Scriptures of Recovery - Beginning of a New Blog

Welcome to scriptures of recovery. This is where I will look at the scriptures that were instrumental in my  overcoming my addiction through the help of the  Holy Spirit, kept me in church long enough for the Holy Spirit to work on me, allowed me to forgive myself or blessed me with a stronger relationship with God. I will not lie, I do not believe that Christianity is a religion. Not to quote a T-Shirt, but religion is one's search for a Higher Power, or man trying to work their way to God. Christianity is God coming to us through a relationship with Christ.

I have heard people say that they found Jesus, and I have heard others say that you cannot find Jesus. I would actually agree with the latter. I never found Jesus. He wasn't lost, I was! He came to were I was and gave me the power to overcome my past life and begin a new one. It was not religion that got me through my addiction. It was the Holy Spirit and Jesus coming to where I was at. Religion did not save me, Christ did! 

How do I know that God exists? All I have to do is examine my life before and after. If I were on a diet, I could look at the before and after pictures and tell whether or not it was successful. If there were things that I did other than exercise or eating better, such as methamphetamine or some other artificial way I would know because I would be ingesting it. I could also step on the scale, or I could use a tape measure to see how much my waist had shrunk. I could also tell if it was successful by how my clothes fit. These would all be valid ways for me to tell if it was working. So, how can we tell if the changes wrought in us are imagination or reality? How can we tell if it is worldly means or supernatural means that cause us to change?

So, why do I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. How do I know that it worked:

1. I stopped taking my prescribed medications, stopped seeing counselors/psychiatrists, stopped going to secular 12 step meetings and stopped following secular methods of recovery. I turned to the spiritual and scriptural realms instead. I used prayer, meditation, reading and Celebrate Recovery. So it was not worldly means. I would know if I was ingesting some worldly intervention, and I was no longer doing that. I had given up hope of being successful by secular means.

2. The before and after picture of my life is night and day. I am not who I once was, and that has been said to me repeatedly by people who knew me before and after (think of the diet and everyone asking what you are doing to lose weight). I am now trusted to watch children, and to have keys to businesses that people own. I am asked for advice and taken into confidence, not called up to come and fight someone's battles. When clients cuss in front of me in groups, they do not apologize to the group. Instead, they apologize to me.

3. When I look at the people in my life, which I feel is a good measuring stick, I see major difference. I see people who put their kids and other's first. I see people that I can trust to watch my son, and not worry about him coming home and repeating the "F" bomb. There are no longer people who might get drunk or high around me or my son, not would their house get raided while I was there. Finally, I can turn my back and not worry about getting shot or robbed. So the tape measure definitely shows change.

4. I have tried to go to the places that I used to hang out at (think old clothes), but they just do not fit me anymore. I do not want to be around drunks, I cannot stand the smell of cigarettes and I feel out of place. I no longer fit into the old role. I am not the angry guy that fights at the drop of a hat. I am instead the peacemaker and the one in the advisor role.

So, those are just several of the ways that I can tell that something is different in my life. That something is me, not only my life but also the people in my life. Some of the people have stayed the same, but I do not let my circle of friends get stagnant. I tell people that you always need to have people in your life who are like how you want to be, not like how you are. If I want to get better at anything, I do that by playing against people who are better than I am. If I want to live a better life, I do that by having people in my life who are living better than I am. Due to this, I am always adding new friends.

So, part of my relationship with God has came through my reading of scripture and what those scriptures have meant to me. Scriptures of recovery will contain scriptures that helped give me hope and/or faith. A reading that revealed to me God's ability to forgive or showed me His mercy. I would often feel unworthy of God's forgiveness, or truly helpless/powerless, or unable to fit in at church and out of place due to my past. Sometimes I would simply come up with excuses because I was afraid of opening myself up just to be rejected or let down. The scriptures that helped me overcome all of this and build a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will be listed. Why they helped and what they made me realize will also be included.

I hope that the little bit of insight that I have into these particular verses will be able to help you the reader either come into relationship with Christ, overcome your addictions/hurts/excuses or build a stronger relationship. Thanks for reading, and the next Scriptures of Recovery will actually contain a scripture!

So What if I Believe God Exists

I have been following several blogs as well as the comments that they elicit recently. I must admit that the comments and even the blogs are at times a little beyond my comprehension, but I guess that is okay. I have tried to follow them to the best of my ability. I have ordered several things to read to increase my knowledge of the various arguments. There are philosophy professors, quantum physicists and a lot of other highly educated people who are having these day long dialogues on these blogs, and I want to understand a little better. I for one wonder how they can have so much time, because I see them on multiple blogs and they post all day and night. Some of the comments are questions or dialogue, and that is informative and interesting to read. Other comments are malicious, and that I have never understood.

