Moratorium

I am putting into place a moratorium on access to this blog starting April 16. If you would like to post anything between now and then please feel free to do so. The blog has served its intended purpose to some degree as well as some purposes that were good yet unintended. I want to thank all of those very dear to me who have taken the time to contribute to and share in this experience with me. During the moratorium I will continue to blog in a private format which will serve more as a diary for me. At a later date I may consider reopening the blog to be viewed by others (e.g. my children), but the season has changed for now.

Ecclesiastes 3 1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: 2 a time to be born and a time to die,a time to plant and a time to uproot, 3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, 4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, 5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain,6a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, 7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Why or what do I Believe?

I can honestly say that right now my beliefs are like a liquified catepillar in its cocoon during metamorphasis. The only real difference is that the metamorphasis of catepillar has a determined direction and outcome while my direction is not so certain. I don't know if I will end up back as a catepillar or as a butterfly. The temptation might be to say I already am the butterfly or the catepillar but I know that is not yet the case. When I do emerge from my cocoon I am excited to embrace whatever form I have taken.

I say all of this in light of the statement that I make in the "This I Believe" section on the right hand side of the blog. I want to elaborate a little on my beliefs as stated on this site, but please keep in mind the state I find myself as stated in the previous paragraph.

Talking points:
1. Why do I believe Christ said He was god?
2. Why do I believe Jesus Christ said He was the
source of salvation for the world?

For me the answer to questions 1 and 2 is the
same. I have heard and pondered on the thoughts of
many in regards to the idea that Jesus was a great
teacher or a prophet. I just can't by this
interpretation of Jesus as seen in scripture, and I really have tried. In the form that Jesus is
presented to us in the New Testament (no other form
exists that I know of), he clearly states the
antithesis to the claim that he is merely a prophet or top-notch teacher. Looking at the book of John
alone it is apparent to me that Jesus does claim both to be
God or at least from him and the same as him. He also
claims quite apparently to me to be the source of salvation
for the world. Of course the
caveat here is the way I made my initial statement of
belief does not provide some implicit truth but rather
what I think the Bible says. If the Bible is held to
be perfectly true, then one could extrapolate further,
but I am not currently in a determined camp in regards
to that notion.



3. Why do I believe God created us?

I can honestly say that I do not have a rational
answer to this question nor do I think one exists. It may feel rational
intrapersonally intuitively or anecdotally but it is not rational
extrapersonally. This question and my answer to it are very hard for me.

4. What do I mean by salvation?

The apocalyptic view of the New Testament is very
difficult for me to believe. So if I were to give you an answer
as to the object from which we are saved, I would say
imperfection. Imperfections in creation that are caused by unedifying choices made by a free-willed humanity. So salvation to me means that God is in the midst
of restoring creation to its original order. Jesus then would be the embodiment of those tools of restoration which we should take seriously and implement as we play a small but not inconsequential role in restoring creation. Cognizant of some logical holes in this model of salavation, I would not claim this as a belief
just yet.

General Revelation and why I Don't Believe it Works

I believe that a widely held belief by most Christians is that God reveals himself in two ways: specifically and generally. Specifically being through scripture as attributed most frequently to Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17) in the Holy Bible (although at the time he had no idea of the New Testament as a part of God's word or that a simple letter he was writing would be considered a portion of God's word). The latter of these two is taken from Paul in Romans 1:20 where he states "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

When I hear this scripture I think of my own experiences in the past when I looked at nature, "Wow, how could this be achieved by anything other than the hand of God". This is an expression of awe, of course, and, I believe, does not bear any insight in the existence of God. I believe that Paul was not the first person to have had the idea that the credit for this awe goes to God, but that this sense of awe had its genesis well before Paul's parents thought of conceiving. This of course is supported within his statement. I believe, contrary to Paul's statement, that this awe is inspired more by a lack of understanding which is then attributed to the revelation of God.

I can think of many times in which I have seen something that is simply amazing and have not attributed the cause of this awe to God. I believe most people can. Take a magic show for instance. The awe we experience here is simply due to a lack of understanding of how the trick was completed. Upon understanding, the awe does diminish. This behavior can be seen easily over and over in the life of a child. Just think of the magical quarter your uncle or friend of the family used to pull out from behind my ear? I believe this understanding leaves room for the following idea. Before people had sufficient understanding of natural processes in nature they had a greater awe for its complexity since the undersanding of its workings was limited. Crediting it to God for Paul and others in the Juedeo-Christian tradition or god for others then is not such a far stretch. So do I still have awe? Sure, but in my understanding of its working I am able to respect its complexity through its own workings understanding that it is not, I believe, a magic show.

The second part of the general revelation story that is so often skipped over is how gut-wrenching and putrifying some parts of this world are to the mind. Is this a sign of God's existence? If so, what does it say about that God? Don't worry I have already thought about why I would think something is gut-wrenching in the first place (because it reminds me of my own immortality not because of a moral standard). If I listened to Paul, I could take these screw-ups in nature as a proof that God does not exist as easily as I could do the opposite. So, in summary, it does not suffice for me to assume that simple awe of nature in its complexity serves universally as evidence for God in whatever sense he is defined.

I believe that many Christians draw an interesting conclusion from the possibility of general revelation. That is no one can incite insufficient evidence as to the existence of God, and if they do, it is not because the evidence is withstanding but rather due to the insufficiency of man. As stated previously, I believe it is the exact opposite. The insufficiency of man's knowledge and understanding in the past led to an inaccurate attribution of nature as evidence for God.

Another interesting conclusion that I believe many Christians hold to (including myself for a time) is that this general revelation leaves no man unaccountable to God for his/her unrighteousness. I believe this belief is a void in Christianity since the central message of what is referred to as conservative or fundamental Christianity is that belief in Christ is required for absolution from these sins and acquiring eternal life with the creator. I believe this poses problems when one is required to hold to a specific type of revelation when only exposed to the general revelation. I also believe the supposition that general revelation somehow holds us accountable is a farce because the statement as posited by Paul breaks the law of contradiction. He is basically stating that we are seeing what is not seen. I believe holding one eternally accountable for believing such a contradition is a very tough pill to swallow.

