Tuesday, 24 June 2014

It’s My Birthday I Can Blog If I Want To

Actually yesterday was my birthday, but most everything that I’m going to say now I was planning on saying yesterday so that counts.  In fact, this isn’t the only way that the title of this blog is a bit off – as its very nature suggests an attitude that I will be speaking against.

Why do people celebrate birthdays?  Wait, before you answer that, let’s take a step back and ask a broader question:  why do people celebrate anniversaries?

I’m often amused when I see couples, young people especially, celebrating their two month anniversary, their once month anniversary, their two week anniversary.  I smile because the briefness of the relationship means nothing in the grand scope, as it’s likely not indicative of the potential success of their future relationship.  But it’s really not up to me to judge the significance of this anniversary.  By celebrating their anniversary, they are saying that the time they have spent together was meaningful.

It doesn’t really matter what sort of anniversary is celebrated, it is celebrated because the duration something lasts is has value to someone.  Nobody is likely going to celebrate the anniversary of the placing of the park table that I am currently sitting at, but the anniversary of a historical building, on the other hand, may be commemorated.

Why do people celebrate birthdays?  Is it not because one’s life has value to this person and the people around them?  Although one doesn’t have much of a choice of whether to live or not – it’s either that or die – we celebrate the duration of one’s life anyways because the life is important.

But do we need to celebrate birthdays in order to celebrate life?  Don’t we do enough celebrating of life as it is?  After all, in North America we celebrate each other’s lives during holidays like Christmas where we exchange gifts, Thanksgiving where we share meals, as well as smaller holidays such as Family Day which we use an excuse to get together and spend time with each other.  Do we not adequately celebrate the fact that we are living by indulging in pleasurable things on a regular basis?

The thing that sets birthdays apart from other holidays is that it’s exclusively a celebration of self.  Even though all one did to have a birthday is to do what came naturally (live), we find it necessary to reward oneself for doing so by expecting a full day that is by right, ours.

Admittedly, birthdays are a convenient day to celebrate a person’s life, especially in the context of allowing other people other than one’s self to celebrate the life.  However, in the culture that I grew up in, it seems as though we are raising our children with the mindset that one must celebrate one’s birthday, that is an intrinsic right earned by being alive.  In addition to this, people on their birthday must be subject to special treatment on their birthday.

A worthwhile thought is that the way we are to treat people on their birthday – politely, kindly, respectfully – is the same way we should treat people regardless, right?

Here’s where I introduce my Christian beliefs.  As a Christian I believe that my life belongs to God:  not my whole life minus one day.  When Jesus is asked what the greatest command is, he answers with this:
Matthew 22:37-40 – Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.’  And the second is like it:  ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Notice how Jesus doesn’t command people to love ourselves?  This is because the love of self is the natural state, no one has to be commanded to do it.  It is assumed when Jesus says “love your neighbour as yourself” that we already love ourselves.

There’s nothing wrong with loving life and be grateful for the one God has given us.  But the attitude portrayed when one celebrates a birthday is “this is my day, and so I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do.”  This goes against the attitude of humility that Jesus wants us to have.

With my facebook status for my friends the day before my birthday I thought I was being witty when I tried to pre-emptively halt the inevitable barrage of “Happy Birthday.”  It was an effort to re-direct the attention away from me and encouraged people to say something nice to another random friend instead.  However, after many people ignored my request to leave my facebook wall alone, and I do not look reproachfully at them.  They were only doing what Jesus commanded and loving their neighbour as themselves by way of sending me a well-meaning message.

The way someone celebrates a relationship anniversary likely involves doing something loving for that special someone.  What if we looked at birthdays in the same way?  What if we saw our lives as not just as something that is ours by right or as our achievement but as an ongoing gift from God?  How would this prompt us to celebrate it?  Whatever the celebration entailed, it would show an appreciation for God and his love for us, which often implies setting our own personal preferences and desires aside.

