You Know Who I Am

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. - Romans 1:19

Nearly all, if not every, culture has carried along with it some sort of religious belief. These beliefs might range from the belief in multiple gods, the belief in a divine essence, or the belief in one transcendent being, but it seems as though all cultures have some sort of belief in the divine. How is this possible? Truth be told, we all know that God exists.

You might not acknowledge it right now. You might call yourself an atheist or an agnostic, but until you were educated out of belief in God, you knew He existed. The truth of God is undeniable from the earliest days of our lives. It is through pride and maybe even frustration that we choose to walk away from the truth of God's reality.

King Agur, the author of Proverbs 30, prays to God that He would not make him too rich or too poor so that he might remain faithful. Being too rich, he was fearful that he would become too boastful and believe that he did not need God any more. Being too poor, he was fearful that he could become so desperate that he would need to steal and dishonor the name of God (Proverbs 30:8-9). Pride and frustration are truly at the heart of those who turn against God.

In his book, God Forsaken, Dinesh D'Souza pointed out that science was not really the reason why the New Atheists disbelieve in God. He revealed that it was because of a tragedy or a let down of some sort that these people chose to stop believing. The New Atheists assert that God cannot be all powerful and all good. If He is all powerful, he cannot be all good because He does not stop evil from happening. If He is all good, He is not all powerful because he fails to stop evil from happening. This line of reasoning employs logic that is not rooted in sound scriptural understanding. Nonetheless, it defines their frustrations very well.

Ultimately, pride is the root cause of disbelief. People do not want to submit to an ultimate authority. Many people who believe in God still want to live as though there were no God. Should it surprise us when some people simply choose not to believe in God? We do not want to be restrained from fulfilling our basest of passions, thus, it is easier to deny the existence of God than to willfully defy God's commandments.

By doing this, we defy our very nature. We can see it plainly in our culture that people who deny God abandon the natural order of things. That which is natural and good, by design, is exchanged for that which is unnatural, perverse, and demonic. These unnatural passions drive people insane. Because what may be known about God is plain to us because He has made it plain to us. It is to the world's detriment to abandon the knowledge of God.

www.williamhseng.com

A Frightening Truth about Jesus' Birth

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. Romans 1:18

Jesus' birth brought to light a remarkable reality. After over 500 years of silence from God, to the people of Israel, God provided a sign to His people to remind them that He is still there. The truth of God's existence restored hope to a remnant of His people and set the hearts of millions of people ablaze with hope. That same hope has echoed throughout the ages as countless millions have committed their lives to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having said that, there is something frightening about the gospel message.

Romans 1:18 says that, "The wrath of God is being revealed.'" God's wrath has not been revealed through past testimony (although it has been), but is being revealed against all existing godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth. Wow. What does this mean?

This means that we were previously unaware of the wrath that we were accruing against ourselves. Modern day Jews claim that neither the Old Testament, nor Judaism, teaches the concept of hell. In all fairness, whether or not this is true, the Old Testament does not paint a very clear picture of God's eternal judgment against mankind. In the New Testament, the reality of hell is undeniable. With such a lofty debt against us, how do we avoid the torment awaiting us in hell?

John 6:29 reads, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." Jesus' birth was not merely a revelation that mankind is wicked and on a crash course with hell. The advent of Jesus is the revelation that although mankind was, and is, on a crash course with hell, God, in His mercy, has made a way for people to be made right with Him so that they may live with Him forever.

Although wicked men suppress the truth by their wickedness, God has revealed that they will suffer His wrath on one fateful day. That is why we all need to submit to the grace given to us, by God through His Son Jesus, so that we can experience the riches of His blessings instead of the terrors of His wrath.

www.williamhseng.com

Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is being revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last... - Romans 1:17

The three wise monkeys, Speak No Evil, See No Evil, and Hear No Evil, are an Eastern symbol that represents a philosophy which says we should not dwell on evil thoughts. Thus, we should avoid speaking evil, seeing evil, or hearing evil. This is wise advice for those who wish to live a righteous and holy life.

However pious this may sound, Western philosophy has used the symbol of the monkeys to signify a tolerance of evil. To say that you speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil avoids acknowledging their existence in this world and the injustices that regularly occur. The only way to truthfully avoid evil is to remove yourself from normal interactions with the world as it exists.

In the gospel a righteousness from God is being revealed. The difference between Eastern philosophy and Christian doctrine is that the East sees righteousness as being a peace that you create within yourself. You put aside all of your covetous desires and focus simply on appreciating the universe as it continues to tic away into eternity. Christian doctrine is significantly different, in this regard.

Christian doctrine teaches that righteousness is not earned but credited. A person living in the world cannot be deemed righteous by his or her own doing. Rather, the righteousness of Jesus Christ is acknowledged and our shortcomings are confessed. Thus, the peace that Christians confess is the revelation from God that as we serve Him, we fall short in achieving perfect righteousness. But, it is through Jesus' righteousness that we are justified in the eyes of God.

It was perfectly displayed when Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. When Jesus went to wash his disciple Peter's feet, Peter refused. Peter would not allow Him to wash his feet. Jesus said that he must allow it to happen if he wanted to be with Him. Peter then said, "then wash my whole body, not just my feet." Jesus then said, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet" (John 13:10). In other words, Peter was already clean because Jesus made him clean. But, even though we are clean, as we serve, our feet are soiled as we walk imperfectly through the muck of the world. So it is not our righteousness that makes us clean, but Jesus' continual cleansing of our unrighteousness. This means that we must have faith and allow Jesus to cleanse us, if we want any part with Him.

For in the Gospel, a righteousness from God is being revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last...

I Am Not Ashamed

I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes... - Romans 1:16

How often do you get into conversations with people where you feel like you must start off by apologizing, before you give your opinion. Our culture has brainwashed us into thinking that we must apologize, even for our personal convictions, that might offend someone. We've even created a category of terms that might set someone off, known as triggers. The absurdity of this world knows no bounds. One thing you need never apologize for is speaking the truth in love.

I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not ashamed that He was born of a virgin, died on a cross, was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to heaven. I am not ashamed that He will return to the earth one day to judge the world in accordance to His righteousness. All truth resides in Jesus and He determines what practices and traditions are good, pure, and holy.

In Jesus, I know that one day I will go to heaven. In Jesus, I know that many people will be judged for rejecting His grace. I am not ashamed to confess these truths because there is life in no one else.