Simple

I didn’t realize what courage it took for those bloggers who have posted the beliefs they hold so dearly until I am now trying to myself.

I was raised in the protestant church - southern Baptist and nondenominational. And in my later years had experiences in the Assemblies of God and Presbyterian (PCA and USA) churches.

I believe in the tenets of the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds and believe the Bible is the Word of God given to us for guidance, inspiration, truth and hope as we live our lives here on earth.

So much of me lately wants to get down to the basics, I guess you would say the basics of Christ’s teaching – love God, love others, give, live simply, let today and tomorrow take care of itself, take care of the poor, the widow and the orphan. It’s so simple and so powerful.

Revisiting Blog Standards and Expectations

When I began this blog, I did so for a variety of reasons. The main motivation was to create a forum through which I could process and share my beliefs. The intention of the function then was that those close to me would have a deeper insight into who I am and what I believe. This was never intended to be a platform through which to propound a particular belief. My hope was that, hopefully, in time others would share what they believe as well. Here is a quote from my first blog that reaffirms my original intended context for this blog.

"This [blog]is not intended to be place of argument [or polemics] but rather a place of sharing what we believe or are thinking. This page is set up on the presuppostion that those who contribute realize that they have not arrived. By this I mean they concur that knowledge has not reached its culminating point in the now past 20th century. They concur that knowledge and understanding of the physical and spiritual world around us is fluid and never reaches that point where it is absolute in its shape."

What is written on this blog should be written introspectively, not as an attack on what someone believes. A person should feel safe to post their ideas without retribution through harsh accusatory language. Not safe in the sense that all written here will match up with your beliefs or be necessarily comfortable.

Over the past few months, many people have wanted or requested to be able to ask questions in respect to blogs I or others have posted. In concession to this request I put forth some new guidelines which created room for questions to be posted in the comment section. The spirit of this was that a blogger could look at the question in the comment section and choose to or not to create a new blog in response to posited questions. After time had passed and few people were contributing to the blog, I pushed the envelope and opened up the comment section to anyone online.

To be fair to Anonymous, I have okayed every one of his posted comments. I did this mainly as a way to achieve a greater diversity in the views posted on this blog. I should have monitored the attitude of these posts more closely, but I did not. Some people may feel more comfortable posting using an anonymous but it should only be in the form of a simple question or in the form of a statement of "I believe" belief.

In the future a writer should write only about what they believe from a first person perspective. You should attempt at some level to explain your beliefs, if possible. The hardest part of this blog is that it requires one to put into words their beliefs. This is not easy task. Asking questions about someone else is much easier than saying what you believe, hence the obvious temptation to always respond with questions. My challenge to all participants now is that you only reply to a person's comment or blog with a blog that states your beliefs introspectively. This can be equally effective at posing other points of view. Do not approach this site as a way to persuade someone to a new point of view or as a mode of persuasion. Let a person read your beliefs and decide for themselves. I will post new guidelines soon to the right where my beliefs are currently posted.

Positive Prospects - Part 4

I believe the first time I began to realize in a real tangible way how life in the greater world did not parallel my experiences in America occurred during my travels to St. Vincent Island in the Grenadines. Here I witnessed severe poverty. The indigenous people, earning dollars on the month, were living in tin-roof lean-to's with no electricity and no running water.

These people clung tightly to my group of visitors, and in just a few short weeks I learned of the hard lives these people--under the Queen--have grown to endure as a normative experience. The disparity between the indigenous people in the rural portions of the island and the wealthy people in the urban areas was striking to me. I sympathized with these indigents and appreciated their desire to feel valued and important. This trip, I believe, was the cornerstone of my belief in social justice.

A second important experience in forming my beliefs about social justice occurred during my freshman year in college at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. Here I spent time on a weekly basis at a juvenille delinquent holding cell facility. Here students waited to stand before a judge or to be transferred to a more secure facility.

During my time there, I engaged in activities such as playing cards, lifting weights, playing basketball, and simply talking with these delinquents. During these interactions I encountered many deliquents who over time became to me a people faced with many hard choices to make on a daily basis. These hard choices were in the midst of an environment that did not necessarily include models of making good decisions if models existed at all. The demographic of this hodling cell at that time was nearly 100% African American. I grew to understand that the story that brought these children to this place in their lives was not a simple one dictated simply by wrong choices. This experience began to set in stone for me the a strong belief in a society that strives to be intentional about creating opportunities for African Americans. Because of this experience, I have a deeper intuitive understanding that the blessings I have in life are not simply deserved due to my own hard work and good choices. My circumstances and the accident of my birthplace have had a lot to do with it.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 7

I believe that science is a process for knowing. In a nutshell, this process involves the stating of hypotheses on the operations of nature followed by the analysis of data observable in nature, or empirical data. These hypotheses continue to stand until data show that the hypothesis is false. This process for knowing or truth seeking is a process that is constantly churning over time and must be open to rejecting previous hypotheses when new data arise that challenge the current hypotheses. So having said this, I believe that God cannot be proved by science. I hold that this perspective does not take a position on the existence of a god.

I believe this simply means that to believe in God requires something outside of reason. No person can actually prove that their God is the correct or true God. They can believe it and they can say it is inspired by something intangible, such as the Holy Spirt, but they cannot prove it to anyone with absolute certainty. If this were the case the religions of this world would not be diverse. They can only believe it based on something outside of reason. This is summed up perfectly by Jesus's statement in John 20:29, Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Here even Jesus himself says there will be people who have to believe without seeing.

I believe that theology may be considered by some as a science in a loose sense, but it is not science in how it achieves its truths. Within its own structure (i.e. the Bible or Quran), theology may appear to be science-like in nature and even highly reasoned and rational as it does ask questions and does look for evidence for its beliefs or in its writings, but the systematics for unveiling truth are not consistent and much of it is still underlined by the premice of believing without seeing. The reason found within theology also fails frequently outside of itself as conflicts arise between truths found in nature and truths found, for example, in the Bible.