Yesterday when I spent my day at work and with my family, I wasn’t really fully putting aside my own preferences for the day.  I mean, sure, I would have liked to sleep in and do what I’m doing right now, spending time by myself outside in beautiful weather while doing what I love:  writing.  Yet I also wanted to spend my day in such a way that my presence would be appreciated by others.  So before you think that I’m just a religious party-pooper, recognize that the closer you get to God, the more you love him, the more likely you will actually be simultaneously be doing something that you enjoy when you spend your birthday living for God.

Friday, 20 June 2014

I Am The Colour Blue

Recently I heard an interesting customer complaint about a cashier.  The complaint wasn't that the cashier was being rude to her, per se, but that the cashier wasn't treating her as politely as the customers before and after her.

It's easy to look at this kind of attitude with disdain, yet the root of this attitude creeps so easily into our daily thoughts.  Perhaps you are like me and stop yourself from feeling a great deal of jealousy of the extremely wealthy.  After all, as we all know, life is about more than reaching financial heights.  Still, subtle dissatisfaction with our lives invade our thoughts without us being aware of it.  Here's a few examples of what I mean:
  • I wish I was taller.
  • Must be nice to be able to grow a full beard like that.
  • Of course they got far in life, look how much more motivation they have than I do!
  • You know, I would be a lot more productive if I could get away with so little sleep.
  • Why can't I have a relationship like that?
  • I bet she didn't have to go through as a child what I had to.
  • Why did he have to die?
  • Of course, it just had to rain!
  • It would have been nice to be born in a place where winter wasn't so cold.
  • He does half the work as I do and gets paid twice as much!
  • No fair that we all have to be inconvenienced because of a couple of idiots' mistake.
  • Life is too short.
  • Aging sucks.
You'll notice that many of these phrases that go through one's mind are completely logical.  To be honest with you, it was super easy for me to come up with them.  I have a birthday coming up, and it got me thinking about how far I have gotten, how far I didn't get, and how far I should go in life.  I'm in a process of re-evaluating my actions in regards to how I should behave "at my age."  What is my place in this world?

Where am I going with all of this?  Well for some strange reason I felt inspired to write a poem, and so I'll let it do the talking.  Forgive me, I am not a practiced poet:

I am the colour blue.
I am not the whole of blue,
         not even close
I am no more than a misshapen dot,
      a dribble of paint from a brush that left the canvas too late,
                or too early,
                       it doesn't matter.
I am not even a deep blue,
       a strong blue,
                a bold blue:
                   bold enough to convey
                           extinguished sorrow
                                            or sharp decisiveness
If a great blue sky covers the canvas,
        I do not know it:
               I cannot see it.
        Little matter, I'll never be a part of it,
               even though I am blue.
Were I the colour yellow, I would hold some beauty.
         Gallantly glimmering glory.
         Proudly portraying splendor,
               or happiness,
                      it doesn't matter,
                                 because I am blue.
Even green is better than me:
       Vital, breathing green.
Perhaps if I were red,
        Being a dot wouldn't be so bad.
        I could be glamorously angry,
                         ...and dangerous
        Ruthlessly romantic in my redness,
                                                       or perhaps even a cute freckle.
There's nothing ornate about my form,
      No vivacious swirls,
             alluring lumps,
                    or pronounced,           purposeful           roundness
Of course, I can't be straight:
          no, no, no no!
                                   That would bring far too much attention to me!
Me, a pasty blue,
                      surrounded by darkness.
I do not much like black,
          Ugly, empty black,
                     though it hugs my edges.
                               It's pointless.
                                                                                       it's all pointless.
Gray is not much better:
         It is a lie,
                 Pretending to be pure as white,    next to black,
                            Yet it clothes itself in the very darkness it contrasts.
There's too much black and gray.
There's not enough white.
             Wonderful white,
                     Combining all the colours but not becoming dark,
                              not becoming black
                        but bright.

