of age, otherwise we wouldn't be able to enjoy them (like starlight, the planets, the plants and animals on land and in the sea). Certainly He could have done it any way He wished, but I'd rather look up at the sky and be able to see things that are billions of light years away now, rather than having to wait billions of years before my descendents could enjoy seeing them. He could have made creatures with offspring that could survive on their own, but chose to make them vulnerable and dependent upon their parents, to show us the kind of trust we need in Him. In other words, baby kangaroos the size of lima beans couldn't survive on their own, so he created full-grown ones on Day 6. Again, made with the appearance of age. There are a multitude of reasons that He did things the way that He did, but you have to learn His heart and trust Him to uncover these mysteries. "It is God’s privilege to conceal things and the king’s privilege to discover them." (Prov. 25:2). As for the Plutonium 244, Americium 243, or even Carbon 14, Rubidium, Potassium, or any others used in radiometric dating: uniformitarians make some very strong assumptions regarding all of these. As I indicated from other examples before, any ratio or amount of these isotopes could have been created (or not created) during the original creation -- based upon what He felt was "very good" -- a most harmonious and balanced form of the universe. In which case, it is impossible to determine the age of the universe (or anything extremely ancient) based upon this method. No one can make any kind of hard conclusions regarding how much of any element or isotope existed in the beginning. It's complete speculation. Additionally, they are also making the assumption that the decay rate of any of these isotopes has remained exactly constant during the last 6000 years. If they don't, then the whole method is absolutely flawed and can not be trusted. The most difficult thing about determining a half-life that is thousands or millions or years old, is that it would take that amount of time to test the theory absolutely. Besides, numerous climactic and atmospheric changes in the Earth, like the deluvial Flood, would have drastic effects on many things. Certainly decay rates could be one of these.
When you have a bias against Jesus being part of the storyline and the process of your conclusions, you will get it wrong every time. Oh the wisdom of God, where those who seek You find truth, and those who disregard You, truth eludes them.
No Real Competitive Advantage:
One of the problems with evolutionary theory is that many of the things which distinguish phylum do not in any way present any competitive advantage. If they did, then why do "lower forms of life" such as single-cell organisms, or even multicellular organisms without tissues (like sponges) still exist? Evolution necessitates that more complex life forms always have a competitive advantage which eliminates lesser complexity (survival of the fittest). An example of this is an invertebrate called lancelets, which has a nerve cord, but no backbone. If natural selection were true enough to cause macro evolution (not just variations within species), lower forms of life would all be extinct because of their disadvantage, like the lancelets (whose nerve cord is unprotected without a backbone). Yet, this is entirely untrue, and untrue on a massive and universal scale.
Oh, the vast changes that would have to come in Science if they were to “allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Ah, but change will come. It must. Because Truth, no matter how suppressed it is, always rises to the top. The Truth always wins out. He's so gracious and forebearing, He wouldn't even make a big deal of them switching perspectives if they did – the kind-hearted Dad that He is.
As the Church, we need to start seeing anti-God scientific thought as God sees it. He treats it in the same way that he treated the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day: religious leaders. They aren't disseminating the Mosaic law, however, but rather the paradigm of a science based only on physical evidences (aka "materialism"). He never intended us to live under this kind of Greek-Western law. He set us free from the oppression and obligations of the law, which includes man-made laws. They want to be teachers of the true laws of the natural world, but they don't really know what they're talking about. He prophecies about the false teachers of scientific thought here: "Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." (1 Timothy 1:4-7)
Evolution holes:
One of the problems with evolutionary theory is that many of the things which distinguish phylum do not in any way present any competitive advantage. If they did, then why do "lower forms of life" such as single-cell organisms, or even multicellular organisms without tissues (like sponges) still exist? Evolution necessitates that more complex life forms always have a competitive advantage which eliminates lesser complexity (survival of the fittest). An example of this is an invertebrate called lancelets, which has a nerve cord, but no backbone. If natural selection were true enough to cause macro evolution (not just variations within species), lower forms of life would all be extinct because of their disadvantage, like the lancelets (whose nerve cord is unprotected without a backbone). Yet, this is entirely untrue, and untrue on a massive and universal scale.
This is from my own research by the way, not just "copied and pasted"]. Dr. Peter Castro (Marine Biologist at Calif. State Polytechnic University) makes a remarkable statement in his article "The Octopus Complex Brain": "The cephalopod [a class of the phylum Mollusca] and vertebrate [phylum Chordata] brains evolved independently from each other. Their development in different but remarkably parallel paths, however, has stimulated the search for the origin of complex behavior and intelligence..."
The brains in cephalopods and vertibrates which have supposedly developed separately have remarkable similarities. What are the chances that evolution, working independently in vastly different branches of evolutionary tracts, would develop (at the same time) similar organs in two distinct phylum branches? The probability of developing a central nervous system through genetic variation, chance, and natural selection is extreme enough, much less to develop similar ones in mutually exclusive phylum. I would go so far as to say it is not just improbable, but impossible.
Many things that Science claims are “adaptations” are really inherent traits of design – they are abilities which the life-form already possessed, which may even be somewhat dormant (or unexpressed), but are expressed when it is placed in a different environment which requires it. This is seen in the way “adaptation” is misused in reference to humans all the time. People are given difficult situations and are pressed to find answers or live in a way they never had before. It doesn't mean that the ability to survive or even thrive in this hard “new world” wasn't there or that they recently acquired this trait. It simply means that it was there all along, but not needed until this point.
