No Coincidences

Category: Uncategorized

  • What if I saw Jesus in a Fight?

    What if I saw Jesus in a Fight?

    A friend asked an interesting question: “If you saw Jesus fighting somebody, what would you do?”

    No context, I had many follow-up questions. Has the second coming happened? Why is Jesus here? How do I know he is Jesus?

    But, ok, I can follow along with the exercise.

    My response was, “I would assume he was fighting Satan. I would assume that the person Jesus would be in a fist fight with would have to be Satan taking over a body… but then that doesn’t make sense, because Jesus could simply rebuke Satan, he wouldn’t need to fist fight him…”

    I was interrupted by the friend who reminded me this was a fun what-if and to not go overboard. He then asked again, “But what would you DO?”

    I thought for a moment, then I said, “I guess I’d watch.”

    My friend laughed and then jokingly said, “You’d record it, WORLDSTAR.”

    He made a good point: sitting and watching didn’t seem good enough. So I told the friend, “You’re right, if I saw Jesus fist-fighting someone right now, I would say a prayer to God, asking if this was OK, did Jesus need help, should I do something?”

    It was then asked, “what if Jesus punched Beth?”

    That one made me laugh. I said if that happened, I’d know I was being deceived in some way because Jesus wouldn’t punch Beth in the face.

    This was a fun exercise. I think God will forgive us for any irreverence. I think it’s good if you bring Jesus into a normal conversation, even if in a slightly irreverent way.

    This silly question did lead me to think more deeply about a serious question, though. In this silly context, “What would you do if you saw Jesus in a fistfight?” I realized my first answer was, “I would watch.” I realized that was my first reaction because my first reaction would be that Jesus doesn’t need my help. This is what led me to the more serious thought. How often do I think Jesus doesn’t need my help? How often do we think there’s nothing we can do for Jesus? Now, I’m not trying to get into the faith and works discussion, of course we can do nothing to save ourselves without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But, we can still do things for Jesus. 

    We are here on this earth for a reason.  gain, how often do we think, “Jesus doesn’t need my help. I can’t do anything for Jesus. I’m not good enough to do anything for Jesus.” I think sometimes we forget that we are here to do things for Jesus, we’re here to promote Jesus, talk about Jesus, lead others to Jesus, help Jesus in any way we can. We do that by loving others. Jesus does want our help. Whether He needs it is another question. But He has asked us that know of Him to share Him, to be His servants, to be His feet on the ground in a way.

    So, when I think about that question again, “What would you do if you saw Jesus in a fight?” my answer has changed. 

    I would pray. Then I would jump in. At least I hope that’s what I would do.

  • Uncle Mike!

    Uncle Mike!

    A few years ago, I completely cut football out of my life, cold turkey. It started when I came back to church and realized I didn’t want to be watching football all day on the Sabbath. I would still watch the occasional ASU football game. The only football I kept religiously in my life was Washington State and Mississippi State games. I watched pretty much every one of Mike’s games.

    Beth hates football. Football was out of my life by the time we got serious, so football was never an issue. Beth often says she’s so happy I don’t watch football. She really hates it. She hates it so much that, despite knowing it’s family and I have to watch, she even didn’t like watching Mississippi State games. Each week when I’d turn on Mike’s game she’d say “not footballlllll” but then would silently resign herself to the fact that it had to be watched. Whether that entailed sitting through the game or leaving the room was always up to her discretion.

    Ivy will watch whatever I watch and enjoy it. It’s something Beth doesn’t quite comprehend. Beth used to fight it, but I think she’s given up. She used to walk into the living room to Ivy and me watching basketball or Impractical Jokers and say, “Ivy doesn’t want to watch this.”

    I would always say, “Ivy what do you want to watch?”

    “Impractical Jokers” or “dunk it” (code for basketball) would be the immediate reply.

    Beth would be flabbergasted. “She doesn’t really want to watch Impractical Jokers. She just says that because she knows you want to watch it.”