Smiling, the artist painted.
         Magically pouring life into colours,
                  colours into life.
Though living, they could not see what he could,
          They only know what he told them,
                   displayed to them,
                              as he displayed them.
            A small glimpse
                    of a small part
                             of his spectacular masterpiece.
Every drop,
       Every dot,
              every speckle of paint was deliberate,
                       an outpouring of his perfect plan.
He didn't need to,
       But he wanted to
             Interact with blue.
"Who are you, blue,
         to say what is right to you
               about you
                      around you?
I drew you, blue,
         So I want you.
I drew you blue to reflect the very sky you cannot see.
       It's glorious,
              w  i  d  e,
                  full of many colours of blue,
                          some look like you,
                                                                    but they are not you.
I love yellow, green, and red too,
        just like you.
              They look good,
        just like you.
You are not bright,
        bright as white,
                 Bright as I.
Yet you are still bright,
         bright as the sky.
Soon I will show you the sky,
Soon I will show you much,
                                                           Much more than you now see.
For now I want your trust
                                  Trust in my brush
                                  Trust in the end it will all be beautiful.
Though you are surrounded by dark,
                  ugly black,
                              You are part of something magneficent!
For I do not make anything less than glorious.
         Trust in my brush,
                   and be the best blue you can be,
                                                                                          for me."

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

From Science to Jesus - Part III: Science and Jesus

I highly recommend you read Part I and Part II of this blog series if you haven't already, as the following will be a continuation of their lines of logic.

I hope my Christian friends will forgive me for coming at this not as a Christian but as an individual objective thinker.  I may say things that will seem a bit "off" to you.  Rest assured, I may not fully believe the things I say.  As a Christian in a relationship with God, I have an understanding that only those inside relationships can have.  A person may become famous and have many books written about them and be analyzed by fans and critics alike, but only someone who is in relationship with them has the deepest understanding about the way they are.  I have a relationship with God, but I am choosing for now to relate to those who don't, and so the very way I approach this topic may seem a bit unorthodox.

Many people have a hard time believing in the Bible as an infallible source of truth, and understandably so.  After all, all one has to do is pick up a Bible and look at the bottom of the pages underneath the main text to see all the notations describing how some manuscripts say include "this," while others don't.  Discrepancies between manuscripts show more than the expected inadequacies of the current language to transmit the text's meaning in its original language.  It shows that throughout the passage of time, not every single word of the Bible is exactly the same as every single word of the Bible earlier.

I'll address this current doubt of the Bible's inerrancy at a later date, as it's something that I mean to study further.  However, in the case for Christ, we do not have to believe that every part of the Bible is as it originally was.  We only need to believe that Jesus Christ is a real person, and he is who he says he is. 

Truth From Action 

It has been said that if a man rose himself from the dead, this would prove everything he has said beforehand was true.  This might not necessarily be correct.  Perhaps this man had contact with a highly evolved alien and gained knowledge and power from them, but chose to convey something other than truth for his own purposes.  This seems rather science-fictiony, does it not?  Yet let's look further at this hypothetical situation in regards to the ground we have already covered.

If someone performed a physically impossible feat such as rising from the dead (and of this death there could be no doubt, they weren't just in some super deep state of meditation or a temporary state that only looked like death to the viewer), it would prove not that they always had told the truth, but that they had access to a knowledge or technology that far surpassed our own.  Like we discussed earlier, this would mean that this man had closest access to the truth, for what is the truth to us other than our best guess according to what we can see and observe?

If Jesus really did raise from the dead, then that would prove that he had access to knowledge that we didn't.  He would be closer to the truth.  The things he taught, as far as the listener is concerned, were closest to the truth.  You’re more likely to learn from a doctor rather than an artist about the workings of the human body, particularly if the doctor proceeded to bring healing to a person when all the artist could do is paint a picture of what he could see.  The doctor may be lying about what he says about the body, but his works shows he knows what he is talking about.

So, did Jesus really rise from the dead? 

Validating Christ’s Claims

If one wanted to verify if a past event happened, one would likely look for multiple pieces of evidence to prove it.  The nature of the resurrection of Christ is different than that of a global flood in that we would not expect to see a great deal of impact on the physical world because of it; unlike the people who claim the Loch Ness monster exists, we aren’t able to look for a physical body because it is said that Jesus ascended into Heaven afterwards.  In order to know if Jesus rising from the dead was historically accurate, we are left on relying mostly on the testimony of historical people.