So, I accept that to believe in God, I must have a moment of irrationality in my life where I accept the unacceptable. As I stand right now I am part of this crowd. I also believe, however, that where one believes God to interact with the natural world those experiences should line up with reason and our existential experiences. So if Christianity for example claims that Jesus rose from the dead or was resurrected, there should be evidence that this occurred. The empty tomb, the interactions people have had with him after his crucifixion, and the ascension are all evidence that the resurrection may have actually occurred. This is not an unreasonable thing to believe based on the Bible. If these evidences were not present, I would have no reason to believe in Jesus as a Messiah, as many messiahs were walking the streets in the days of Jesus. I also believe that when a creation story does not line up with what we now know about nature today I should not throw out nature, but I should should look at the creation story differently.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 6

This entry is a second response to the first part of the annonymous comment posted on the website.

I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?

What is the place of science in regards to God and origins? This is a great question. I believe that science is only applicable to the universe and all of the nature which it includes. Therefore, if a religion relates that God has interacted with nature in some way, the truth of these claims should stand up to reason. For example if God really interacts with nature via prayer from his followers then evidence should show that prayer does just this. I do believe that reason speaks to the truth of a religion about God but not to the truth of the sheer existence of God.

Science is a way of knowing and that method--when trying to understand nature--requires tools utilizing nature itself. Science would only be within the limits of studying the supernatural in two circumstances-neither of which I think is conceivable--: 1. The supernatural somehow becomes natural or literally interacts with nature in a natural way--this is a conundrum-- and 2. Scienctists have supernatural tools through which to observe the supernatural and that those tools are agreed upon as real by the scientific community as a whole. Number 2 is not a possibility I believe can logically exist or ever will.

I do not know that science has completely grasped as of yet the complete limits or boundaries of this universe's existence, but as of now I believe that the cause of the origin of the universe(s) and the existence of God (in the simplistic sense, not in the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic sense) are not testable by science. They are plenty of fun to think and postulate about but that is all it can be, as I see it.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 5

This post is a comment I posted in response to a comment I received today.

"I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?

The presupposition of science is that we have the ability to judge the results of our experiments. Placing yourself in the position of Judge in these matters is to exalt the science above God.

This is folly."

I have described previously that I believe faith is not antithetical to scientific reasoning, but rather is the trusting of that reason, regardless of the mood--good or bad--that one finds himself in that moment.

From the point of view that God is the cause of this universe, it follows easily that God also would have caused the method of reasoning which we utilize so fully now. If this is the case, then God as he has manifested himself on Earth in the natural world should stand up to reason and the act of Judging (this is referred to in the anonymous writer's comment) would not exalt one to assuming the position or superpostion of God.

To follow the reasoning that somehow being a Judge of information is sinful (in that is requires one placing him/herself in a position of greater authority than God) would lead one to make no judgements in life. To add to this, what are the constraints that are being put on the word or idea of a "lab". The idea of lab being a room to which scientific reasoning can or should be contained is just too reductionistic. The world is the lab in which we make judgements all of the time. We may not see them that way because we don't take the time to be metacongitive about what goes into everyday decisions. Why would we?

At what point would one be the sinful judge or the judge that is exalting him/herself over God? Take for example the decision to buy toothpaste. A person is faced with two or more varieties of toothpaste from which to choose for a purchase. Let's say this person is armed with data showing which one fights plaque the best. This person then makes a judgement using scientific reasoning on which toothpaste to buy. This may sound like it is simplyfying or reducing the idea of being a Judge, but at what point does the Judging begin? Judging is the result of a way of thinking or knowing. Regardless of the content which is being judged the value of this way of knowing does not differ. So to condemn science in this way--saying that it is an act of judging which exalts itself above God--also condemns the very nature by which we carry on many activities in our lives. This means to reject Judgement would mean to reject God who created we who carry on these daily activities. I believe that the act of rejecting science is to exalt oneself above God and above the justification for why he created the world the way he did.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 4

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity attacks the issue at the end of part 3 at some levels in his section on Faith. An interesting comment made by this author, "...I am not talking of moments at which any real new reason against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talkinig about moments wehre a mere mood rises up against it. Now, Faith in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your chaing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes." provokes a red flag for me in my modern day Chrisian experience. Although not the main point in this quote, Lewis is implying that faith is not an absolution from reason as I discover new evidence for or against my belief system. He is arguing that this new evidence must be sincerely addressed or considered regardless of my perception of its validity. He is basically claiming here and in the rest of the book that Christianity will stand up to the reason, but allows for the possibility that it may not. His message is not to invoke faith when reason fails to tell us what we want to here.

I am trying to say that I believe faith or the word faith at least has been perverted into something that allows me to push aside reason when things 'just don't make sense'. I believe that I hear these types of questions frequently. "How can this or that be if God is this or that?" is just one example. Instead of giving real answers or reasons to these questions I am often met with responses such as well I don't know, just have faith that God will work it all out". I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is often times the limiting factor in this crutch response. Another possibility is when I ponder on a question or concern until its initial impact feels less polemic as it dissipates over time and is forgotten about after never really being addressed.

I believe that I should accept and expect reasonable answers and that if I can't find the reasonable answer that can coexist with my belief in God then I shouldn't believe in God. Right now, I do believe in God and Christ. I believe--at some levels--I would be committing heresy if I ignored reason and pretended as if a question was not there anymore just so I could continue to believe in God. At that point I would be building my God and faith on an edifice of fickle sand that will wash away, especially when my mood is just not right. This is the faith of which Lewis speaks; faith is not letting mood (good or bad) ruin your reason. I see his writing as saying that we should have faith that our belief is reasonable and should not be swayed by moments of irrationality, inconvenience, or moodiness.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 3

Thinking about religion, belief in God, more specifically Christianity, I find it very tiring to be either a Christian or an atheist. The empirical evidence may be there for both (although that would be hard to argue), but the evidence which we have at our hands is so towering that by the time you sift through it, you get to the other side only to say, "What was that detail way back on the other side? Does it contradict this bit of evidence that I am looking at here?" I mean really even if you do reach a conclusion, no one accepts a response from someone that says, "I am an atheist (or Christian for that matter), I can't quite remember all the details but I spent a lot of time working it out and I just know that the conclusion I came to led me to atheism (Christianity)."