    Nonetheless, Ivy will sit with me and watch basketball endlessly without complaint.

    Part of the reason Ivy loves watching what I want to watch is because I make sure to get her involved in it. When we watch basketball, I try to constantly say, “Ivy did you see that!? He dunked it!” Or, for Impractical Jokers, “Ivy, Joe is so funny, he’s our favorite, huh?” Of course, Joe is our favorite.

    My strategy for getting Ivy engaged in football games was obvious. I was fighting Ivy’s = bias against football that was apparently engrained in her DNA from Beth. In the beginning, Ivy seemed to have an intense predisposition against football. My master plan to get Ivy engaged was to point out Uncle Mike every time he showed up on the TV.

    We’d watch Mississippi State football games and every sideline shot, interview, video, or moment that Mike showed up in I’d say enthusiastically, “Ivy who is that!?!?”

    “Uncle Mike!” She always yelled with excitement.

    If football is on the TV, Ivy will still say, “Uncle Mike.” Uncle Mike became to football what “dunk it” is to basketball. But we don’t watch football anymore.

    I never watched Mike’s last game against Ole Miss. I kept it recorded and always planned to watch it. Now I’m saving it for a time when I’m prepared to watch and think, remember, consider life and its shortness; think about how Ivy can’t watch football anymore and yell, “Uncle Mike!” Or can she?

    It’s sad that Ivy will never get to meet Mike, but he lives on. Every time a football game comes on the TV he lives through Ivy’s, “Uncle Mike.”

  • The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    This is a version of an essay I wrote for a science and religion course. That’s why it has such an “official” tone, and the headlines. I don’t share this because I think it’s an extraordinary essay. But I do think I made some decent points about the “God issue” in science. When you spend this much time writing an essay that fits the theme of your blog, it’s just gotta be shared. So here’s my essay on intelligent design, evolution, and God.

    Intelligent Design and Evolution

    God is the center of the debate between science and religion, and in particular the debate between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. To claim any other conflict ahead of the question of whether God exists is to distract from the root cause that separates these theories. If the question of God’s existence could be solved one way or another, then evolution and intelligent design could coexist and potentially benefit one another. Unfortunately, the existential question of God will never be solved by science. Therefore, with God being the center of the issue, exploring the “God issue” between evolution and intelligent design is the best way to help the two theories reconcile with one another, even if the true question, “does God exist?” is never answered.

    The God Question

    Believers of evolution and believers of intelligent design have more to agree upon than is often realized. However, there is one topic or question that creates a gulf between the two fields. That question is: Does God exist? When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents come to understand this as the main question that separates them, it may be possible to relate and coexist, and therefore grow as fields of knowledge alongside one another. It is the loud voices of ardent atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who pronounce aggressive disbelief in God, and it is the loud and passionate voices of creationists who oppose belief in the undeniable evidence of evolution that create this void (Wolf, 2006). The milder, middle-of-the-road voices get drowned out by the louder minority. The believer in intelligent design who accepts the facts of evolution and the believer in evolution who can see the merits in intelligent design theory are the voices that bring these two fields to an agreement that benefits both. Intelligent design need not deny many aspects of the theory of evolution. Evolution need not devalue the merits of the theory of intelligent design. At the root of the conflict is the belief in God. Coming to understand God as the major issue and question can bring both sides into more agreement, or at the very least, a middle-ground of mutual understanding.

    Historical Belief in God

    The thinking of the world has transitioned aggressively from a belief in God. While there has been a movement away from God, especially in scientific communities, as can be illustrated in countless scholarly writings such as The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006) and Why Intelligent Design Fails (Young & Edis, 2014), a large portion of the world still believes in some higher power, some creator that put humans on this earth. It is nearly impossible for a firm believer in God to remove that innate belief from their consciousness.

