Okay I have nothing against Kathy Griffin prior to this, and although I am not denying my bias, her Emmy speech was just uncalled for.

After receiving her award she said, “a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award,” but “no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.”

“This award is my God now!”

Well the last line, a lot of people say, and that’s her deal. But with the first part, she was just looking for trouble. How much thought does it take to realize that for many people, that doesn’t count as a joke?

Well, I hope along with being famous, she wasn’t intentionally looking to be notorious. This is definitely gonna stain.

Technorati tags: kathy griffin, emmy, Jesus, God, speech

There’s been news on Mother Theresa, the “Saint of the Gutters”, and how her secret letters apparently revealed 50 years of doubt, a period of not feeling the presence of God in her life.

Well, I don’t know the whole story and I haven’t read any details, but I did catch this one part from one of her letters to a certain Rev. Michael Van Der Peet:

“Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured Van der Peet. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,–Listen and do not hear–the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me–that I let Him have [a] free hand.“

I think that’s a perfect example of what I think faith should be like. Or how we should be like regarding many things.

Many times people get caught up in emotions, like things are only real when they feel them. I beg to differ, feelings are highly subjective and situational, not to mention they are very fleeting. If we only love those who are nice or good to us, then that is not real love. If we only have faith when things are going our way, or if we have reason to say we feel God’s presence, then that is not faith. Those are just human reactions, the way I see it.

Like in her letter, she started and ended with how she believed in Jesus and what He can do, despite not feeling any reason for that faith. That is true love, not an emotion but a commitment — that even if she could not feel it, she held on to her certainty of it, she gave it away, she gave it back. That is true faith, the light we find, and the one we make, that shines when it’s darkest.

Technorati tags: mother theresa, faith, God, Jesus, love, emotion, commitment, light, darkness

I’m an avid reader of TIME magazine, and a few months ago, I realized something. It seems like they’ve taken an active stance in this age-old debate about God, science, and the origin of the universe. Before I go any further, I state this just to set it straight—I’m a firm believer in Creation and in God. And I will not deny the purpose of this entry. I do hope that doesn’t stop many of you from reading on.

In one of TIME.com’s own blogs by a certain Michael Lemonick, the topic of discussion has gone from the Origin of Life to the Big Bang, and while I wouldn’t dare pass myself off as an expert, I do have a reaction to one of Lemonick’s arguments, one that I’ve heard and read already before.

But as I’ve often said, lightning was once an argument for the existence of God(s), until we figured out the real cause. It may be that THIS time we’ve come to the final impasse, and will have to invoke God as the cause. But I prefer to wait and see what the smartest theoretical physicists in the world can do with the problem first. They’re on the case.

I’d also like to quote a Jim Hill, commenter on the same blog:

If research, as expected, continues to turn up nothing for the foreseeable future, then your allegation becomes a matter of BELIEF or FAITH, because you have no data to back up your allegation. I could allege just as easily that God created life at some point, which becomes my BELIEF and FAITH. Because you have no data to contradict me, we have a real standoff.

Well here’s what I think. I’m not saying that the studies on the Earth and animals, but there’s something funny about the picture I saw from those two quotes alone. I noticed that pattern (or should I say, habit) from those who unshakably stand by science AND against the belief in God. I suppose it’s difficult not to invoke our ignorant past like that. Let me help out a bit—they arrested Galileo for saying the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, they refused to believe Columbus when he said the Earth is round. It’s always been the church against science. One disproves, or ridicules, the other.

Basically, we always think that it’s those who believe in Creation that are so close-minded. Well, what I find odd is that those who believe in science seem to be so quick to accept what scientists say, as long as they present enough scientific jargon to back it up. For instance, the infamous Theory of Evolution. Many believe that this is the consensus—that every self-respecting scientist should believe this, as it is the only theory that makes any sense at all. In fact, it’s often regarded as fact.

But what most people don’t know is that many scientists (highly credible ones) believe Evolution to be a “fairy tale”, or something either highly improbable or plain impossible. Of all the tens of thousands of mutations known to man, even those that Evolutionists themselves use to defend the Darwinian point of view, NONE of them are positive. Meaning, not a single one of them (and I invite everyone to test this) improved the quality or efficiency of the genetic code. So how could they say that humans, being as efficient and productive as we are now, evolved from single-celled organisms?

And yet, people so readily believe the Evolution theory as if it were the only thing that made sense. In fact, Creation satisfies far more logical and scientific rules than Evolution does.

So this is what I think, agreeing with what Mr. Hill says—people believe not what makes more sense, they believe what they want to believe. Scientists are human too, despite assumptions that they seem to be infallible and immune to biases, so it’s self-destructive to believe that what they say (or what most of them choose to believe) is the absolute truth.

So if the only real argument that they can give against Creation is that they’d rather not just “throw their hands in the air” credit things to God, then they shouldn’t go around waving it like a sword. It’s a defense, not an offense, and does absolutely nothing to change my mind. Creation, without a doubt, makes more sense than Evolution.

Technorati tags: creation, evolution, darwinism, charles darwin, religion, faith, belief, time, science