Wouldn't that be great, what freedom. But...no, I want the details of your decision. How painful it is when someone asks me a question that I know I worked out logically long ago but now I have to go back and read a book to remember how it is I want to state my point correctly. This is paralyzing. Why do I feel compelled to do this? Is it for myself? Is it out of fear of how I will be perceived? Is it just so others are comfortable with me? Is the imbedded desire to proselytize? Of course in my experience, Christian believers--I do include myself in this group--or religious believers otherwise accept the aforementioned type of answer from ourselves all of the time. The expectation that everyone is knowledgeable enough to defend their belief in not only God but Christianity is ludicrous. It is an impossibility. How could a Christian mother of two who works 80 hours a week ever find or justify time to spend creating her empirical defense for why she believes in Jesus and God for that matter. So I believe we have a situation in the Christian faith where, because we are limited by all of the ad infinitum nuances of Christianity's message and how it has arrived to its present being, instead of using reason to justify our beliefs, we rely incorrectly on the the utilitarian word faith.

Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 2

I accept what I have said above but find it hard to live by in my day to day ritual of life. At what point can I have adequate confidence in my subconscious nature, if you will, to not require the processing of the evidence of every detail in my life. For example, I wake up in the morning and see that I have a pot of coffee waiting ready for me in which to drown my drowsiness. The coffee is there, yes, I see it, but what evidence is there that I should drink it. I mean really. Is there evidence that I shouldn't drink it? Is there evidence for both? Should I care? If I don't care, does this mean that I am saying that I believe moments exist in which my empirical thoughts are not required or carry less value? If so in what does the reasoning of this thesis culminate? This basically tells me that life doesn't function purely witin the realm of functional reason as it would paralyze me not functionalize me.

Thinking about religion, belief in God, more specifically Christianity, I find it very tiring to be either a Christian or an atheist. The empirical evidence may be there for both (although that would be hard to argue), but the evidence which we have at our hands is so towering that by the time you sift through it, you get to the other side only to say, "What was that detail way back on the other side? Does it contradict this bit of evidence that I am looking at here?" I mean really even if you do reach a conclusion, no one accepts a response from someone that says, "I am an atheist (or Christian for that matter), I can't quite remember all the details but I spent a lot of time working it out and I just know that the conclusion I came to led me to atheism (Christiantiy)."

Evidence-based Belief and Living

As a scientist, I accept that empirical thought provides an effective means for seeking out truth or knowledge by making hypotheses and determining if the weight of the evidence supports or does not support those hypotheses. I work within the framework of this scientific method at work daily and accept that the knowledge I gain and act upon in that setting is dependable.

I believe if I trust that this empirical type of thinking works within the lab that I have no reason to accept that its efficacy dissipates or disappears upon exiting the threshold to that lab. Realizing this, I accept that I should make decisions in my life based on critical analysis of evidence as well. This translates not only to my daily decisions but also my religious decisions.

I accept what I have said above but find it hard to live by in my day to day ritual of life. At what point can I have adequate confidence in my subconscious nature, if you will, to not require the processing of the evidence of every detail in my life. For example, I wake up in the morning and see that I have a pot of coffee waiting ready for me in which to drown my drowsiness. The coffee is there, yes, I see it, but what evidence is there that I should drink it. I mean really. Is there evidence that I shouldn't drink it? Is there evidence for both? Should I care? If I don't care, does this mean that I am saying that I believe moments exist in which my empirical thoughts are not required or carry less value? If so in what does the reasoning of this thesis culminate?

Intellilgent Design/Creationism in the Classroom

As a science teacher and as a Christian, I have very strong feelings on the issue of teaching creation and/or intelligent design in the classroom. My basic feeling is that existence of God cannot be proved and the existence of God cannot be disproved. Under the guidance of this premise, I understand that science (which is not a body of knowledge but rather a way of knowing) is not the method by which I understand and know God. On the flip side of this note, God and the scriptures I believe he is represented by are not tools created for understanding or knowing about nature and the complexities of its workings.

Being that science is a way of knowing and understanding the workings of nature, I find the underlying causation of these workings into existence-creationism, intelligent design, or not--is something which should not be addressed in the science classroom. The science classroom is a place where students learn the methods of science and the body of knowledge which has been exposed due to this way of knowing. These classes are intended to prepare students for careers in science and to have vocabulary and scientific understandings deep enough to be informed voting citizens.

I believe this whole issue stems out of fear. Fear that knowledge will kill faith or trust in God. My question is this: Is my faith in God or knowledge? Is the value I find in God diminished over time as knowledge increases? I believe that I must be careful where I teach my children to direct their faith and trust. I believe I stifle belief in God if I don't embrace scientific thought even with its flaws, and I believe I stifle scientific progress if I force it to answer questions that are unanswerable by science.

I do believe that science strives to speak towards truth about nature and its workings, but I also believe the process is flawed in many ways. This is the beauty of science. It is a process that works over time. Just as in no moment does anyone know fully all that is to be known about God, in no moment does anyone know fully all that is to be known about all of nature.

Having said that, I do not believe science should be presented as a thesis for a world without God. Along these lines, I firmly believe that parents who have strong beliefs regarding the creation of this world and how it was created play a strong role at home in regards to this issue and should regulate there where it is appropriate.

Creationism and Intelligent Design

Maybe we are coming to our senses, awakening from our slumber.
(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1590782,00.html) Earlier this month, the Kansas state board of education discarded the last remnants of the Intelligent Design movement's political foray into the state's science curriculum.

This weekend, I was struck by a book presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson. As part of his book, and in real life friend-of-the-court briefs, he has opined about Intelligent Design (ID). I realized that he has already put many of my beliefs on this subject into elegant words (see references below).