For example, I am a Chicago Cubs fan. I am occasionally on Cubs blogs and Cubs sites. I want to stay informed about the team that I follow. I am often astounded at the number of Cardinal fans who comment about how much the Cubs suck and how stupid their fans are. I see the exact thing on the blogs I have been reading recently on evolution, creationism, and the cosmological argument. Someone who believes differently comes onto one of these blogs just to slam the people who believe differently. Do not get me wrong, there are some good discussions in the comments section. But........there are also those who just want to hop on the blog and tell everyone how much smarter than them they are because they hold different views and how stupid they must be because of what they believe in. How is that helpful?

I do not need petty people to confuse me more. I get confused enough by all the talk about the four different types of causes and how they are metaphysically proven. I am lost how we get from "since things appear to come out of nothing based on the "fact" that the model used in quantum physics field cannot explain it, then they come from nothing" and how that is even a valid argument. I don't know, so it must be from nothing???

I see that there is a lot of good in using science, logic and philosophy to explain things, because there are those who need that explanation. My issue is with using the same arguments over and over again on one side, and on using the lack of knowledge argument on the other side. Just because your model cannot explain it, then it must not exist or can't have a cause? That is like saying that since I cannot explain the illusion, the magician must have made the girl appear out of thin air intact after he apparently sawed her in half. I do not know how he did it, so it must be magic or in this case ex nihilo........right? And everyone accuses everyone of using straw man arguments, or tautology, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Secondly, why is it that all I hear are people who are explaining other's research or other's experiences for why they believe how they do? If I am to truly believe a certain way and claim to be educated, than I must have first-hand knowledge or experience in order to have that belief. Is it a proven fact if I have never first hand seen the proof? If I believed everything in writing, then the National Enquirer has totally proven that God does not exist and in another issue that the Garden of Eden have been found. I did not read about it, but I saw it on the cover as I was in the line at Wal-Mart. Call me Thomas, but I need proof.

If I am a scientist, than I must have first-hand experience myself. It is called the scientific method, and it consists of knowing through your own experimentation using an open mind. Instead many people rest on the laurels of others, not even their own, to make their point. Furthermore, the open mind has been closed for so long that there are cobwebs growing. My question to all of you is simple, How do YOU know? How have you been impacted, or what experiments have you done, that give validity to your argument? Here are three Dilbert comics that comically address my point:





Here is my question to all of you - So because your model does not contain God then you discount him no matter the experiences of others? What are you doing to make the world a better place? What are you doing to truly help others? What time are you donating, what money, what emotion do you give to help those in need? How has being agnostic or atheist made your life any better, and why are you so sure that you are right? I will not talk about why I believe there is a God now after being agnostic for two plus decades because I have already done that at: http://spiritualspackle.blogspot.com/2011/07/jonah-and-big-fish.html. What I will do is ask several more questions.

For starters, so what if I believe in God? How does that hurt you or anyone else? How does anyone who truly believes in Christ and tries to be Christ-like hurt anyone? Not the fundamentalists that bastardize the Word, but those who truly follow the teachings of Christ. You can come on here and attack this blog if you want, but I really only want these questions answered:

1. Instead of being self-righteous and trying to belittle those that you feel smarter and better off than, what are you doing to truly help those in need?

2. When was the last time that you heard about a group of atheists opening up houses for children to get them out of the sex slave trade, educate them, then allow them to become advocates against the trade and go back to their villages to combat it happening to others?

3. When was the last time that you heard of a bunch of agnostics gathering together to go and dig wells and teach irrigation and conservation to African tribes?

4. When have you heard of multiple groups of non-believers going into prisons and working to reform inmates and teach them better ways to live their lives upon their release?

5. How many atheist and agnostic organizations have homeless shelters and transitional homes for battered and abused women that they support by volunteering their time and money?

6. How many atheist and agnostic organizations have support teams on call 24-7 to help those in crisis/disaster situations (think tornadoes, monsoons and floods) all over the world?

7. When was the last time that you thought of someone other than yourself, your friends or your family?

8. When was the last time that you did something that made you uncomfortable financially for the good of people who you do not even know, but that needed the help?

9. How many hours each week do you spend helping those who are in need by donating your time to give them the basic needs of life: food, water, shelter, etc.? Pretty easy to write a check, so I am asking about donating your free time!

