DMS Logo

Dynamic Master Systems, Inc.

People Products MATLAB Book Contact ad hoc networks Ethernet Performance Pilot's Associate Beliefs Opinions AbidaNet LLC

Beliefs

Topics

Presentations

Fundamental Christianity

A fundamentalist is one who believes that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) in its original language was inspired by God "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for all good works." (2 Tim 3:16-17).  The attitude one adopts when reading scripture is that it is a true record as written.  When apparent inconsistencies arise, these might be mistakes in the process of translation, or opportunities to extend our understanding rather than errors in the original text.  To summarize the message of scripture:

  1. God is absolutely good, powerful, present and loving.  He created the universe as described in Genesis 1 and 2, and will restore that creation as told in Revelation 21 and 22.  He created mankind in His image to be His presence on earth.  However, evil was also present on earth in the form of fallen angels, and Satan, their leader, deceived the first man and woman into yielding to him their authority over the earth.

  2. Jesus, the only Son of God, was, is and always will be with God.  He is "the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person" who upholds "all things by the word of His power." (Heb 1:3).  In order to restore God's power to the earth and conquer for all time the effect of sin in our lives, He had to die.  Specifically, He had to be born of a virgin to avoid inheriting the sin nature of an earthly father, He had to live his life "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin," (Heb 4:15), and He had to die sinless.  Why?  Because a perfect God cannot look upon sin.  The penalty of sin is death (permanent separation from God). So if He had either sinned Himself, or inherited a sin nature, He would have deserved death for His own sin, and our cause before God would be hopeless.  But because he accomplished the "impossible" and died sinless, we can, by faith, appropriate His death as the penalty for our sin, and stand worthy before God both now, and in eternity.  Jesus demonstrated this power over death in His resurrection, appearance to over 500 people, and ascension back to heaven.  He is now seated at the right hand of God bringing to God the prayers of God's people.  He will return to the earth in the last days as the Messiah the Jewish nation still seeks to take His bride, the church, to His heavenly home, and to conquer evil for the last time.

  3. The Holy Spirit also existed with the Father and the Son, before time and after time.  He moved with God over the waters before the earth was re-created. He was the inspiration for the prophets, priests and kings of the Old Testament to lead God's people.  He was the anointing that empowered Jesus in His earthly form to avoid sin.  When Jesus ascended to heaven, He, the Holy Spirit was sent to be the comforter, to "reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment." (John 16:8)  He is the "wind beneath the wings" of a believer, providing daily assurance of the presence and power of God.  His manifested presence in the church identifies that body of believers as God's people, as surely as his staff demonstrated to the Israelites and Egyptians that Moses was indeed sent by God to deliver His people.

God in Three Parts - the Trinity

Background

There are 300 or so specific prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled in his birth, life, death and resurrection.  The scriptures prophesied the place of His birth (Micah 5:2), the town where He grew up, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, and the manner and details of His death (Ps 22) 400 years before crucifixion was a form of punishment.  in addition, many of the Old Testament Jewish rituals were powerful symbols pointing forward to his ministry on earth.  the formal wedding ceremony was a good example.  In formal Jewish weddings, the couple would first drink a toast to celebrate their engagement.  While the bride prepared herself for the wedding, the groom would return to his father's country and build a house for them to live in.  When the house was ready, at a time unknown to the bride, he would assemble a procession of well-wishers and come to her house to claim her.  She would be carried triumphantly to the father's house for a wedding feast, the ceremony and to begin their new life together.  Jesus said to the disciples (John 14:2-3) "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also."  He was invoking this wedding tradition to explain to them the necessity of His departure and triumphal return to earth at his second coming.

Beginnings

Another Jewish tradition graphically illustrates the Holy Trinity [thanks to Rev. Perry Stone for this idea].  When a young priest was ready at the age of 30 to enter into his priestly duties,  there would be a special ceremony in which he would be ceremonially bathed in water, dressed in his priestly robes and anointed with oil.  In the final step of this ordination for ministry, in order to confirm that the young priest was legally able to serve because he was descended by blood from the tribe of Levi, his father (himself a priest of the tribe of Levi) would step forward and declare that this was indeed his son.  Now read Mark 1:9-11: "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan."  [Close to where the Ark of the Covenant was carried across on dry land.] "And straightway coming out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, 'Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'"  A graphic illustration for us of the triune nature of God - the Father in heaven, and the Son beginning His earthly ministry under the anointing of, and empowered by, the Holy Spirit.

Other references

The following is a partial listing of scripture passages illustrating the triune character of God.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit existed together before time (sin) existed, and will still be together when time is completed and sin is erased for ever from the earth.  Most importantly for us, they cooperate in supporting the life of a believer now, lived as an ambassador from heaven on the earth.