For many people, the Gospel of Jesus Christ sounds like a fairy tale. There are people who will try to shame those who have trusted Him as their Lord and Savior. Fear not. Jesus warned us that there would be people like this. The Apostle Paul has told us that the foolishness of God is more wise than the wisdom of the world. So, I am not ashamed that I believe in something that might sound foolish to the world. His word is truth and the truth will set you free from the lies that keep the world from living life to the fullest.

Everyone who believes in the Gospel will have eternal life. There is nothing in this world more valuable than the promise that we might one day reside with God forever in His heavenly kingdom. If nothing else in this life is worth believing in, the Gospel is worth it. Thus, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.

How to Understand What the Bible Says

You don't read the Bible, right? Come on. You can admit it. You do not read the Bible because it is a difficult book to read. I've heard people, especially those who study and teach the Scriptures for a living, talk about the complexity of this book. We are talking about the people who preach at your church on Sunday mornings! If they struggle to understand what the Bible says, how can we expect you to understand its contents? And, why should you try?

First of all, can we conclude that professionals have a way of over complicating the details? There are some good men who genuinely believe that the Bible is difficult to understand, but I doubt they are the majority. Think about talking to a surgeon about the human body. They understand how it works and how to use their knowledge from textbooks to help others; however, they know that the body is very complex. Doctors may speak to us about complex systems, and we get lost in conversation. The same can be true when you hear Biblical scholars talk. It sounds more like a foreign language because of all the theological lingo and denominational distinctions that are not included in the Bible. Contrary to what you might believe, the language directly placed in the Bible is meant for the layperson to understand.

Second, the Bible explains itself, but we must remember that the world has changed significantly since it was written. Just as it is important to talk with doctors when you have questions about the body, it is important to ask a pastor or Bible scholar when you have questions about Scripture. Do not just assume that the Bible is wrong or impossible to understand.

Third, people do not cite instances when the Bible is difficult to understand. Instead, certain Bible scholars and clergy make simple passages sound more difficult because of their own lack of faith. Genesis chapter 1 always seems to be a subject of controversy in such conversations. Let's look at a few verses in Genesis 1 to see if we can determine what they mean:

In the beginning

What does "In the beginning" mean? It simply means when time began.

God created

What does "God created" mean? It means that the Supreme Being made things.

the heavens and the earth.

What does this mean? It means the earth and everything above it. Are we doing good so far? Let's try a more challenging verse:

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What does this verse mean? It means that God called light "day" and darkness "night." This all happened on day 1 of creation. 

Now, when put in terms like this, is it really that complicated? It shouldn't be. Reading and understanding the Bible really is this simple. The only parts that may seem tricky are the parts that use imagery concerning future events that have not yet taken place.

Reading the Bible truly is simple. Do not get discouraged from reading it. It is a great joy to know that we can pick up God's Word and learn from every word on the pages of this great book.

www.williamhseng.com

Bad People in the Bible

Get this: There are people in the Bible that do bad things. Unlike other religious texts, that try to paint their founders as being spotless and pure, the Bible points out that even those foundational to the faith were impure at heart. This is not to promote sinful activities, it is an affirmation of a core doctrine of the Bible: The Depravity of the Human Race.

Bad people in the Bible, they do exist. They appear in obscure stories that leave readers scratching their heads. They are the subject of scrutiny of skeptics and the objects of confusion among many Bible believers.

Every now and then I will encounter someone who struggles to believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God because of the reality that there are some really bad people and practices within the Bible. The most recent claim that the Bible is not the word of God came because of the story of Lot and his daughters. Lot was considered to be a righteous man throughout the book of Genesis. Because of his righteousness, Abraham interceded, on his behalf, and God spared him from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Three angels were sent to Lot and his family to warn them of the coming judgment. Lot and his family escaped. As they were fleeing, his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, as she disobeyed God's command to not look back at the city.. After they escaped, Lot and his daughters were isolated.

Lot's daughters started getting worried that they would grow too old to have children and decided that they would trick their father (Lot) into conceiving children through them. On different nights, each daughter got their father drunk, and the rest is self explanatory. This gave birth to a new and separate nation from the one that Abraham would father.

When the story is read, in context, it is very clear that God is not condoning of the actions of Lot and his daughters. They were bad and were acting in a manner that lacked faith. This story exists in the Bible, not to promote incest, but to explain the origin of a certain nation of people.

When people read these stories, they say to themselves, "If the God of the Bible promotes this sort of stuff, he ain't for me." Good news: The God of the Bible AIN'T for that sort of stuff. Let me explain what stories like these are all about.

Without God, people are wicked. People of all nations, races, and backgrounds have wicked hearts. In fact, Abraham himself acts in a faithless manner by sleeping with his wife's maidservant. He lacked faith that God would provide a son to him through his wife. This is all the more reason to believe in the Bible's authenticity, not a reason to doubt its morality.

These stories should be encouraging to us. They show that, although we have wicked hearts, we worship a good God who is willing to forgive us. When we repent of wickedness, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins. If we were to believe that mankind is inherently good, we would have problems. Sin aligns us against God and puts us on the side of the devil. But, God has compassion on humanity. He desires for no one to perish, but for all to repent, put their faith in Jesus, and be saved.

Bone-Chilling Stories from the Bible: Part 2

Once again, we turn to the Bible to find bone-chilling stories this Halloween...

3. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Some of the most iconic figures of horror in the Bible are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Most people perceive that the horsemen will appear in the sky and swoop down to kill masses of people at the end of the world. Their descriptions are found in Revelation chapter 6, but it is unclear concerning whether they are prophetic imagery or actual entities.

The Four Horsemen appear at the opening of the sacred scroll that is presented in heaven. God presents a scroll with seven seals. The seals prevent its contents from being read because nobody can open the scroll, except for The Lamb of God.

When the Lamb opened the first seal, a white horse appeared who was bent on conquest.

When the second seal was opened, a red horse appeared that made people kill each other.

When the third seal was opened, a black horse appeared. Its rider held scales and said "A quart of wheat for a days wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the wine!"

When the fourth seal was opened, a pale horse appeared. Its rider was Death, and Hades (a.k.a. Hell) was following close behind him.

After these seals were opened, there were no more horsemen, but plenty more signs. The fifth seal causes the martyrs to cry out to God for justice. The sixth seal caused an earthquake, the sun to turn black, the moon red, the stars to fall to the earth, the sky to recede, and for every mountain and island to be removed. The seventh seal unleashed disaster on the earth, but also ushered in the judgments of the seven trumpets.

That is quite a scene presented to us in the book of Revelation.

4. Abraham's Sacrifice of Isaac and the Crucifixion of Jesus

In the 22nd chapter of Genesis, God tells Abraham, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and...Sacrifice him...as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about" (Genesis 22:2). He has never asked this of any one else in the course of history, but here he asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac!