This is where the unbeliever goes “ah-ha!  Got you!  There’s no way to physically prove Jesus rose from the dead just like there’s no way to prove that there are invisible undetectable unicorns flying around in our atmosphere!”

I would like to remind the reader that the way we go about scientifically proving the supernatural is different than the way we go about proving the natural.  One does not scientifically study the stars with a microscope, or a culture of bacteria with a telescope.  I am not saying that we cannot physically prove the existence of the supernatural using readily available means.  However, like I alluded to in Part I, any observable things that seems to point to the supernatural may later be explained by natural means.

We cannot look into a lens and peer into the past like we can the present- for all we know Aristotle and other historical figures could be completely fictional.  When one wants to know if a historical person such as Aristotle existed, we look to historical documents that this person either wrote or was written about them, and see if there are multiple accounts telling the same story.  If at all possible, we also look to physical objects verifying their existence, such as the pyramids tell the story of the ancient Pharaohs.

Most historians- regardless of their world belief- will admit that this person, Jesus of Nazareth, existed.  For the most part, it is his actions and words that on are trial today, both in the arena of historical accuracy and in the individual’s mind.

There are a number of religions that hinge on the accuracy of the integrity of an individual.  Did an angel really visit so-and-so, or were they lying or deceived by an evil spirit?  Did this person have a genuine “spiritual” encounter, or was it merely the result of an altered state of mind?  The account of Jesus is different than these religions, as it is the testimony of many people that support his actions, and thus lending to his actions' historical accuracy. 

Working Our Way Backwards 

The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) have admittedly been shown to have been written a respectable number of years after the events that they describe transpired.  However, the New Testament is written in such way that portrays multiple eye-witness accounts both of Jesus and of his actions.

Here’s what it says in the first verses of the biblical book of Acts (it is generally agreed upon that the same person who wrote acts also wrote the book of Luke, which contained many of Jesus’ miracles, the greatest of which was his resurrection from the dead):
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

The book of Acts is the account of the beginnings of the early church of Christ.  From this documentation, we can see that the church is not based on merely one person’s convincing teachings, or from a single person’s spiritual encounter, but from many people’s eyewitness accounts of physical actions.  Even if the gospels such as Matthew were written in a genre that adds divinity to an individual according to a specific Jewish template (which some historians argue), the book of Act does not fit the description of this genre.

“Okay, Stephen, so you’ve proven that Jesus is who he says he is… if the book of Acts can be trusted.  It, like the rest of the bible, was written by man, not God.”

The book of Acts is not the only book of the bible outside of the gospels that accounts Jesus’ words and actions.  I am not a scholar (partially due to me being too lazy to do large amounts of research while writing a paper – I’ve done enough research out of general interest of the subject beforehand.  Plus, by presenting all of my evidence, that would greatly increase the length of this already lengthy group of blog posts.  However, I can be convinced to produce more data if I am prodded enough), but I know there are documents outside of the Bible depicting accounts of Jesus words and deeds.  A there is even a bit of historical literature that conflicts with the Biblical account.  But let's look at what we know.

The church of Christ exists.  We can see that today.  A history of the church must therefore exist as well.  And who would best know the history of any organization than those who not only resided in it, but those who presided in it?

The Catholic Church recognizes (St.) Peter, disciple of Jesus, as the first "Pope."  Although it is not written in the bible, it is commonly accepted that Peter died by being hung upside down on a cross.  If anyone would know what happened in the real church history, it would be Peter, right?

Here's what Peter says in Acts 10

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Again, Acts is written in the genre to be read in a matter-of-fact way, simply telling the history of the church.  To prove this point (and also because it's where the man who I was named after first made his debut), see this passage from Acts 6

1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

In addition to appearing in Acts, Peter writes two books (or letters) of his own which appear in the New Testament.

What about those aforementioned literature that disagree with the books of the New Testament?  Weren't you paying attention?  History is verified by a number of sources, and the integrity of these sources are pitted against each other.  So therefore, the validity of the conflicting literature should be pitted against other literature such as Acts and Peter's words, as these are written as a real history of a real church that still exists to this day.