Why is there so much Evil in the World?

The presence of evil in the world is a really difficult subject, and any attempt at discussing evil seems shallow, especially when one is personally confronted with its tragic consequences - sickness, "natural" disasters, war, or untimely death.  I pray that the following thoughts might help to comfort those who are facing personal tragedies:

The Theory of Evolution

Before the Scopes trial in the 1930s, the Biblical account of creation was accepted as the best description of the origin of the universe.  However, accepting that view demands that one accept the concept of God - a power so vastly more capable than the human mind, able to design, engineer and sustain so complex a machine.  Secular Humanism has seized uncritically upon Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution as an explanation of our origins that permits their miniscule minds to perceive themselves as the Universe's highest intellect.  If that were true, God help us all!  Darwin himself denied the credibility of the Theory of Evolution before he died.  For a moment, let us examine the most obvious flaws in that Theory.

1. The Background

An Australian scientist, Dr. Stephen Gish, decided to investigate the effect of various doses of radiation to improve the design of a fruit fly. He irradiated 10,000 fruit flies.  They produced fruit flies with too few legs, too many legs, no head, two heads, no wings, too many wings, but never once did they produce a better fruit fly.  OK, suppose this was an unlucky day - say he didn't notice that one fly, ten flies or a hundred flies out of the 10,000 were improved.  As a baseline, let's say that for every experiment, 1 in 100 produces a better specimen that will survive better than its peers.

2. The Fossil Record

Where are the failures in the fossil record?  As far as I am aware, every fossil discovered has been a perfect example of its species.  If this were the model of evolution, there ought to be 99 bad specimens for every perfect specimen, shouldn't there?

3. What about Cross-Breeding?

There is only one animal I know of produced by cross-breeding two different species.  Mules are the product of a union between a horse and a donkey.  If this is an improvement, why are there still horses and donkeys?  Hmm... As a matter of fact, is it not true that mules are sterile, and the only way to produce another mule is to cross another horse with another donkey?

4. What about the Eye Ball?

If you want me to believe that the Theory of Evolution explains how we started from some primal soup in which nothing living existed, you have to deal with the eye ball.  So the story goes that in this soup, there were no creatures with eyes, and today many creatures have eyes.  So somewhere in the billions of years of evolution, there was a day when the first eye ball existed, and yesterday there was none.  I could just about squeeze out a moment of credulity where I can imagine some chemical accident that would cause an eye ball to exist for the first time.  But the question is how that eye ball by itself could possibly improve the survivability of the creature to which it happened to be attached. 

Let's face it, to be useful, that eye ball has to be connected by way of an optic nerve to the input receptors of a brain that is able to interpret the signals from that nerve and translate what is sees in that first generation of seeing creatures into motion commands for its extremities...  Sorry, but I can't believe that a serious scientist or engineer could claim with any conscience at all that this scenario has even the remotest possibility of occurring.

5. The Bottom Line on Evolution

Secular Humanists cling to the Theory of Evolution like the Luddites of the Industrial Revolution.  The only reason the theory is not in complete ridicule is that they can't tolerate the notion that a Supreme Being could exist with the intelligence to create the universe and all it contains.

Intelligent Design

Before reviewing the claims of the traditional creationist (of which I am one), let's look at Intelligent Design (ID). This concept has received (with some justification) a bad name in the media. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer from the claims of ID who the designer is. However, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some serious scientists view ID as another set of arguments that lead an open-minded reader inexorably to the view that Evolution is a terrible theory, and a biblical view of creation demands far less faith.

Just one example from the boundless ID examples available. If you take the evolutionist's view of creation, you begin with a bunch of random sub-atomic particles floating in space and over the course of a long time, these particles happen to align themselves in such a way as to assemble this earth and all its living creatures. Remember, either this is a vast collection of random events, or there must be some intelligen design assembling stuff. So you vote for random? OK, consider this. I want to build a house the Evolutionist's way. Since no design is permitted, I load up a truck with all the materials necessary to build the house, back it up to the job site and tip them into a pile. Did it make a house? No? OK, fetch another load. Or, I suppose you could just stir up the pile you have ... a few times ...!!!

You say that you have a lot of time available? OK, check this link for an argument that shuts down that idea really quickly.

Biblical Creation

But can you possibly reconcile what the Bible claims to be the story of the creation of the earth with scientific fact?  Doesn't it indicate that the world is only 6,000 years old, and was brought into being in 6 days?  That depends upon whether you want to consider what the Bible itself says, or whether you are content with what your mother's cousin told you once in Sunday School when you were 3. I can't argue with what you think somebody might have told you years ago about what they thought was in the Bible.  Why don't we concentrate on what the Bible really says about creation?  Let me suggest that you read the first three chapters of the book of Genesis, and then we'll pick out a few observations.