You might expect Abraham to hesitate at such a command, but he is compliant. Early the next day, he started making preparations to sacrifice his son Isaac. From the details of the story, Abraham took Isaac to the exact location where God commanded him, tied him up, and was going to kill him with a knife before burning his remains.

However, when all the preparations were made and Abraham lifted his knife to strike Isaac dead, the angel of the Lord called out to Abraham to stop, sparing the boy's life and his father's grief.

For generations, this story has been characterized as barbaric, cruel, and pointless; but let's go forward a few hundred years to the sacrifice of another's son, who would not be spared. The Son of God.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the 27th chapter, a terrifying seen is painted for the reader. Jesus, having offered himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, was being mocked as he hung on a cross beaten, bloody, and naked for the whole world to see. At the moment of his death, the curtain of the  holy temple was torn (a curtain that was said to be so tough that horses pulling at either end could not rend it), the ground shook, and the earth split. The tombs of ancient people were opened.

This was so terrifying that a Roman centurion, a pagan, exclaimed "Surely he was the Son of God!" Darkness had come over the land. Those who witnessed the crucifixion had a taste of what the end of the world would look like.

Bone-Chilling Stories from the Bible: Part 1

It's that time of the year when everyone enjoys a good scare. In searching for scary stories, what better place is there to look than the Bible? The Scriptures definitely can put the fear of God into our hearts. There are a number of scary stories in the Old and New Testaments. Some of them are genuinely scary, while others are just misunderstood. Let's take a look...

1. The Plagues of Egypt
The Plagues of Egypt are among the most famous judgments in the entire Bible. The story of the plagues can be found in Exodus 7-12, and include...

• water turning to blood
• frogs from the Nile
• dust turning into gnats
• swarms of flies
• famine
• boils
• hail storms
• ravenous locusts
• darkness, and
• death to the firstborn sons of Egypt.

Can you imagine any of these events taking place? Try reading Exodus 7-12, while placing yourself in that situation. It would definitely be horrifying; however, these were just a portion of God's judgments against the Israelites during the life of Moses! The Lord is righteous and desires for holy and righteous people. 

The book of Exodus opens with a story telling how Pharaoh commanded death upon newborn boys born to the Israelites. Moses was rescued through the cunning of his parents and the faithfulness of God. But the judgments were brought because of Pharaoh's refusal to release Egypt's Israelite slaves. 

The plagues have been popularized in recent movies, attributing the powers of the plagues to the black arts. Somehow Egyptian mummies were gifted with the power of the plagues to punish the people who cursed them. The real plagues, however, were not part of an ancient revenge fantasy.

2. Ananias and Saphira
The story of Ananias and Saphira is in Acts 5:1-11. The story is simple, but easily one of the most horrifying stories in the Bible. And, get ready for this, it is in the New Testament! When the church was in its infancy, it was allowing more and more followers of Jesus into fellowship with the Apostles. A man named Ananias, along with his wife Saphira, sold a piece of property. The fellowship of the Apostles required that the people in their camp share their possessions with one another and to give their money to the mission of Jesus.

Ananias claimed that he had given all of the money from the property he sold to the fellowship, but he actually kept a portion of it, secretly, for himself. Peter realized that Ananias lied against the Holy Spirit. At hearing this from Peter, Ananias fell down and died.

While Ananias' body was being carried away, his wife came into the camp. Peter asked her about the money. She lied, just as her husband had done. Immediately, she fell down and died. The entire community of faith was horrified at hearing the news.

Giganotus Rex: Profile of the Monster

Subject Name: Giganotus Rex (A.K.A: G. Rex)

Description:
Giganotus Rex (G. Rex) is a massive, fire breathing reptile.He stands at approximately 250 feet tall and is estimated to be close to 400 feet long from head to tail. He has a single row of dorsal spines protruding from his back and felinesque ears towards the back of his head. His back and underbelly are black while his middle section is green. He has massive sharp teeth like that of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, as well as a head that, proportionately, fits the description of a T. Rex. Unlike a Tyrannosaurus Rex, Giganotus Rex has forelimbs that are proportionate to the rest of his body. Thus, Giganotus Rex is not just a gargantuan T. Rex, but an entirely unique species.

Origin of Name:
William Martin Stevens is credited for naming the creature now known as Giganotus Rex. Mr. Stevens is one of the witnesses that encountered the monster in the Village of Orwell. He became intrigued by this animal and sought to uncover its identity. Upon doing some research concerning various species of therapod dinosaurs, he determined that the creature was unique in its size and proportions from any other known dinosaur. Because it has features that resemble a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Giganotosaurus, Mr. Stevens named his discovery Giganotus Rex.

History (CLASSIFIED): Throughout history there have been appearances of a strange, dragon-like creature that has been spotted at pivotal moments in prominent civilizations. Among these civilizations are Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and even Camelot. Legend has maintained that the appearance of monsters is a sign of a change of fortune. This can range from good fortune to absolute catastrophe. A monster, matching the description of Giganotuas Rex, has consistently indicated that the age of a great civilization was coming to a close. 

Giganotus Rex's origins are a mystery. Throughout the ages, a creature that matches his description has been documented, but it is unknown whether it is the same creature. What is known is that the creature has been documented to be significantly larger from one appearance to the next. 

One of the most well-documented  sightings of the monster was in the Atlantic Ocean, during World War II. In a battle between the British steamer Iberian and German U-28, a crocodile-like creature was reported to have been launched from the waters as a result of an explosion. 

The most recent sightings have taken place in the Village of Orwell and were documented by William Martin Stevens. The monster decimated the military units sent to Orwell and then departed beneath the ground. Unbeknownst to Mr. Stevens, the Rulers have been well aware of this monster for quite some time. It can only be hoped that he is never seen again.

Read The Wrath of Giganotus Rex to learn more.
www.williamhseng.com

Is the Bible Outdated?

The earliest writings of the Bible can be dated back approximately 3500 years. It is an ancient book that has guided the lives of countless individuals over the millennia. The newest writings of the Bible (the New Testament) date back to approximately 2000 years. Considering the reality that the Bible's newest books are 2 millennia old, should we conclude that the Bible is outdated?