So now, in addition to Jesus, the integrity of Peter is on the line in order to reach the validity of Jesus and his claims.

Recall how I discussed that in order to know if Jesus knew what he was talking about, we had to evaluate his deeds?  Remember the doctor and the artist?  We know one knows more than the other one because he shows an ability that he wouldn't have had if he didn't know.

In the book of Acts, Peter and the other apostles (including Paul) performed miracles which caused the small group of Jesus followers to grow into a rapidly expanding Church.

The reason I am still "using the Bible to prove the Bible" is this:  to the unbiased eyes, the Bible isn't one big book but rather a group of mostly independent pieces of literature from the far past combined into an acceptable canon by a group of early Christians.  Just because they are all combined into one religious book does not mean they are not also historical documents with historical significance.  We are studying events that happened in history, and so I am referring to historical documents. 

In Conclusion 

In Part I, I showed scientifically how there must be a supernatural force.  Part II revealed how the most prominent supernatural force is the Christian God, and so He must be the one with the most truth to offer.  Part III revealed how we could validate Jesus' claims and actions.

"You like mentioning the word science, but I didn't see a whole lot of it here, Stephen."  What is science but coming to a problem with an unbiased questioning mind and searching for the most logical conclusion?   Over and over again I showed examples of coming to the most probable conclusion given the data.

This whole topic is hard to tackle with a scientific mind because we all are biased to a degree.  It is quite simple to study and accept the relationship between electrons and protons because it likely won't impose a necessary life change on our part as a result.  However, it is impossible to study the relationship between the supernatural, God, Jesus, and us, without the result implying major life altering reactions on our part

We want the answer to be one thing or another, and so we tackle the question with at least a minimal amount of trying to fit the evidence to our beliefs, instead of the other way around.

I hope you aren't thinking something along the lines of "by your own admission, new truth is constantly being learned, and so I will hold onto the belief that you will eventually be proved wrong."  If I have presented the most logical explanation given what evidence we have today, it should therefore be believed as truth, for what is truth to the scientist but one's best guess given the data? 

I assure you as someone who believes in Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life, that once you come to believe this, so much about what you see in the world just makes sense.  The pieces of the puzzle fit together.  It is a valid explanation that works, and so the logical mind should accept it as truth until a more logical explanation can be given.

From Science to Jesus - Part II: Science and God

In the last part all I did was confirm that there is a supernatural presence that we cannot explain here on Earth, and that it likely is the reason for our origin.  I did little to explain why it had to be the God of the Bible.

It is tempting for some to attribute our existence and supernatural phenomenon to highly evolved aliens - perhaps to a potential within ourselves as highly evolved creatures.  After all, this is easier to grasp than an infinite God existing far above the plain of our existence.

So which is it?  God?  Aliens?  Us?  A combination?

Because those who know that God exists and who He is are already convinced of the matter, let me come at this problem from the point of view of the unconvinced.

Survival of the Smartest

In the past evolution changed our physical traits.  Now, the process of evolution is of a different sort - we are evolving in what we understand about the universe.  Throughout history (with some interesting potential exceptions, admittedly), the more technologically advanced the nation, the more it prospered.  Evolution (although some would be hesitant to now use this word) stopped favouring the physically strong and started towards the mentally strong.

I'm not saying that the Europeans were better than the aboriginals they conquered in the America's, or that they had a better understanding of the way that life should be lived (my belief in God stops me from this approach to racism far easier than my scientific mind does), but they had overall more of a mastery and knowledge of the physical nature of this planet, granting them a huge military advantage that allowed them to thrive where ever they chose to go.

With this in mind, let us say that we approached two different advanced life forms.  Who would we say had the better handle on the way the universe worked (the "truth"):  the smarter, more powerful of the two, correct?  "Powerful" not being limited to military strength, but power in the aliens ability to persevere through time and use their resources to accomplish whatever it is they want to do.  Truth, from an evolution (and "scientific") standpoint, is held by the beings who triumph above all other beings.