My beliefs are:

1. Believing that God is the origin of the universe is a safe bet.
2. Belief in (1), should not stop me from looking at what God created and how it actually works.
3. Scientists are explorers.
4. I only have the capacity to know a little bit of God. It is narcicistic hubris to think that I have the capacity to know what God has planned beyond what God has already set in motion.
5. Man has free will (re: Apple/Sepent incident).
6. God has not preordained the decisions of man. God did not take that away when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
7. God is not a micro-manager.
8. Science does not have all the answers. Today's theories and hypotheses may be tomorrow's debunked examples. Theories are only as good as the evidence and experiments support.
9. ID and other creationist drivel in the science classroom is just plain lazy. As Neil points out, it has happened many times from the greatest minds. When some scientists were stumped or reached their limits, they attributed the answer/action to God.
10. Our particular universe is about 14 billion years old.
11. Our solar system is a little less than 5 billion years old.
12. After some mantle cooling, volcanic stabilization, extraterrestrial impacts, and about 1.5-2.5 billion years, some very simple life forms began to form and, after that, cells capable of photosynthesis. The photosynthesis is important because we require oxygen.
13. Sometime around 65 million years ago the dominant species was wiped out, leaving a niche for our progenitor species to emerge and thrive.
14. Either through mutation or selective breeding, an ancestral primate emerged with the capacity to vocalize complex language several million years ago.

Geologic age reference:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Life on Earth reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true
http://brembs.net/gould.html
=========================================
I'm frequently asked the famous chicken-or-the-egg question. Which came first? My response is quick, "the egg." The follow-up question is most likely, "but what laid the egg?" My response is always "a pre-chicken (biological chicken ancestor)." Maybe they expected God to lay the egg or snap his/her fingers to create our modern chicken from the clay (if you can assume that God has gender or appendages or even fingers to mold the 'cosmic chicken clay').

What God put into play those 14 billion years ago has come to fruition in the form of man and a wealth of other life on this third rock from the sun. Ta-Daaa! I celebrate that and cherish that, but I not so delusional as to assume that I'm the pinacle of intelligent life possible on the planet. In Neil's book presentation, he leaves the audience with an interesting hypothesis...If there is only 2% difference between our DNA and the DNA of chimps and orangutans (our closest genetic relatives), what would be the capabilities of another species that is 2% different from modern man? It's a idea that keeps him up at night. It was an idea that prompted me to write this blog.

The Perimeter of Ignorance
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge
by Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
Note: This essay is one of the chapters in Neil's most recent book, Death By Black Hole

If you prefer watching video to reading, Neil also spoke on this subject at Beyond Belief 2006. Select Session 2 at
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

If you just want a synopsis, here is a blog comment on Neil's presentation:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design.html

Abortion - Part 2

I believe the issue of abortion is blurred by the laws which govern our nation. In the United States, my limited understanding is that the law applies to and protects those who have rights. The debate begins with who 'those' are. Are unborn babies citizens or humans that have rights? If not, why? The second half of this aforementioned debate which helps to confuse or at least complicate the issue is that this organism--the baby--grows inside another human. This part of the debate centers around at what point does this organisms developing within her womb become a separate identity from herself? If the unborn organism threatens somehow the life of the woman, which life is the more important? I believe that yes they should be treated as a human, but that belief is not grounded in any legal definitiion of creation or life but rather my belief in God.

In my mind, because I see this as a religious belief, the issue of abortion being wrong for everyone is more nebulus in my mind. Should I force my belief on everyone else? I believe that the argument against this is that "this is murder", etc. Is it though? If one doesn't find the embryo or fetus to be a human with rights for them-the one with the different understanding of a developing fetus--it might not be murder. I believe this is not the same as just deciding that it is okay to murder someone who has been born already just because a person believes that it is okay to do so. This is not the same because under law once a person is born it is no longer ambiguous legally as to wether or not they should be treated humanely. The only near resolution to this conflict between religious beliefs and the law is for a new law to be created that defines a citizen or human at the moment of conception. Of course this would create a medical catch 22 when dealing with choosing between the mother or the baby in a situation where the life of one will only lead to the death of another. Whew! This is very tiring. I must plow forward.

Abortion

This is an issue that I have never truly processed in writing and really have tried to avoid even in discussions for obvious reasons. I am sure that at some point I may write something that later I have to recant as a result of reading others' thoughts and/or rethinking through some of my own thoughts. This is a risk I am willing to take to better understand my beliefs.

From where does the moral code against abortion derive? If one finds the Bible as the source of truth on moral issues--and I do--, I believe he/she might be hard pressed to find scripture that actually condemns literally or specifically abortion without doubt. I believe the only scriptures that might be construed to speak on the issue of abortion are the 10 commandments, specifically 'You shall not murder' (Deuteronomy 5:17) and 'You shall not steal' (Deuteronomy 5:19). Of course these were written towards people none of who I believe had the image in their minds that this law referred to unborn babies as well, especially in the context of where these commandments were given. But if I let myself assume that the spirit of the law (or all truthful intentions thereof) does include unborn babies I am assuming that the unborn baby is actually a creation of God that I should respect regardless of the activity that put the baby in the womb. I personally believe this and also believe that one cannot really define a specific point at which the fertilized egg has divided and differentiated enough to be labeled as that creation. I do believe also that one may not be totally off the charts if they don't believe that this commandment was in reference to the unborn. In a nutshell that is where I am at in regards to my moral beliefs and faith concerning abortion.

Having said this, I do believe living in a society that is both secular and religious with laws that govern a people having a wide spectrum of beliefs some of which include God some of which do not creates a situation in which this issue becomes highly blurred. My next efforts on this blog will be an attempt delineate the impact of this blurring of the issue on how I view this issue in terms of law and politics.

Never a Better Time

I realized today that the time we find ourselves in as we enter--what feels to some prematurely, I am sure--into the next presidential election can be a wonderful experiment in stating or giving form to our beliefs about political issues and candidates in a safe environment from which we can learn about different perspectives. The temptation will be to become frustrated with others but I exhort you to have confidence in this process. I believe that elections bring out the worst in many people as we tend to talk about what we dislike or don't agree with as opposed to focusing on what is it we believe and are excited about. Be excited please. Let's have fun with this since we already know ahead of time that we will not all be on the same page.