As the world becomes smaller, people's lives become less private, and ideas literally flow through people's homes like air. Abortion, homosexuality, trans-genderism, and other social stigmas that have traditionally been rejected by the church have become increasingly mainstream. People have been led to believe that these ideas are new, and even brilliant. But, the Bible addressed these issues thousands of years ago. They are not new, and they are not brilliant ideas. They are sinful activities that we, as a culture, had been abstaining from. Today, we rationalize these social sins all in the name of good character and intellect. We, as a society, are intelligent and believe that we have evolved to be smarter than people in Biblical times. Our logic for questioning the Bible goes as follows:

 Since the discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it was, indeed, round, people have been scrutinizing the teachings of the Bible, as the inerrant and infallible Word of God. If the Word of God teaches that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, how could we possibly continue to accept its authority over our lives?

This is actually a misguided attempt to declare that "enlightened" morality is superior to the morality taught in the Bible. In fact, it cannot be concluded that the writers of the Bible believed in the geocentric flat earth. The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe. These are teachings picked up by the church from Greek philosophers. These are teachings that have their roots in observational science! Our perception of scientific truth is constantly changing. Should our perception of Biblical truth constantly be evolving, as well?

The Bible itself provides the answer to this question in the words of the wise king Solomon, "There is nothing new under the sun." Why does the Bible address the topics of homosexuality, men dressing up as women, and the slaughter of innocent children? The answer is: These were topics that they were dealing with back in their day!

Take, for instance, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has popularly been taught that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their practice of homosexuality. This is partially true, in that it was one of the many sins going on in these cities, but their cultures probably had a moment where people were trying to figure out, "Is homosexuality acceptable in the eyes of God(s)?" Homosexuality, in this instance, did not come first, but was a result of a twisted and idolatrous culture that lost all of its bearings on morality and defied the very order of creation. The Book of Romans, chapter one, details the progressive derangement of human nature once mankind rejects the truth.

Some of the Old Testament Laws sound harsh. However, that is not because the Old Testament Laws are wrong. It is because we have warped senses of justice and morality. We do not understand how serious sin is to a perfect and holy God. We think that prohibitions on sexuality is cruel and unnecessary. That is because we have a skewed understanding of purity. The Old Testament Law exposes sin in our lives. Jesus Christ's work becomes all the more miraculous because everyone fails to live a life that is "good enough" for God. We are corrupt at our core and would be eternally condemned if we were left to our own devices. When we do not follow God and his teachings, we destroy our lives.

The Bible is not outdated. It stands upon principles that are eternal, from the creation of the world through all eternity. Thank God for Jesus Christ who has fulfilled the requirements of God's perfect Law and has liberated us from the bondage of sin.

The Wrath of Giganotus Rex: Profile for William Martin Stevens

Subject Name: William Martin Stevens
Age: 30
Weight: 180 lbs

Description:

William Martin Stevens is a reporter who lives in the city of Midland. He is the son of Martin and Audrey Stevens and is an only child. His father, Martin, was a renowned journalist in his day and was the inspiration for William to pursue a career in media. Audrey worked alongside Martin at Global Media, but as a stage hand for some of its station's broadcasts.

Because of his inherent talent, the Rulers determined early on that he would make an excellent journalist. He works for Global Media and writes a popular column in the Global Media Journal known as A Dose of Reality. His column deals with some of the more controversial topics of the day, sometimes even to the point of violating the speech laws, set by the Rulers. He is hard-working and is eager in his search for the truth.

William's boss, George, keeps a close eye on him. He reports regularly to the authorities to ensure that William's columns are not violating speech laws. This has resulted in some of Mr. Stevens' articles being censored or scrapped. He has been flagged as being a potential renegade, as he writes on topics that most reporters would avoid. Nonetheless, his unique style of reserving judgment and writing in the Rulers' favor has brought stability to his career.

He has recently been assigned to gather information from the Village of Orwell concerning a possible uprising. He has not yet returned from his first visit, but certain reports indicate that something out of the ordinary has occurred. There are not many details about the incident, at this time; however, early reports indicate a military conflict has claimed the lives of multiple soldiers.

The news concerning the conflict is nothing more than a rumor, but radio communication through military sources have revealed some bizarre details about what happened. These transmissions include soldiers saying that people are being swallowed up by the ground, tanks are being melted into scrap, and people are running from an enormous creature of some sort. This report would be dismissed as a hoax, except for the fact that the creature's roar can be heard in the recordings of these transmissions.

The government has linked Mr. Stevens and the Orwellians to the event in the Village of Orwell. Both must be monitored closely from this point forward. As chaos ensues, what news story will remain?

Follow the story of William Martin Stevens and find out the answers to these questions in The Wrath of Giganotus Rex.

www.williamhseng.com

The World of Giganotus Rex

In my new book, The Wrath of Giganotus Rex, the world in which the characters live is significantly different from the world in which you and I live. Frighteningly enough, you might not find some of the differences to be too profound. 

The events of Giganotus Rex take place long after a catastrophic war takes place, known as "The Great Cleansing." Not many details of this war are known, but its ramifications left the world in ruins. Only one nation is left standing, and the people have been divided up into communities, according to the roles that they have in society.

The technology of this world is very advanced, including transportation and communication, but it is very limited. It some cities, it appears that mankind has gone backwards in advancements. In the ruler's city, the technological marvels, particularly with the military's weaponry, may leave you speechless.

The government is the one benevolent force protecting the descendants of the survivors of the Great Cleansing. Society operates like clockwork. Everyone has a place in this new world in which all people work together to preserve the human race. Everything seems to be under control, until rumors sprout up, concerning a rebellion being mounted by the people of the village of Orwell.

The people in the world of Giganotus Rex are anything but superstitious. There are remnants of religious beliefs that have survived in certain cities, but the majority of people do not believe in the supernatural. The lack of belief makes it even more surprising when Giganotus Rex arrives on the world stage. 

It was once thought that the stories of old were meant to scare people. Ancient people would teach that you were to do "the right thing" or the boogeyman might get you. But what if you don't do the right thing and the monsters are real? 

There is more to Giganotus Rex's existence than what meets the eye. Although most of the world fear him, some appear to be anticipating his arrival. Are the people prepared to defeat this monster? Find out in The Wrath of Giganotus Rex.

www.williamhseng.com

What is a Monster: The Wrath of Giganotus Rex

You have heard of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, and other monsters of folklore and legend. You have heard legends of dragons, trolls, sea monsters, and other incredible beasts. The word monster is used quite often, but what is a monster? Is a monster just some form of unidentified creature, or is it something more? A quick Google search will tell you that a monster is "an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening." Although this might be true, in a general sense, it doesn't really capture the significant role in culture that monsters play.