So I guess in ending this blog, all I want to say is that I am trying to read more about why people who hold other beliefs than mine believe as they do. I may even go on sites and blogs and ask questions as I read and the need arises. The truth is, no matter what, based on my own personal experiences I will never not believe in Christ. That said, I promise I will never go bash others for what they believe. If you want to be agnostic or atheist, that is your choice. Why do you have to belittle those that do not believe as you do? Yeah, pick on the evil Christians who are ignorant enough to be compassionate, genuine and empathetic. How dare they be ignorant enough to care about people other than themselves. Finally, I ask you to think of others out there who are in need.

I think that is one of the safeties of being a non-believer! You do not have to think outside of your personal circle and give to those in need on a regular basis. You might write a check out of your abundance to make yourself feel better, or to brag about later, or register for some drawing/free food, or so that others see you. The real question is when do you go without because of the tragedies that are occurring elsewhere? When do you think about the welfare of others? I guess that you do not have to worry about how you act in this life, because this life is all that there is for you.

Wow, that has to be depressing. Come to think of it, maybe I do see why you spend all that time ridiculing others. They have hope in something more, and this mundane existence is all that you will ever know. I would be hypercritical too, I guess. After all, misery loves company. If you want to have some hope, just shoot me an email or leave a comment on this blog and we can talk about why this life cannot be all that there is and how I have seen miracles occur. I was once living a miserable existence, and since Christ found me my life has been immeasurably better. Yours can be too!

Another Discussion with an Evolutionist pt. 1

ME: Had a discussion with an atheist on youtube, and this is how it went:http://spiritualspackle.blogsp​ot.com/2011/07/atheismwhy-so-s​erious.html

HE: First, I'd like to see the video where this conversation happened. Second, and I don't mean to say this harshly, but you are clearly uneducated about how science works (and that extends to evolutionary theory).

ME:  

It was not in a video, it was comments to a video. I have never live debated evolution versus creation. I have discussions, but my forte is motivational and inspirational speech. The kind that let's drug addicts and criminals step into new ways of life through the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that power, and how a life of addiction and crime can be instantly reversed through faith. 

 

HE: 1) Chance is a part of evolution, but only in the form of mutations. You ignore natural selection, which is the exact opposite of chance. Mutations change genes and create variety. These changes are fed into the mechanism of natural selection, and those that are successful (or even neutral) get passed on, whereas those that are detrimental are weeded out and removed.

2) With an understanding of evolutionary processes I think it's easy to see how a small, simple brain can evolve into a larger, more complex one. I think you're trying to make some irreducible complexity argument, but ignoring the known and understood evolutionary history of life on earth. There's a reason why we use mice to study the human brain. It's because we share a common ancestor and most of the working parts are the same (albeit on a different scale). It's why biologists, anthropologists, and primatologists study apes and monkeys to learn about their behavior and social interactions to help figure out what makes us tick. 

‎3) The watch argument fails on several levels. First, the watch is not living. That's all there is to it. You cannot try to apply biological processes to inanimate objects. Second, it fails a reduction test. If a complex watch required an intelligence to make, then whatever made the watch must also be complex. So, what made the maker of the watch?

ME: ‎1) Natural selection is tautology at its finest. Some dwindle and die out while others multiply because some multiply while others dwindle and die out. When have we ever been able to breed and form a whole new species, though? And that would be on purpose, yet you believe that natural selection could do that? There is a limit due to the DNA barrier that insures only so much change can occur. How did natural selection create life out of non-living material? When have we ever created or observed living matter from nonliving matter? When have we ever seen offspring from the animal kingdom create new species? Changes within species happen all of the time, that is observable. 

2) Since when is there a known and understood evolutionary process? It has never been observed. I fall back to my last answer. Since when has a rabbit been observed to become a mountain lion? A rose turning another color or a variation in brain sizes is simply that, a variation in the species. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, teaches that those changes will cross from one species to another and produce new and different species. Since it has never been observed, an evolutionist must rest on his belief that it is true.

3) In the watchmaker analogy, you say that a reduction test states that it takes something complex in order to make something complex, yet you believe in evolution? Where is the reduction test for an atheist when it comes to the universe, let alone mankind? Or is neither man or the universe complex? If they are complex and based on your reduction test they had to have a creator, who was that creator of the universe and of man?