Positive Prospects - Part 3

Lottie Moon. Who? Lottie Moon was a woman missionary to China and the bearrer of the name behind the annual Lottie Moon Mission Fundraiser at my childhood church. A large wooden box painted white with a blown up black and white image of the United States of America with and an individual red Chirstmas tree light protruding from the center of each state stood just outside the entrance to the church sanctuary. As our church's goal of raising money was approached weekly more and more lights were lit. Either that or a thermometer on the side calibrated with dollar amounts was gradually filled in as our church approached its fundraising goals. In retropspect this was really my first appreciative knowledge that a world existed outside Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama and even moreso that other different people lived in that world.

I remember one Christmas my mom asked me if I wanted anything else for Christmas-apparently I had not asked for enough, every mom's dream right?. I said that I would like money to give to the Lottie Moon Mission. What was I thinking? What a pretentious little prude. What kid asks for such a thing? Anyways, when I awoke that Christmas morning, beneath the Christmas tree lay an envelope with 20 dollars in cash, I think; maybe it was a check. I couldn't wait to go give that money to the mission. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had in my life, and I am 22 or so years past that time. Where did this come from? Was I just a naive child giving to something of which I really knew nothing? Was it written on my heart by God to do just a thing? Did I think I was helping people? Did I want others to know about Jesus? Maybe I just hadn't become corrupt enough in spirit yet to realize I wasn't getting anything material back in this exchange. I just remember it tasted great to my heart. That taste pushed me during my sophomore year of high school,--I believe--to participate in a trip to St. Vincent Island in the Grenadines.

Positive Prospects - Part 2

Toby LaBon. The only African-American man--or person for that matter--that I spent time around on a frequent basis. Now here is a man I loved to be around. Toby, a gentle, humble, African-American man with a great sense of humor, was my Sunday School teacher throughout most of my time in high school. If my memory serves me correctly he was the only African-American in our congregation, aside from his two children.

I don't remember a whole lot about the Bible content or Christian thought that Toby taught me in that Sunday School class, and although he might hate to hear it I don't know that he was all that prepared for the class on a weekly basis. What Toby was to me, however, went way beyond the content of that class taking place behind that plastic curtain. He had a smile that could melt your heart from a mile away and a laugh that could shred your bitterness worse than any black hole. I don't remember once a negative comment flowing from his mouth, not once. He was a joy. He could tell a good fishing story better than most, and we had many conversations on this topic to be sure. He had a kind heart and he was always there to listen. I always looked for him when I came back from college even if I had to stop by his house for a hello. He had my respect.

What was it that Toby taught me? What was it about him that keeps him so close to the surface of my mind? I think he represents to me that intangible joy found in the midst of community. That elusive commodity that helps people through the hard times and helps them all the more to celebrate the good times. His face is imprtinted on my mind, and as I sit here typing this out, my brow is less furrowed and a smile graces my face. Thank you Toby. I hope the fish are biting.

Positive Prospects Part 1

Here I go on this little journey. I don't know what the format will look like but I am willing to take that risk.

Trying to go as far back as possible in my memory to remember positive experiences I end up in kindergarten. Sitting in the little chairs at the little tables, my sister was tutoring me about something. The content with which I was being helped I do not remember but the advice, I remember well. Now Paul...when using an eraser (on the end of a pencil) be sure to use the side of the eraser and to switch sides so that the eraser wears evenly over time. That may not be the exact conversation but that was the gist of it. Now this may not seem profound to the passerby, but to a little five year old this was priceless wisdom. Someone much older than I (8 years is a big difference as a child) was sharing their wisdom from experience with me. I remember that moment vividly.

Sticking to the positive influence by my sister, I do recall another time later on, I can't remember how old I was but definitely not older than 12, at the First Baptist Church of Clarendon Hills back when we still lived in Downers Grove, IL. I don't remember exactly how this topic came up but I remember being up near the front of the church on the piano side (stage right) of the orange-carpeted sanctuary. My sister was telling me-in reference to one of my peers who shall remain nameless-that although she may not be the most beautful girl she was the type of girl you could marry. Within the week I had established that this girl was my new girlfriend, but it didn't last long and luckily she and her family moved shortly thereafter (I wonder if that had anything to do with me?). This was an important experience since this is the first time, I suppose, when looking at women (or girls) that I considered a girl more than simply what meets the eye. I am sure at this point my sister would be horrified at some of the details with which I am remembering my past.

Positive Prospects

After reflecting briefly on my past and where it has brought me to today in regards to my feelings on the church and other issues, I feel a need to look at some of the positive impacts people and experiences have had on my life. I believe that these experiences may be culpable for my strong belief in social justice and creation stewardship. I would like to explore that possibility. Hopefully these reflections will help me to understand more deeply my longing for social justice.

I believe in social justice. I believe that a person who claims belief in Jesus Christ as the prophesied Messiah as I do should have at the front of their minds social justice on the domestic front and on the international front. This is not to say that Christianity is the panacaea for all of the world's social issues, but rather that we as Christians are called to actively advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves and to play our current part towards that end whether we see its success in our lifetime or not. The call from Christ in the Gospel and Old Testament scriptures is in itself the justification for this paradigm regarding the addressing of social problems. I believe these types of activities serve as a conduit carrying us to a state in which we are more like Christ. I also believe this is God's way of allowing us a role--even in its severe inadequacies-- in the restoration of creation towards a state as originally hoped for by God.

I believe social justice includes attention to a wide variety of issues not limited to but including racism, exploitation, and poverty. I am not going to expound much here about my beliefs on how this should be addressed but hope to at some point in the future.

In my beginning - part 5

Neither of these outcomes allow me to be what I honestly believe are parts of who I am in this life, a logical being who believes in and fears God. This is the conundrum that I believe prevents people from sincerely taking this issue on for themselves. This is why I believe many people live with this question far back in the recesses of their daily existence, not available for serious discussion.

So, even though I had read a lot and in my heart I wanted to regard evolution as an acceptable hypothesis for how life has formed and changed over time, dealing with this issue or confronting it with my God-fearing peers was something I buried. Having done this, I have basically walked around with the facade of contentedness about the issue over the years. In truth, I want to live outwardly, without embarrasment what I believe in regards to evolution without condemnation, much in the same way I want to with my beliefs in regard to God, without condemnation.