When you observe monsters of ancient lore, you will discover that they were more than just a means of entertaining the masses. They were used as symbols to explain a social ill or to foreshadow an event that would soon take place. Many cultures believe monsters to be signs. In the case of King Arthur, legend has it that a dragon attacked his kingdom shortly before his son would rebel against him in a battle that would ultimately claim both of their lives. The dragon was a foreshadowing of things to come. But monsters were not exclusive to ancient times.

Take a look at pop culture. There are many movies that portray monsters of various shapes and sizes. In the South Korean masterpiece Gwoemul (known in English as The Host), a monster emerges from the Han River to wreak havoc among Seoul's population. The monster itself was just a manifestation of the real issues being exposed during the movie. The real messages being communicated, through the chaos the monster created, were the deterioration of the family unit, the horrors of an over reaching government, and the consequences of mass pollution. Defeating the monster required the characters to come together as a family, overcome the government's invasion of private matters, and face their nemesis out in broad daylight. It was not the monster that needed conquered, but the wickedness of the human condition.

In a matter of days, I will be releasing a book featuring a monster of colossal proportions: The Wrath of Giganotus Rex. Giganotus Rex (G. Rex) is a monster that takes mankind by surprise and creates chaos that puts humanity's existence in the balance. He has the power to reduce cities to a burning heap of ash and makes light of the forces that oppose him. Like all monsters, G. Rex is after something. In the midst of all of the chaos, reporter William Stevens takes it upon himself to expose the secret of G. Rex and save the human race. Only one question remains, "Is humanity willing to do what it takes to rid itself of G. Rex?" Find out the answer in The Wrath of Giganotus Rex. 

The Wrath of Giganotus Rex will be released in September 2017. You will be able to purchase your copy of The Wrath of Giganotus Rex at williamhseng.com.

Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Health Care: The Story of Charles Gard

Health care seems to be the talk of the day. The Republicans have an opportunity to replace President Obama's failing Affordable Care Act (ACA)with a health care bill that fully restores medical treatment to the free market. However, with public figures like the wildly popular Bernie Sanders, many people question whether we should move back toward the free market or take a step further down the road towards the ACA and socialized medicine.

According to many people, free market health care is cruel. Opposition to free market health care argue that people should not have to go bankrupt because of a medical bill. They state that people should not be denied treatment that, perhaps, only the super rich can afford. (By the way, people are not denied treatment in the United States under the free market. We just keep fighting against our current system without recognizing reality) That sounds reasonable. After all, socialized medicine ensures that anyone can go to the hospital and receive medical treatment, right? This is the wonderful fairy tale of socialized medicine. Ladies and gentleman, I give to you the horrifying nightmare - or the reality - of what socialized medicine truly brings.

Say hello to Charles Gard. Charles is an 11 month old boy, who has lived his life in a hospital. Aside from being deaf and blind, Charles also has a rare mitochondrial disease that could take his life. In a last ditch effort to save their child, Charles' parents started a fund me page, where they raised millions of dollars to purchase an experimental treatment in the United States of America. All things were looking good, until the United Kingdom's health care system stepped in.

The hospital has refused to release Charles to allow him to venture to America with his parents to receive these treatments and several courts in the UK have supported their decision. The court ruled that such a journey could cause the boy to suffer and experience pain. Maybe he is already experiencing pain. Maybe the journey to the United States could put an end to his pain and save his life. Is it unreasonable to factor this into the bureaucratic equation?

It is a tragic situation that words cannot describe. The UK government describes the situation as "complicated." Is it really that complicated? Great Britain does not have the resources to treat this child's illness, but the United States does. The British health care system will not pay for Charles' treatments, but the parents have raised sufficient funds to get treatment elsewhere. This story should tell us everything that an American needs to know about socialized medicine.

Here's a small list of the lessons to be learned:

1) The U. S. health care system has been scrutinized day-in and day-out by foreign governments, as well as single-payer advocates in America. However, the United Kingdom, whose health care is run by the government, and who is a first world country of high reputation, does not have the treatment needed to help this boy. Their socialized medicine has not brought about excellent health care. Government run programs are always terrible, compared to what the free market (in this case, in the United States) can provide us.

2) Socialized medicine is unjust. It takes our freedom to live and puts it in the hands of a corrupt government. The court has found one justification after another concerning why they will not release Charles to the United States, let alone to his own parents. The courts formerly ordered that his life support be removed and that he would be allowed to die in the hospital. His parents asked to take him home, or at least to hospice, and the courts refused their requests. If the child is going to die anyways, why must the hospital keep him under all circumstances?

3) Politician after politician in the United States have advocated for a single-payer system claiming that the free market allows for people to die in the streets if they cannot afford health care. This case proves exactly the opposite. The government is too stingy to cough up the money needed to save this boy's life. Furthermore, private citizens donated money to ensure the survival of Charles. The free market allows for charitable efforts by individuals to save the lives of those who could not otherwise afford necessary treatments.

Looking at the history of the ACA, in America, stories like this should be of no surprise. Remember when Obama told the daughter of an elderly woman that the ACA would forgo life saving treatments for her mother in favor of a pain pill? Remember when Sarah Palin claimed that the ACA would create death panels to determine what patients would live and which ones would die? If not, I am certain you remember the promise that the ACA would reduce premiums and deductibles by thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, those promises were lies and people's payments increased upward of 100%. Today, the ACA has not created affordable health care and has hardly provided insurance for anyone. If anything the high deductibles and ludicrous premiums have ensured that people, although having insurance, will not receive health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, please pray for baby Charles and his parents. I can only imagine the anguish they must be experiencing as their baby slips away from them. Pray that the courts realize their errors and release Charles back to his parents. Sadly, I am extremely pessimistic in this instance. The problem is that, according to Great Britain's health care system, Charles' parents are no longer the responsible party for his well-being. Life or death is in the hands of the government. This is a place where you never want to find yourself.

www.williamhseng.com

References:

http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/30/charlie-gard/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/what-is-right-for-baby-charlie-gard.html
http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/07/06/matt-walsh-slams-the-uk-over-the-case-of-charlie-gard-every-life-is-of-infinite-value/

Freedom Isn't Free

Freedom isn't free. It takes fighting and our military to protect our freedom. It takes fearless men and women to battle against communist dictators, who want to take away the freedom of individuals for their own gain. Dictators want all the money and all the power, and only look out for their own well-being. They eliminate all who happen to get in the way of their agendas. But, here in America, we have freedom. We have the freedom to go to church, to own property, to have a family, and to look out for our own well-being.

We also have the freedom to work. Many people, unfortunately, do not appreciate that opportunity. They support more regulations on companies, which limits our freedom and our progress as a country. Government control over these big corporations never does anyone any good.