    In the book The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen (2011) discusses John Locke’s famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All of these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering” (Skousen, 2011, pp. 95-96). Locke’s thinking agrees with the teleological argument of intelligent design put forth by William Paley in the 1700s (Crashcourse, 2016). Locke continues to expound on this topic by pointing out how a man can come to know God exists. Skousen concludes with Locke’s thinking, “And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation” (Skousen, 2011, p. 97).

    These examples from Locke are used to illustrate a point. It was not long ago that disbelief in God was deemed a ludicrous proposition. It wasn’t long ago that these theists were the louder voices. Historically, those with no belief in God have been discriminated against and ridiculed similarly to how science ridicules belief in God today. Ridicule of the belief of God is as counterproductive today as the ridicule of not believing in God has been throughout history.

    Attack on God

    An outspoken opponent of theism in the scientific community is Richard Dawkins. One of the basic attacks Dawkins uses against God is comparing belief in God to belief in any number of mythical creatures. Dawkins often refers to belief in God as being similar to believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (Dawkins, 2006). Dawkins says that because people believe in something ridiculous like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn’t mean he has to accept it. This analogy is not close to comparable. There aren’t books handed down for centuries about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t a majority of the world population believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. We don’t have any support for the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. This is just one example of an unfair attack from the “militant atheism” that Dawkins proposes (Dawkins, 2008).

    Scientists like Dawkins ignore the evidence that does exist out there because it doesn’t suit their needs or beliefs. This is the opposite of scientific progress and something Dawkins is “militantly” opposed to. There are many unexplained phenomena with adequate scientific evidence behind that scientists like Dawkins disregard simply because it’s phenomenal and they can’t understand it. Take, for example, near-death experiences. The catalogs and books being put together of people of different cultures, ages, demographics, and backgrounds all detailing a similar experience is dismissed out of hand. Science is based on observation. If any other phenomena like gravity or momentum had as much documented support as near death experiences that have been cataloged, scientists would explore further, not dismiss automatically.

    Another main critique of intelligent design is that the theory mentions design without defining who the designer would be. The reason intelligent design refuses to mention the designer is obvious. The mere mention of God is liable to get extreme backlash from the scientific community. Furthermore, it leaves the concept open to the many interpretations of the nature of God and who the creator may be across varying religions. This is an example of why the attack on God is counterproductive. It creates the dynamic where intelligent design theory talks about an ambiguous “designer” without simply stating that the designer is a theorized divine creator. God is the answer to the question of who the intelligent designer would be, and yet because of the aforementioned loud minority, God is not specifically mentioned. The issue is that while so many believe in this designer, in and out of the scientific community, no one can say the name for fear of being criticized.

    Intelligent Design within Evolution

    There is plausible proof of many elements of evolution. However, this does not remove the possibility of the influence of intelligent design. That is to say, it is conceivable that the world can evolve while also having the influence of an intelligent designer that planned for this evolution and progression. The two theories need not be at odds with one another. Intelligent design and evolution both have holes and flaws in their theories as Darwin himself admitted (Leddra, 2010). Neither theory is perfect. If either theory were perfect, there would be a definitive answer. That’s why they are still classified as theories. The conflict really comes down to one question: is there a God? This is where the entire conflict between intelligent design and evolution lies. That question will not be answered decisively by either science or religion.

    Science will not answer whether God exists. That will always be a matter of faith. If that question is answered it will mean that God has revealed Himself and His purpose, as science will never disprove God. This is obvious, for you cannot prove that something does not exist. If there is a God and He reveals Himself and His purposes, designs, and methods to humanity, then the conflict between intelligent design and evolution will instantly become a moot point. Humanity will know for a fact how living things came to be. The question of if they evolved, how they evolved, and God’s role in it, and these debates between intelligent design and evolution will become null and void. 