The irony now is that the angst I once felt in my frustration with this new knowledge or possibility during my plant biology course is now angst stirred by my interactions or difficulty in interacting with those who are closest to me for fear of judgement and unfair and unthoughtful labeling. In response, I do much of the same.

In my beginning - part 4

I read the book. I read it again. I read it again. It led me to read some other relevant books, by people, such as Hugh Ross, Michael Behe, Lee Strobel, Steven J Gould, Charles Darwin, Creation Research Institute, etc.

The big question I first had to tackle, turned out to be a false one. I think it is a question that many Christians are faced with. It is a question that--in my mind--is unfair and prevents many Christians from being able to travel down the road I have traveled. This question is, "Do I believe literally in the Bible's creation story--the core of pretty all that I claim to be--or do I accept the knowledge as understood by modern day scientists describing how life has come to be what it is today?" This is an impossible question because its answer requires a fatal outcome either way.

Outcome 1: Keep my faith and beliefs. Accept the Genesis account as the end-all-be-all description of how Earth was created. Ignore what feels like a logical, realistic description of how life and geology have functioned over time.

Outcome 2: Reject my faith and beliefs. Accept what feels like a logical, realistic description of how life and geology have functioned over time. Reject the "creation account" as described in the Bible as a scientific account or explanation of how life and geology have dunctioned over time.

Clairvoyance

Several people have asked for me to expound upon what this quote means. I hesitate, in one sense, to do this as I think that rarely does a quote mean for readers exactly what it meant for the author. Instead of saying what it means exactly, I will simply describe the moments that led up to its creation.

Over the past few days as I have been reflecting back on and writing on my life, my perceptions of my life, and how it has led me to where I am today, I found myself over and over again having clairvoyant moments. Not in the mystical or psychic sense, but in the sense that in the act of writing a belief or idea down it takes on something like a physical form that can be seen and is more real and accountable to reason than a fleeting thought or idea tied up in the recesses of my mind. Through this different light, I am allowed in a more clear-sighted manner to understand my beliefs often times leading to a refining and redefining of my beliefs. These new beliefs help me to understand how my beliefs were not really fully formed, therefore not somtheing I really believed.

In my beginning - part 3

The first time the belief system and epistemology that I held to and lived by was questioned was in my plant biology class during my sophomore year in college. One might be perplexed as to how a class on plants might call into question my world view. As a matter of fact you may never look at the Quercus albus (white oak) quite the same way after reading this (not really)! Anyways, I digress.

In this class my professor, Dr. Paul Rothrock,--eventually my favorite professor in college--began the semester discussing evolution, the formation of the earth, space, time, etc. He did this in the context of a book entitled Biology through the Eyes of Faith, a book by Richard T. Wright (Not the same as the author of Black Boy) as part of the Christian College Coalition series. He and other students in the class began talking about evolution and an old earth as real possibilities that also made the understanding of plant biology and many other areas of biology more clear. I was astounded. How could this be. I was at a Christian school, wasn't I?. Christians don't hold to these ideas, do they? I was nonplussed. How do I deal with these opposing ideas? I was full of rage. I was confused. I didn't know how to talk because, to be honest, I had no idea what I was talking about in regard to these issues or even where to start. I resolved to read the book.

In my beginning...

I lived until the age of 13 in a suburb outside Chicago and finished my adolescent years at the littoral of urban Illinois, Kankakee. My religious experience during this time was in the context of a Southern Baptist church (very few of my friends were Southern Baptist but rather Catholic). Upon reflecting over these formative years, I have come to realize a variety of things.

I believe I was led or taught--intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know--by the church to believe essentially that Christians don't have questions or doubts or at least not to admit them. I never remember hearing probing questions about scriptures, theology, how these things line up, and how our beleifs measure up to the ideologies by which we actually lived our lives here on Earth. When questions were broached they often were greeted with, "well the obvious answer is ....". It was taboo, not to know or at least come off as knowing the answer, because if the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the Word of God then how can we have questions.

Of course, as a child, I didn't feel free to inquire further out of fear for how I would be perceived. Instead of these questions being addressed up front and sincerely by those in my church they were presented to me by those outside of the church. What is the irony there? I believe the truths in the scripture stand up to scrutiny. I believe we should not hide from scrutiny. I also believe that we don't need to contrive answers in order to create a facade of absolute certainty in all matters. I believe it is okay to say, "I don't know".

I believe we should read views as understood by others outside our circle of friends or 'believers'. These actions give value to what we believe and hold us accountable to those whom we share time and space with here on Earth. I believe time is not well spent by always reading literature telling us what we already hold to or believe or literature that tells us how others believe from our own perspective. It has its place but not at the level which I grew up seeing people invest.

For a non-threatening example. As a teacher, a time might exist when I am seeking to bring in a guest speaker to my science classroom to discuss the pros and cons of a career in nanotechnology and the details of what that career involves. In seeking out that speaker, I am not going to bring in a jazz musician who read an overview of careers in nanotechnology in Time or Newsweek magazine. I am going to bring in someone who is living, working, and existing in the world of nanotechnology and intimately knows that world. I believe this person has the ability to give a true perspective on what a career in nanotechnology entails. I will concede that this person may or may not have a bias, but that bias is part of the view of a person in that career and is important to know. This experience should not stand alone but should be accompanied with thoughtful reflection and dialogue. Not all of my students will find this career interesting or worth pursuing; however, they are better informed to make their decision and to discuss that decision than if they had been informed by the aforementioned jazz musician. (No intention to denigrate jazz musicians:-O)

In my beginning - part 2

I believe I wasn't intentionly encouraged or pushed to think about some of the questions that I would, in fact, have to address later on in my life, on my own, without guidance. All that I knew or was exposed to was was basically the Bible and Baptist Sunday School Board (BSSB) literature or BSSB-endorsed literature. I may have been better off with just the former. In the absence of exposure to the variety of at least extant mainline protestant ideologies, I feel that early on in my life I was at some level robbed of opportunities for sincere reflection on scripture and the ideas of other sincere hearts seeking after God's truth. Even when thes ideas of others were addressed, it was usually tendentious in nature, without fair representation and often times associated with the risk of hell and damnation if entertained even briefly. I still feel this at some level in many conversations that I have.