McDonald's is a great example. Their stock had been plummeting since the end of last year, due to the threats that minimum wage would be increased to $15 an hour. This would have made situations difficult for any company to suddenly have to pay employees double their current wages. Well, McDonald's stock has drastically bounced back. Why? They, along with other restaurants, decided to go around the government regulations. They eliminated thousands of employees and replaced them with computerized ordering systems. Restaurants, once considered to be a great place for young people to find jobs, are no longer reliable opportunities for teaching our youth responsibility and the value of a pay check.

For McDonald's, this is great. Computers are more reliable than people. They don't need paid, they don't need lunch breaks, and they won't show up late for work. Where McDonald's used to be the champion for those seeking an entry level job, the future will look much different. A higher mandatory wage does not improve people's lifestyles, it kills their jobs. After all, if they were able to keep their jobs for the time, who would buy a $12 Big Mac? For those whose pay would not change, they would not be able to afford the goods and services that they once enjoyed.

Government regulations never help the economy, and they don't bring us the freedom to work for what we want. So, let's stop asking Washington for help in taking away our freedoms. Instead, let's appreciate the opportunity that we have in the great country to work and to make a life for ourselves and our family.

www.williamhseng.com

Martin Luther and Melanchthon: Strengthening the Church Body

"I had to fight with rabble and devils, for which reason my books are very warlike. I am the rough pioneer who must break the road; but Master Philip comes along softly and gently, sows and waters heartily, since God has richly endowed him with gifts." - Martin Luther

It is uncertain concerning what many people think of the church reformer, Martin Luther. At times, it appears that people hold him up as a saint. Others would suggest that he was a devilishly crude mad man. What cannot be denied, at least as far as the protestant movement is concerned, is that he did a remarkable work for the glory of God.

It is important that believers do not exalt certain gifts inside of the church above others. It has fascinated me that it is quite often the case that those who embrace a simple faith will often demean those who put deeper thought into the matters of God (through science, philosophy, theology, or other intellectual disciplines). Likewise, those who have a very thought-out faith will demean the faith of those who are not as interested in some of the more sophisticated mysteries of the universe and God. Those who contend for the faith are often seen as dividers, while those who live quiet, Christian lives are seen as role models for the church, and stalwarts of the faith.

It seems like only a select number of front line warriors are accepted by their Christian brethren. Most of them are viewed as controversial, and their gifts are viewed as unnecessary in the church. Martin Luther is probably one of the most controversial Christian figures inside of the church since Jesus. He often employed harsh language when battling those who had corrupted sound doctrine of the faith. His number one opponent happened to be the Pope, the leader of the worldwide church at the time. 

Here is one example of the scathing comments that Luther used against the Pope: " What devilish, unchristian thing would you not undertake? You are an extraordinary creature, being neither God nor man. Perhaps you are the devil himself. Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?"(Why the Books of Pope Were Burned from Vol. 31 of Luther's Works).

Luther did not pad his words when he pointed out the evils happening at the highest levels of church leadership. Was it always justified when he spoke brashly? Many people would say "no" and would be right in so doing. Nonetheless, this does not make Luther a reprobate, but an imperfect sinner who was trying to fulfill a very difficult mission assigned to him by God. Luther's counterpart and good friend was Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon. Melanchthon was renowned for his quiet demeanor, his ability to please people, and his love for the natural world. Looking at Melanchthon's personality, he and Martin Luther would have been the last people you would have picked to be friends. However, they appreciated one another's callings in life and understood that God was using them both uniquely to fulfill a specific task for His glory. Contending for the faith is not a pretty thing at times. We as Christians prefer the peaceful melody of Amazing Grace over the war march nature of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. The reality is that both need to be embraced. Those who put themselves on the front lines will not only face scrutiny by their fellow man, but attacks from the devil, as well.  Martin Luther needed Melanchthon to encourage him to continue his fight against the corrupt teachings being promoted inside of the church. Philip Melanchthon, in return, needed Martin Luther to continue the march onward against the forces of wickedness. Melanchthon could edify those who had been damaged by cruel and unjust doctrines enforced by the politicized church. The Church of God needs to embrace those who are its own. It is true that there may have been better ways to address the evils back in the days of Luther, but, then again, maybe not. www.williamhseng.com

Contradictions in the Bible: Part 1

One of the most common complaints against the Bible is a long list of contradictions, pointed out by skeptics. Chief among these complaints would be how different the God of the Old Testament is from the God of the New Testament.

The God of the Old Testament is perceived to be a God of wrath, blood shed, and judgment. In Genesis, he floods the world and kills everyone and everything with the exception of a boat load of people and animals. He commands very bizarre things, like circumcision of male babies, sacrifice of children, and the killing of entire nations (men, women, and children). Foreign nations that willfully surrendered to the armies of Israel were forced into slavery. The God of the Old Testament seems cruel and irrational.

In the New Testament, a man named Jesus is introduced. It appears that he's against everything the Old Testament God teaches. He says to forgive and to not judge people. He says to be merciful, humble, and righteous. He preaches about a God that deeply loves His people so much that He sent Jesus (His Son) to die for the sins of the world. Upon His death, it was preached that God had made peace with the world. These two Gods seem totally different. What's the deal?

The deal is that there really is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Although it is perceived, by critics, that the God of the Old Testament is cruel, they fail to see that God created man in his own image out of love. Mankind became corrupt through free will, and God began to judge his people. Often times in the Old Testament, God is gracious to his people. He displays this grace through covenants.

From the third chapter of Genesis onward, it is clear that mankind had become corrupt. The corruption of mankind's once innocent nature resulted in murder, war, adultery, lying, stealing, idolatry, and a multitude of other evils that were a direct attack against the righteous God who created all things. In this respect, mankind deserved to be wiped from the face of the planet. However, starting with Noah, a series of promises were made by God to ensure that mankind would be able to have a relationship to the God that created them. The most significant of the promises was sealed through the giving of laws to Moses.

Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus issued commands that could be found in the Old Testament Law. He also became a sacrifice to save mankind. This was God's plan out of his goodness.

The promises that God made to humanity, to conditionally maintain His relationship, are known as covenants. Although there are more than two covenants in the Bible, the Christian Bible is best understood by two: the covenant with Moses and the covenant through Jesus. Jesus taught all of the same things as Moses, but He revealed that He would fulfill the requirements of the law through His death. This was not something that Jesus (or the Apostle Paul) made up, it was something predicted in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:31-32, 34b (a passage found in the Old Testament) reads,

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, 
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt...
“For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

This is the covenant referenced by Jesus at the establishment of communion worship, where He and His disciples ate bread and drank wine together in what would be practiced in memory of His sacrifice. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20).