I once had a friend say that perhaps the correct "religion" was held by an ancient group of people who are extinct, and now we are forever lost.  I cannot prove or disprove the validity of this claim, but from a practical sense we must live as though the truth is something we can get closer to, just as we must live as though logic is the tool we must use to gain knowledge, or else there is very little point in anything we choose to do in life.  Perhaps I am wrong in my current line of logic in that the smarter, more powerful (again, not necessarily in the military sense) beings must always be "right," but from a practical standpoint it would be very difficult for the average person to believe otherwise, for the implications would be a holding on to "primitive" points of view and a failure to advance in scientific knowledge.

Battle of the Super-Beings

In Part I, I showed scientifically how there must be a supernatural power of some sort in play here on Earth.  I just recently explained that from a scientific point of view, the one who has the truth is the one that triumphs over other sentient beings.

It at this point that the scientist may lose interest, as I am about to bring forth evidence from a non-scientific source:  The Holy Bible.  I hope that at least up to this point we could be in agreement.
For now however, I want to bring forth the Bible.  There are many historical documents out there, depicting how the whole of human history played out, but I am not familiar with them as much as I am the Bible, and so I will be referring to it for examples.

Truth and accuracy in historical events were not always recorded in the same way as it is today.  In our modern newspapers, we value an unbiased representation of current events.  The further in the past we go, the more we will find that literature does not hold as tightly to an unbiased viewpoint.  Going even further back we see that it is not uncommon for mythology to intertwine with actual events in depicting what happened.   Looking even further back to the earliest history recorded - such as the accounts of the origin of the world - we are tempted to wonder if there is any real-life to be found among the recorded mythology.

However, in our quest to learn about our history, we have no choice but to consult these historical pieces of literature, despite their apparent faults, for they were written a long time ago and give us a better understanding of what went on than what we would know otherwise.

Throughout history, one deity survives when others do not.  Not many people believe Zeus is real anymore, but many people hold on to the belief of a single God, the God of the Bible.

Perhaps it would be hard to back up an absolutely global flood, but it looks to me to me that it's hard to deny that a great flood happened.  The origin of the world according to Cree legends includes a great flood.  I'm sure if we searched other historical records, we would see other depictions of huge floods.  In the Old Testament, God shows his sovereignty when only people who followed him survived the great flood.

Fast forward to the time Abraham (when, according to some biblical scholars, the genre of literature that the bible was written in first depicted mostly historical events rather than fables) when God showed his sovereignty by destroying two evil cities:  Sodom and Gomorrah.

After this we get to my favourite part.  The Bible depicts the Israelites as being slaves in Egypt.  Here, there is a showdown between the power of the Hebrew God and the power of the Egyptian gods.  The power of the Egyptian gods were apparently real enough, as they could mimic Moses' staff being turned into snakes by creating snakes of their own.  However, the snake from Moses' staff eats up the other snakes.

God's sovereignty over the other deities/supernatural powers only continued from there when he performed plagues on the Egyptians, showing that he was the true ruler over what the Egyptians initially believed their own gods were in charge of.

Perhaps a less spectacular but more verifiable feat of God showing his supremacy on Earth was when he took the small band of Israelites and fought on their side to help them overcome many nations greater than they were to take hold of the promised land.

How is it verifiable?  Well, these Israelites were barely mentioned in ancient Egyptian writings (in my mind, partially due to the bias ancient documents reportedly have, but I'll let the scholars battle on that point), showing that they were once not exceptionally large or significant.  Later on in historical documents outside of the bible the kings of Israel are mentioned, but one only has to look at a modern day map to see the nation of Israel as a real, surviving nation.  One only has to pay attention to the news and their history class to see how a nation which fought off extinction an ugly number of times is still a prominent player in current events.

God showed his prominence not just over space but also time when He repeatedly made predictions through his prophets that would eventually come true.

Which Being Wins?

If the most advanced beings are closest to the truth, and the supernatural really does exist like I showed in Part I, it falls to us to fit our beliefs, at least about the supernatural, according to the supernatural being that has proven itself right and powerful throughout history and into the present.  I would challenge anyone to come up with a better example of this than the Christian God.

God may be real, but how about the whole Jesus thing?  Continue on to the next part for the conclusion of this three part blog series.