Letter to a Humanist:
To a Humanist
Weep not for me, but for yourself.
I agree that the gap is too big for you to cross, but Jesus is the bridge between us, if you choose to follow Him. He is the only Way to our friendship.
You are right in saying I do not believe you are capable of true love, apart from Jesus. As long as you reject Him, you reject the source of true love. I have followed Him in such a powerfully devoted way, that even my human relationships cannot continue apart from Him.
Please understand that I do not reject all of scientific findings which are discovered by people who don't believe in Jesus, because I believe in something called 'general grace' and 'general revelation', but I do look at such findings with incredibly scrutiny, question their motives, and look upon them with doubt when it comes to ancient world history, the origin of human species, and the existance of spiritual things. As well, knowledge without the knowledge of Him is absolutely worthless.
I do not believe you are foolish for writing such things to me - you have merely discovered the heart of our discussions - a great spiritual war, which is not merely a debate of ideas, but a great struggle of spiritual powers (which you may not even affirm exist, because they do not exist in a material way). What you don't realize is they are battling over your very soul. I am not afraid of the conflict or persecution which my faith in Him and His Word has brought, nor am I afraid of what may come, because "greater is He who is in me than He who is in the world (Satan)," and also "we are more than conquerors through Christ".
You are not a Christian, so please don't tell people that you are. To say so would be lying. You are a humanist. This could change, but right now you worship yourself and, as you say, have placed "my reasoning, my logic, my feelings and my own faith" as your source of truth. You believe in your own way. As long as you continue to affirm such things, you stand in condemnation before God.
John 3:16-19
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." -Is.53:6
Finally you have understood my faith and Jesus. Finally you see who you are and what you really believe. Indeed, to come to Jesus means that our whole world is turned upside down, our own reasoning no longer means anything compared to His, and it would for certain tear your world to shreds. The pain to change would for certain be awesome, but I believe in an awesome God of miracles and of change. I await and pray for such a day for you.
He said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Jesus is such a powerful spiritual figure, those who encounter Him either are transformed by Him and follow Him or they violently oppose Him and those who follow Him. It has never been my intention (nor His) to simply remain at peace with people based merely upon intellectualism and higher forms of thought, because knowledge puffs up but love edifies. And my love for you causes me to tell you to look deep inside yourself and what you believe, and search your own heart, and see the emptiness that is longing to be filled.
However, the end equation is not as you think, but rather a greater destiny than you could ever imagine, full and vibrant, real and more alive than the hallow one you have now. Your world will be torn to shreds, but He gives you His world - His very kingdom. What you don't understand is the fragile thread of existance you hold to right now is keeping you away from His world. You painfully hold unto your own knowledge at the expense of Him wanting to give you all things.
Weep not for me, but for yourself.
I agree that the gap is too big for you to cross, but Jesus is the bridge between us, if you choose to follow Him. He is the only Way to our friendship.
You are right in saying I do not believe you are capable of true love, apart from Jesus. As long as you reject Him, you reject the source of true love. I have followed Him in such a powerfully devoted way, that even my human relationships cannot continue apart from Him.
Please understand that I do not reject all of scientific findings which are discovered by people who don't believe in Jesus, because I believe in something called 'general grace' and 'general revelation', but I do look at such findings with incredibly scrutiny, question their motives, and look upon them with doubt when it comes to ancient world history, the origin of human species, and the existance of spiritual things. As well, knowledge without the knowledge of Him is absolutely worthless.
I do not believe you are foolish for writing such things to me - you have merely discovered the heart of our discussions - a great spiritual war, which is not merely a debate of ideas, but a great struggle of spiritual powers (which you may not even affirm exist, because they do not exist in a material way). What you don't realize is they are battling over your very soul. I am not afraid of the conflict or persecution which my faith in Him and His Word has brought, nor am I afraid of what may come, because "greater is He who is in me than He who is in the world (Satan)," and also "we are more than conquerors through Christ".
You are not a Christian, so please don't tell people that you are. To say so would be lying. You are a humanist. This could change, but right now you worship yourself and, as you say, have placed "my reasoning, my logic, my feelings and my own faith" as your source of truth. You believe in your own way. As long as you continue to affirm such things, you stand in condemnation before God.
John 3:16-19
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." -Is.53:6
Finally you have understood my faith and Jesus. Finally you see who you are and what you really believe. Indeed, to come to Jesus means that our whole world is turned upside down, our own reasoning no longer means anything compared to His, and it would for certain tear your world to shreds. The pain to change would for certain be awesome, but I believe in an awesome God of miracles and of change. I await and pray for such a day for you.
He said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Jesus is such a powerful spiritual figure, those who encounter Him either are transformed by Him and follow Him or they violently oppose Him and those who follow Him. It has never been my intention (nor His) to simply remain at peace with people based merely upon intellectualism and higher forms of thought, because knowledge puffs up but love edifies. And my love for you causes me to tell you to look deep inside yourself and what you believe, and search your own heart, and see the emptiness that is longing to be filled.
However, the end equation is not as you think, but rather a greater destiny than you could ever imagine, full and vibrant, real and more alive than the hallow one you have now. Your world will be torn to shreds, but He gives you His world - His very kingdom. What you don't understand is the fragile thread of existance you hold to right now is keeping you away from His world. You painfully hold unto your own knowledge at the expense of Him wanting to give you all things.
Comments
Post a Comment