In the Gospel of John, we can see the implications of the New Covenant through Jesus: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Grace is shown through the forgiveness of sins, and truth is shown through the knowledge of the one true God.

The character of God does not waver from the beginning of the Bible to its end. In fact, there are times in the Old Testament where God is remarkably gracious and loving and times in the New Testament where God exercises judgment (i.e. the book of Revelation). The Old Testament introduces the New Covenant and the New Testament announces the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

www.williamhseng.com

Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening: Part 2

I think I would be in agreement with people on both sides of the spectrum by saying it would be absurd to assert that people in the Medieval period were better off than people today (at least in the civilized world). Technology, overall, has been good for mankind. But technology is not the measure of human progress nor is reason. Morality and humanitarianism are the measures of human progress and these can only be promoted through religious ideals. What must first happen, before a better civilization can emerge, is revival.

Revival is often misunderstood by people outside and inside the church. It is not a massive evangelistic effort that is focused on winning new converts. Revival happens when the people who belong to the church, as believers in Jesus Christ, become serious about their faith on a corporate level and start doing the things that God has called them to do. In terms of our premise of morality and humanitarianism, revival calls Christians to get right with God and walk in the ways of Jesus. This fulfills the moral and humanitarian requirements to signify if true progress is being made.

Awakening is a result of massive revival. There were two Great Awakenings. The first focused on church-going people as a call to personal holiness and genuine faith in Jesus Christ. The second emphasized winning over the souls of people who were not yet Christians. I contest that in both instances, new converts were actually the focus. In the mid to late 1900s, a far greater number of Americans were attending church. I am sure that some of them were devout Christians, while others were merely going to church out of obligation. Those who were only going out of pure obligation can hardly be considered genuine converts to the Christian faith. Likewise, there appeared to be a spiritual deadness inside of the church prior to the first Awakening. Those who were spiritually dead needed to be awakened, thus the title "The Great Awakening."

Don't get the impression that enlightenment is all about intellectual progress and awakening is only about spiritual/moral progress. Truth be told, reason has been a tool of believers for several millennia; it was a hallmark of genuine faith before Christ, but, even more so, as a result of Christ! Most fields of science have been discovered by believers and have merely been hijacked by enlightened folk. Regarding technology, Christians seek to utilize technology for the good of man, while enlightened folk seem to want to suppress wide use of technology for the good of Mother Earth.

Like all quasi secular to full blown secular movements, the Enlightenment started off beautifully, but has produced some disgusting fruit. Revival and Awakening have been the counter forces that have called people back to a reasonable standard of morality and humanitarianism. Enlightenment, through secular reasoning, has determined that we need to be the friend of Mother Earth above all else. Those who have been Awakened, on the other hand, have determined that humanity is the most valuable being on the physical planet and that Father God is the one whom we should seek to please.

www.williamhseng.com

Man Murders Muslims in London

Yesterday, a 47 year old white man drove a van into a crowd of Muslims gathered at a Mosque to pray. They were fulfilling their duties during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. It is suspected that the man is a right wing extremist, and it is being investigated concerning whether or not his action could be considered an act of terror. The people of Great Britain, "conservatives" and liberals, are rushing to microphones, TV cameras, and social media (no doubt) to condemn this act of violence.

I condemn all wicked acts carried out. However, I must point out the extreme hypocrisy in the mainstream media affiliated with this act of violence. Whenever there is an act of violence carried out by a Muslim extremist (in America, Great Britain, France, or otherwise) the government and the media immediately come out with a statement to downplay the act of terrorism. They state that they do not have enough information, and they do not want to jump to any conclusions too soon.  After it is learned that an Islamic terrorist is involved, the media and the government continuously caution the public from speaking out against Muslim extremists. Even though the Radical Islamist groups (terrorist organizations) support all of these attacks, the response from the media and the government is that, "We cannot find any link that might suggest that these attacks are part of a coordinated effort." Terrorism is defined through a movement, and this is definitely a movement to eradicate all of the non-Muslims in Europe. They declare their allegiance to Allah and to Radical Islamist terror.

What is more disturbing is that we are told, time and time again that we need to understand why these Muslim extremists are committing such crimes. After they commit another act of terror, we are to be sympathetic. Who in their right mind would be sympathetic to a group of people that is together solely for the purpose of stabbing, and shooting, and bombing people who do not ascribe to the same values? When an Islamic Extremist strikes and kills innocent people in our streets, we are supposed to believe that this is retaliatory action, even though they pledge allegiance to Allah. We strike the Middle East in an effort to get the governments to stop slaughtering their own people. The Western world must continue to fight against these groups of people.

Concerning this man yesterday that ran over innocent Muslims, his situation is not being approached with caution. Every group that could possibly exploit this story for their own gain are already ascribing motifs to this man's action. He claimed that he wants to "kill all Muslims."

Europe has experienced numerous Islamic terror attacks the past few months. Muslim extremists have ended many innocent lives by running people over vans, stabbing them in the streets, decapitating priests, detonating bombs, shooting people, and committing all kinds of violent acts in the name of Allah. The Muslim extremists have been brutal, disgusting, and completely savage.

Could it be that this man, yesterday, was tired of the media and the government ignoring all of these acts of violence? This problem in Europe is too big to fight for one person alone, and it seems that the governments in Europe are far from beginning the fight. The fight begins with addressing that there is a connection between these inhumane acts.

Why are we saying that this man is a far-right extremist? Why are we saying he has possible connections to Nazis? For anyone unaware, the Nazi party is a left leaning progressive movement. Concerning far-right extremism, that is normally affiliated with religious groups, not terror organizations. What religious groups, outside of Islam, have a significant presence in Great Britain? Last I knew, Christianity was on its way out the door. This "act of terror" is likely just a lone wolf.

This man should be held accountable for the evil deed he committed just yesterday. Nonetheless, the British government, as well as the media, should take this as a call to action. Not against far-right extremism, but as a call for them to protect their own people. This man was clearly troubled that no one was doing anything to stop the spread of radical Islamic extremism, and he had enough. As a result, he took out his anger against a crowd of innocent Muslims. He, indeed, needs held accountable for his actions. But, if the British government, as well as other European governments, don't get their act together to duly condemn Islamic terror attacks, people are going to rise up. God help us all.

Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening: Part 1

Has enlightenment ever truly accomplished anything meaningful? Seriously. I know that people often point to the period known as the Enlightenment as a time where we put aside our childish and superstitious ways to pursue a more reasonable worldview. Well, I question that assertion. For one, the Medieval period was not as bad as it was claimed to be. However, even if it was, the Enlightenment has not produced fruit that is much better, if at all better, than the Great Awakening, let alone Medieval Times. Thus, the Western world needs another Great Awakening, as it puts aside the so-called fruits of enlightenment.