Having read the passage through, let's get something out of the way.  The Bible is a complex book.  An atheist or agnostic (I used to be one) could read the Bible with a view to picking at its "inconsistencies."  You can do this.  However, you get a whole fresh view of life if you will approach the Bible as follows:  "I don't understand all of the connectivity of this book, and I may never know it all.  However, it claims to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and I choose to trust that this is so.  I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding what I need to know and communicate."

The Time Problem

We find the first "inconsistency" in the first two verses.  Gen 1:1-2 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Yet, the prophet Isaiah said "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not [a waste place], he formed it to be inhabited: ..." (Isaiah 45:18).  If we are to believe the Scripture to be the inerrant Word of God, there must be a reconciliation of these apparently contradictory statements.

Furthermore, Adam was created in Genesis 1:26 that is clearly part of the 6 day "creation" process.  The Bible gives us chronologies from that event to the present day measuring approximately 6,000 years, and there is clear scientific evidence of the existence of matter older than 6,000 years.

I am not a theological scholar, but the following argument makes more sense than any of the Evolutionary rhetoric I ever heard.  Contrary to the beliefs of some, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into King James English in 1611.  We must therefore go to the meaning of two Hebrew words used in the first chapter of Genesis for a clue to the above two dilemmas.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance provides standard, consistent definitions of the words used in the Old Testament, and I refer to the numbered definitions there.  The two words I wanted to contrast are bara (Strong's 1254) and awsaw (Strongs 6213).

My conclusion there were three things God had to bring forth from nothing - the basic fabric of the heavens and the earth (verse 1), the basic DNA for living creatures (verse 16), and the spiritual dimension of mankind that enabled him to fellowship with God (verse 27). [This two-part nature was expanded by the arrival of sin to interpose the soul (mind, will, emotions) between body and spirit whereby we are aware of good and evil (Gen 3:5)]

Since God did not create the world waste and void [Isaiah 45:18], something dreadful happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 - probably, a previous, pre-Adamic civilization that Satan destroyed, making the earth waste and void.  This event was so dreadful and inconsequential that the Holy Spirit did not directly record its existence.  However, Jesus told the disciples "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

After this destruction, God put the whole thing back together, re-forming everything from the raw materials remaining except for two further creations - living creatures and the spirit nature of man. Notice that after the basic life form was created, he used awsaw to make the other life forms.

This seems to me to bring Scripture and science nicely into line. Since there is a rock-solid time line of about 6,000 years from Adam to the present day, this interpretation permits the existence of substance older than 6,000 years, and unifies the scriptures, for example, with the 'Big Bang' theory of the origins of the universe.  Apparently, all of the material of the universe could be compressed into something around basketball size with the complete physical design of the universe incorporated in its dynamics. This could be the Genesis 1:1 creation. The two other creations - life forms and spiritual beings - followed when their living environments had been reconstructed from the chaos that resulted from Satan's uninhibited rampage through the original creation.

The Unbeliever's Dilemma

You may have read this argument for the first time, and realized that it takes far less faith to accept God's account of the origin of life than to continue the mindless Theory of Evolution.  To believe God's account, you have to put your faith in the inerrancy of His Word, rather than the unsupportable ideas of men.  But if you accept God's view of creation, you must also accept His view of the fallen nature of mankind and the remedy God provided in His Son.

So I really sympathize with the unbeliever's dilemma. Basic logical thought has knocked the props from under your childhood theory of your origins, and there is nothing to replace it except this Biblical account that your inner being tells you is true.  Yet, that account comes with an enormous cost.  To accept it will cost you your life as you know it.  The really good news is that the new life God offers you in its place on this earth is so much more abundant, and the life to come will be eternity in the presence of Almighty God.  You say "I don't believe in life after death."  Want to place a bet?

Patriotism

 Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?

Did you know he was sentenced?

Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV or radio?

Didn't think so.

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special ssessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to every-one with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big deal."

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea.

It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down."

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Everyone should, and needs to, hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.

God bless America

Thanks to Don L. Zahnle, ABR, CSP, SRES, C-CREC, RECS for this info.

Politics

 Why would I soil a perfectly good discussion of my beliefs with a section on politics?  Well, politics are a part (however unpleasant) of life, and to be intellectually honest, must be consistent in applying what you believe to how you vote.