In college, I basically reached a point during my Junior year at which I logically snuffed out my belief in God, in much the same way C.S. Lewis does the opposite in Mere Christianity. I won't say that I reached the point of atheism, but I was pretty close. Something kept me in the game, though, and I continued--out of tradition, ritual, or "just-in-case I am wrong, I suppose--to attend churches ranging from Menonite to Nazarene to the Presbyterian Church of America. It wasn't until I met a man who focused on the idea of God's grace that Christianity began to finally make some sense to me. This idea reconciled a lot of disceprancies for me.

This moment of enlightenment helped me to continue on in my faith. I continued on in the Presbyterian Church of America with more sincerity this time although highly skeptical of any person telling me they knew and understood the exact intended doctrine of the Bible. This is what led me to question the truth of God in the first place (the truth is, I believe, I was questioning the conventions of man not God, and I just didn't realize it).

I believe my skepticism was justified because in the church I was attending--even as an individual holding to the teachings of Christ--as someone who accepted the theory of evolution, I was referred to by some as the 'bug man'. In jest, yes, but within that jest is a sense of, "you are off-base, man". Not to mention quiet unspoken or spoken behind the back words that describe me as a case to worry about concerning my beliefs. This is an example of how I have felt over the past 13 years or so. The feeling that people take my ideas lightly as if I have not really thought about them. As if I haven't taken the time to read about it, when the truth is that I have read and studied a lot through many objective, subjective, Christian, and secular lenses more about this issue than anybody I knew of in my church.

Recommended Media -- Viewing & Listening & Reading

I thought I'd start a list of recommended ideas proferred by others that got me to think about my beliefs. I will come back to this post and add comments with other media recommendations as I reference them in other blog entries.

God's Debris: A Thought Experiment from Dilbert creator Scott Adams. You can freely download this PDF file and view offline or in your browser:
http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf
Related links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris
• Scott Adams's sequel book, The Religion War, can be purchased as an ebook for about $5 (or more, depending on the location and format). This book is about a smart man stepping between Christian and Muslim leaders to avert a war (sometime in the near future): http://www.ereader.com/product/detail/18025?book=The_Religion_War

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? movie:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

Penn Jillette's This I Believe segment for NPR, entitled There Is No God: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

A must-see movie for Catholics and everyone with a sense of humor: Dogma by Kevin Smith. I lent this to Paul with a warning that there is some strong language throughout the movie and is not suitable for kids. I look forward to hearing Dogma impressions and thoughts from Paul and Gina.

Julia Sweeney produced two religion and faith pieces. The first, God Said "Ha!", was produced when she and her brother were fighting cancer. The second, Letting Go of God, was produced when she reconnected with the church as an adult. Here are some links for Julia's material and interviews:

• God Said 'Ha!' DVD: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119207/
• Letting Go of God sound clips: http://www.juliasweeney.com/audio.html
• Letting Go of God book excerpts: http://www.juliasweeney.com/book_1.html
• This American Life interview: http://wwww.thisamericanlife.org/pages/descriptions/96/9.html
• This American Life segment (part of Godless In America): http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/290.html
• TEDtalks monologue (excerpt from Letting Go of God) video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=371164303811205573
• Fresh Air interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6387729&ft=1&f=13

the Bible's veracity

I'm still trying to find an email I'd sent last year detailing many of my religious beliefs. Here is a small group (sub-list) of beliefs about the Bible from memory of that email. I believe:

1. The Bible is a document of content derived from oral history. This applies mostly to the common content of the old testament, Torah, and Koran.
2. The Bible New Testament books' content was also transferred through oral history.
3. The Bible underwent extensive editing by the translating/transcribing monks and the Catholic Church.
4. Protestants also made changes to the Bible's content.
5. As such, The Bible's content should never be taken literally.

I was so pleased when (in 2006) Bart Ehrman wrote Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. I'd formed my opinions about the Bible content decades earlier. To see that a biblical scholar had found evidence was a big relief, since I didn't want to learn ancient languages in order to do my own research. In case you missed some of Bart's interviews, here's a sampling:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html
bio & online courses: http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150

============================

When the family assembled in Winston-Salem after my father passed away, the conversation turned to kids' names. After my naming (decision) was detailed, I mentioned that, like me (first born son), the book of Mark was the first Gospel written (approx 60 AD/CE). Moreover, I explained to my nieces and nephews, they should recognize that Mark is not the first book of the New Testament and that fact alone should serve as a warning to anyone trying to use the Bible's content literally. They weren't ready for that idea and I dropped it.

The title of this blog entry is about the Bible's veracity. I'm not questioning its truthfulness. Rather, I've come to a realization and belief that the Bible's content should be read with some skepticism -- not as a work of fiction, but as a collection of stories, fables, and life lessons by different writers and editors across millenia.

It's a rainy Monday and I'm not completely over what I think is a bout of pneumonia. But I'm feeling better...fever broke Saturday night and my alma mater won its first conference hoops game Sunday, poised to assume a #1 national ranking.

Moreover, I saw something that really brought a smile to my face this morning -- a refridgerator magnet:
Jesus Is Cool but Some of His followers Give me the Creeps
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/468

====================================
I guess this is as good a way to start belief/faith blogging as any. Hi. I'm Mark Hutchinson. I'm a neighbor of Paul and Gina. I'm 51 years old and a North Carolina native. You'll learn more about me as I post. In the coming months, I hope to post many entries -- some serious and some, like this one, more humorous. I accept the probability that I will offend some readers in my posts, but that will never be my primary intention.

My posting goals:

• to create prose that makes you think about your own beliefs and faith as much as I do when I create my blog entries
• to distinguish fact from opinion
• to source and cite my references
• to create some permanent resource for my god son, Hamilton, when he is ready to understand faith and belief.

Happy New Year,

Mark