HE: In most cases, speciation over time can be represented by a gradient. I hate using analogies, but here goes: If you look at a rainbow, where does red stop and yellow begin? By your argument, you would say there is only red and only yellow...there is no orange, and that is nonsensical. Orange clearly exists, we can see it with our eyes. We can see these gradients not only in the fossil record, but with living organisms. We can measure these gradients through measurements, statistics, and DNA. Your fixation and insistence that new species suddenly appear shows your limited knowledge and/or understanding. Bluntly, you're doing yourself (and your readers) a disservice by making an argument against a topic you don't have a solid grasp on. That, and your toolkit of arguments are old-hat and have been debunked and explained-away by many people who are a lot more eloquent than I, and I recommend you do some Googling. Generally speaking, your arguments will work on people who are less-educated than you, but will be found as straw-men to anyone who has greater understanding. If you find people getting angry or frustrated with you, it's probably because you are re-hashing these old anti-evolution arguments. Some just handle it better than others. I personally love educating people and would be happy to provide you with some book recommendations and other reading if you would like.

And somewhat of a thought exercise, how would you explain ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Ring_species an example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ev​olution/library/05/2/l_052​_05.html

ME: The amazing thing is that if you look at the strata you will find that species suddenly exist. Why has the coelacanth, once thought to been a missing link for fish becoming amphibians that lived 380 million years ago based on fossil records, now been found still living off the coast of Indonesia. Why has it not evolved in 380 million years! Or is 380 million years not gradual enough for change. We have never truly evolved. At our simplest, we are still made up of DNA, which is both sophisticated and complex. How did that evolve?

Secondly, microevolution does occur, but what we need to see is macroevolution for evolution to have occurred. If we all came from one set of parents, then how are we all so different? That is microevolution, or adaptation. Macroevolution is one cell evolving to man over time. That is not based on the scientific method at all. Scientific method involves:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Since evolution has yet to be duplicated no matter how hard evolutionists have tried, there is no true scientific method at use. It is based on untestable science. Do evolutionists come to their conclusions with an open mind? No, so instead they make proclamations based on faith and belief!

HE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/E._coli_long-term_evolu​tion_experiment

ME: That is a great argument for adaptation, not evolution. Is it still E. coli? 50,000 generations in and it has yet to become a completely different organism. I said that micro does occur, this is an experiment that proves that. Where is macro change in this experiment?

‎"However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures, so the phenotype of this adaptation depends on the environment of the cells."

So we can cause change in a controlled, scientific environment.....survival of the fittest is not shown here. The bacteria has become more sensitive to stress as well as developed a decreased ability to survive! Thanks for backing my point up.

HE: Coelocanths were once a wide-spread and highly-varied group of fish. The group Coelocanth is a taxonomic Order (Order->Family->Genus->Spe​cies) Last I heard, there have been three different Coelocanth species discovered in the past century.

"adaptation" is evolution :/

Check this out, a pretty big list of observed speciation: http://www.scienceforums.n​et/topic/13511-observed-sp​eciation/

ME: Adaptation is microevolution. Adaptation is not change from one species to another. If corn adapts to where it lives, does that make it no longer corn? Of course not. It is genetic variety, or genetic drift. How about a dog, when it breeds over and over again to create different breeds, does it change species? A hound and a labrador and a beagle are still dogs.

HE: Drosophila paulistorum and Brassica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Brassica) are the classical examples of observed speciation, as are ring species.

Sorry about link bombs, haha. Here's another:http://evolutionwiki.org/w​iki/Observed_speciation

ME: http://creation.com/refuti​ng-evolution-2-chapter-4-a​rgument-natural-selection-​leads-to-speciation:

"The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migrat​ion model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.

Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches)

Again, do these profound changes increase information? No populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."

HE: The creationist "information" argument makes my head explode. It's just another argument built upon not understanding what evolution is. The argument is only really ever discussed between Creationists. DNA is not information, it is a molecule with chemical properties that follow the laws of chemistry and physics. If you hear a biologist use the word 'information' in reference to DNA, it is being used as an easy way to describe what's contained in it. It's not being treated as a book. Sometimes scientific terminologies are misunderstood and used improperly, and it causes conflict. Think about the colloquial use of the word 'theory' vs what scientists mean it to be.

Gene and/or chromosomal duplication kinda nullifies the ID "information" argument, as well.

 

As for science, other than a meager education with Chemistry and Biology that I got at MSU, you are probably correct. Unfortunately, I did not go to a top tier college. I only have 3 degrees, and none of them are terminal degrees.

I have however read the presumptions that are made in evolutionary theory, like a bird came from a reptile. Yet how did 100 million minute hooks evolve and from where? Furthermore, how can you mathematically explain our brain with 100 billion neurons. If each neuron were to be placed end to end the line would be 600 miles wide, yet they all fit inside of our head. Or the 1 quadrillion synapses (that is a 1 followed by 15 zeros) or 60,000 miles of arteries, veins and capillaries in our body.

Sorry, I just cannot leave that to chance. A watch is so much less complex than we are, but when you find one on the ground do you wonder who made it or do you wonder what it evolved from?