Dumb and Dumber

You remember that scene in the movie Dumb and Dumber where they have found a briefcase full of money and return it to the "rightful" owners?  In place of the money is a case full of IOUs they have no ability to repay.  Social Security is in the same position.  It was never designed as a savings account.  That's good, because if I let myself think how much I had put into it, and how much I am likely to get back, I could get really depressed. It has always been a pay-as-you-go system where the contributions from those still working pays the retirement for those entitled to it. However, Social Security is suffering from a triple whammy that is certain to bankrupt it unless something radical happens to the tax system in this country (see below):

  1. The "baby boomers" have started to retire.  This means that we have started into an unusual increase in the number of retired people expecting to draw from Social Security.
  2. As the baby boomers reached their productive and reproductive years, it was an era when having children was not "chic" so the birth rate dropped below 2 children per family.  So now we have not only a bubble of people expecting retirement checks, but also less people in the work force to pay for it.
  3. So we should dip into the Social Security trust Fund to weather this storm until normal returns to the population distribution.  Except that some years ago, Congress passed a law allowing them to "borrow" - well, steal really - from the trust fund.  Instead of a nest egg protecting retirees from statistical blips, like Lloyd, we have a trust fund full of IOUs - over a trillion dollars worth - that the government has no intent or ability to replace.

Washington is Broken

Easy to say, but let's look at it.  To get a bill passed, its sponsors have to garner support from colleagues who would otherwise be absorbed with their own agenda.  So they promise their colleagues that if they will vote for this bill, there will be something in it - usually, cash - for their district.  So support rolls up and the bill gets passed, loaded with line items that essentially bribed your representatives to support it.  So it really wasn't necessarily a good idea, and representatives voted for it not because they believed in it, but because of that bribe.  Time and time again, the Line Item Veto has been requested.  This would give the president the power to force a veto override vote on these "pork barrel" items that few people actually wanted.  Good idea, right?  Yes, but it would totally overhaul the process of getting legislation passed.  Representatives would only vote for measures they believed in!  Imagine that!  Too smart for Washington whose insiders are smart enough to realize that this takes out of their hands the ability to keep their constituencies happy with Federal Funds to their district.

April 15th

  The closer we get to Tax Day, the more I like the FairTax bill currently being stalled in Congress.  This proposal, perhaps the best researched legislation ever to reach the floors of the House and Senate essentially does the following:

Does this mean no income in Washington?  No, taxes must support the services we expect from the Federal Government.  The taxes will be collected differently, based on a fixed percentage (24%, I think) of the purchase cost of new items.  Not services, not used car sales, just new items.  The way it is proposed is this:

So many good things - why isn't it law already?  It take too much power away from the politicians, lobbyists and special interests that run Washington. How do we make it happen?

Presidential Politics

Let's face it - presidential politic is a joke.  It's not about character or leadership.  It's about ideology and sound bites. The Presidency is there for one thing - to act swiftly in times of emergency when the inertia in Congress prevents timely action.  When an enemy invades our shores, the President declares war.  So who do you want in the White House?  Someone who thinks the UN can solve your problem?  The UN is composed of 190 + nations, all but a handful of which are bitterly opposed to, and resentful of, everything the United States stands for.  No help there.  You need a leader who will make the tough call - send our men and women in uniform into harm's way to defend our freedom, and the freedom of those nations who still consider us allies.  The nations that oppose our freedom are not the least impressed by negotiation which they see as weakness.  Real change will come when your local representatives place the interests of their constituents in particular and this country in general ahead of their re-election campaigns.

The War in Iraq

I'm really tired of the whiny liberal media and the political mouthpieces to whom they give so much air time.  I have news for you.  Over 60% of the American people want to win the war in Iraq, are confident it can be achieved, and are absolutely against withdrawing support from our troops.  So why would the liberal media be so hot against the war?  Because they hate a president who has the courage of his convictions to ignore them.  Out of curiosity, I decided to look up the legal definition of treason to see how close Nancy Pelosi, John Murther and their ilk are treading. Every sound bite spewing accusations and venom against President Bush, or demanding retreat from Iraq is playing to the strategy of our sworn enemies.  They can't win on the ground, so they hope to win in Washington.  Hillary stated out loud in public that if President Bush doesn't withdraw our forces from Iraq in the next two years, she will.  Of course, she will have to get past Obama, a Republican candidate, and her own reputation first.  Osama must be jumping up and down and looking for ways to get her elected.

The answer, by the way, is that they are uncomfortably close.  look at this definition from the American defense League:

Legal definition of Treason

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

Seems to me that by their vicious rhetoric, they have broken allegiance to their Commander in Chief, and they are certainly giving aid and comfort to Islamic Fascists who have sworn to destroy this country. There shouldn't be a problem with finding two witnesses - it's on National Television on the main-stream liberal channels, and there must still be at least two intelligent people watching that garbage.  I hope someone is watching their behavior ready to unload some really interesting indictments. I can't wait.


site hosted by Startlogic.com The Java Boutique
© 2005 Dynamic Master Systems, Inc.
 last updated 2/18/2008 by David Smith