    Conclusion

    These examples showing the change in how God is perceived in both society and science, and how science has changed in the attack on God, go to show the underlying cause of all the controversy. It is ultimately about the existence of God. We can conclude, then, that it is extremely important for religion and science, and their respective theories, to consider how they can coexist with one another. By rejecting even the possibility of a God, science limits itself and its ability to explore the universe. By rejecting evolution, the theory of intelligent design limits its ability to coexist with science. Science will benefit by cooperation between the theories of intelligent design and evolution. This cooperation ultimately hinges on finding a way to reconcile the question of God, for the ability of all theories to progress to their fullest potential, and the furthering of knowledge for humanity.

  • Time I Felt Safe

    Time I Felt Safe

    During a guided meditation I was asked to picture a time when I felt safe.

    Interestingly, as I was asked to picture a time that I felt safe, the first image that came to mind was after my ATV accident. I saw the image of me in that ATV with my brother holding down on the back of my head. That’s the image that came to me of a time when I felt safe.

    I’ve thought about that since. Why was that the first image to come to mind? Was it because it was a moment I felt the opposite of safe? As I’ve pondered this question, I don’t think that’s the reason. I think that image came to mind because it really was a moment that I felt safe. I think it’s the most powerful moment in my life where I knew whose hands I was in. It was the most vulnerable and helpless I’d felt since I was a young boy, and yet I felt safe. I was reminded whose I am and who watches over me. And I knew, whatever happened, I was safe.

    How do you value the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What’s it really worth? What’s it really worth knowing who you are, where you come from, why you’re here, where you’re going, and who your Father is? What’s that worth? It’s worth everything.

  • Dontcha know I know

    Dontcha know I know

    All of Ivy’s life, when she’s been upset or crying, I’ve said, “Dontcha know I know?”

    This is my way of saying jokingly, “Don’t you know I know what it’s like to not want to get dressed, not want to eat certain food, to be hungry, to be tired, to be upset, etc.?”

    Today was Sunday. I woke up from a nap and I watched a video depicting the Atonement that Jesus Christ performed.

    Sage started crying in the other room. She’d been having a rough day. We think she has some acid reflux and stuff like that. Sometimes her tummy gets upset. This day seemed to be hard for her.

    Sage likes to tilt her head way back and stretch out her stomach. Apparently, this is a sign of acid reflux. I went to the other room and picked up Sage and put her into her favorite position. Head in my hands tilted back, stomach stretched, looking up at a ceiling fan (she LOVES looking up at ceiling fans).

    This provided a little relief, but she was still crying on and off.

    When Sage was still fussing, I started to say my automatic, “Dontcha know…”

    And that’s where I stopped.

    I didn’t know what it was like to have acid reflux, and for my stomach to hurt like hers did, and to not be able to find relief whatsoever on my own, and to only attain some relief if Mom or Dad came to hold me a certain way. Even if I had that experience as a baby myself, I don’t remember. I didn’t know or remember what Sage was feeling.

    But someone did. I believe that Christ, during that infinite and indescribable Atonement, even felt the pains of an infant with acid reflux. I believe He felt it all.

    “Children are alive in Christ” (Moroni 8:12).

    I couldn’t know what Sage was feeling. Dontcha know I didn’t know. But He knows, and He felt it, and He remembered it.

    When Sage cries she’s communicating to us that she needs help. It’s me and Beth’s job to come to her aid and help her with what she can’t help herself with. How many things, as adults, do we need help with that we can’t do ourselves? As adults, we think of ourselves as so independent. But all we do relies on the Lord. We rely on Him to allow our breath to work within our bodies, water to hydrate us, food to nourish us. These things don’t happen of ourselves but because of Him.

    God and Christ come to our aid when we need it and especially when we ask for it. Christ knows how to hold us just right to help ease our pain and give us relief. Rely on Him for aid just as little children rely on their parents. Be ye as little children (Matthew 18:3).

    Christ felt it. Christ remembers it. Christ experienced it. Turn to Him and He will help all our pains, challenges, and afflictions.