This is not a condemnation of the period that we know as the Enlightenment. Britannica.com sums up the fruit of the Enlightenment as, "the belief that human history is a record of general progress." In a general sense, this is correct. Mankind has made remarkable improvements in terms of technology, government, and even humanitarian outreach. This only makes sense as this was a time in history when the belief was popularized that mankind was inherently good and should seek the greatest good.

The fruit of Enlightenment, however, has ultimately manifested in the idea that mankind is its own worst enemy. It justified the ideology of secular humanism; that God does not exist and that mankind is the ruler of its own destiny. At first, this sounded great, as remnants of a theistic worldview lingered within its movement. As the enlightened individuals started to realize that their movement eliminated the necessity for God, all of a sudden the world became a giant free-for-all or survival of the fittest. Evolutionary thought dominated the secular community and all of a sudden the progress which had been made became the bane of society.

Evolutionists will ask creationists, "How can you refuse to believe in evolution and yet still use a smart phone, a computer, or even a toaster?" Aside from the false premise of this question (that evolution is the basis for all modern thought, thus all technological achievements), the evolutionists are the ones who seek to destroy the very industries that make such technology possible. This sounds absurd, but its true. 

You see, these enlightened individuals are the same people who are decrying fossil fuels, nuclear power, and even the procreation of human life in the name of Mother Earth. They believe that pollution, mostly in the form of carbon emissions, is quickly leading the environment into a global catastrophe that could destroy a significant portion of life. Essentially, they believe that the technologies they have created have made life so good and so prosperous that life will, ironically, not be sustainable in a few decades of time due to the ramifications of overpopulation. This being the case, was not the Medieval period ultimately more ideal according to the standards of these enlightened folk?

Stay tuned for Part 2 of Enlightenment, Revival, and Awakening...

What Love is Not

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." ~ 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

What follows this statement in verses 4-7 is a description of what love is. What I am about to write is in no way disregarding the authors words following what I have cited above. Last night, as I worked at my new job, I was reflecting on what loving God means. Jesus puts it very clear in the Gospel of John, "If you love me, keep my commands...Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. (14:15 & 21). There is no meaningful love for God outside of obedience.

We fool ourselves by substituting the love God commands us toward with the love that the world promotes. The world does not know love. Worldly love is more like well wishing or high thoughts towards someone. It is manifest in words, at best, but more likely just in our thoughts and attitudes towards people. This is not bad, but it is hardly the type of love that God has called us towards.

As stated in the verse above, we also fool ourselves by thinking that exercising spiritual gifts is how we love God. It uses several examples to show people that they need to be careful not to confuse spiritual power with love for God. It mentions tongues, prophecy, miracles, giving, and suffering as false examples of the love of God.

Some people in the church hold their ability to perform miracles in high regard. However, performing miracles does not necessarily even validate genuine faith. There will be people that perform miracles, and Jesus will say to them "Get away from me you evil doer. I never knew you." It is not the miracle, it is the faith in Jesus Christ that saves us.

Love is not measured by our positive thoughts towards someone, and it is not measured by our ability to perform miracles. Love is measured by our obedience towards God.

Bible and Science: False Premise Old Earth

After their first year of college, an overwhelming majority of Christian youths give up their faith in favor of an atheistic worldview built upon the foundation of evolution. Granted this reality, it is reasonable for evolutionists to claim that the belief in evolution is not based off of presuppositions, but scientific proof that is irrefutable. After all, the presupposition of the believer is that God exists. The presupposition of the non-believer is that there is no God. Thus, if your presupposition can only be swayed based on strong evidence to the contrary, clearly the secular concept of evolution is the only premise that holds up against scientific scrutiny. But, consider the possibility that the premise of the atheist is not that God doesn’t exist. What if there is another factor that makes the theory of evolution appealing and atheism the likely conclusion that both believers and non-believers hold in common? I contest, this X factor exists and it is nothing less than the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.

The first assumption by most Christian apologists is that the presupposition that sways people toward disbelief is something more like evolution. I contest that most Christians used to be taught that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the teachings of the Bible. Saying that things naturally evolved from a non-living state into complex organisms completely eliminates the necessity of God, in most people’s minds. If not, it at least discredits the possibility of a literal Biblical Creation. Young people are normally the ones who are swayed toward disbelief, through the teaching of evolution, but not exclusive to the idea that the world is billions of years old.

From the earliest days of my memory, I remember learning from a variety of sources that the earth was billions of years old. In all of my years in public school I was never even exposed to Young Earth Creationism, be it in the church, on television, or in the classroom. It was my freshman year of high school when I was first exposed to the notion that some people believed that the world was no more than 10,000 years old. And the way it was presented to me was from my biology teacher.

He was talking about the theory of evolution and wanted his students to be clear that it does not necessarily teach that there is no God. But, he asserted, the belief in God is not scientific. And there are groups out there who believe that they can prove that the belief in God is scientific.  These people, he told us, are creationists. Creationism, he dictated, is not science. If you needed any proof that creationism was not science, creationists believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

After hearing him say that, my conclusion was, “He’s right. Creationism cannot be science because it is a proven fact that the earth is billions of years old.” To suggest that the world is any younger than billions of years means you are not intelligent and possibly crazy. Even worse, it could mean that you are a science denier. Why?

The central doctrine to Institutionalized Science is evolution and evolution cannot happen aside from billions of years. The likelihood of anything evolving in a godless universe are practically zero. The logic of evolutionists acknowledges that the odds are nearly non-existent, but that that there is a slim chance. Given a really really long span of time, something will evolve.

For me, what saved my belief in God was that I 1) recognized that the evolutionary origins of the cosmos were purely speculative and 2) I saw no reason why the six day creation account in the Bible should be deemed false, figurative, or anything less than literal. I reasoned that if the God of the Bible were real and that He could create the universe using evolutionary processes (that take billions of years), could He not have created the universe in six literal days as the Bible says? If God is all powerful, can He not do immense things that humans cannot comprehend as being possible? If so, why would we render the likelihood of a literal six day creation account impossible?

The answer to this last question is nothing less than, “science teaches us that it took longer.” That is faulty reasoning. The conclusions of science are purely speculative based on assumptions (some rooted in observation, others that are not). Modern science assumes that natural processes are responsible for the universe as it currently exists. If I choose to believe in an all powerful God, why would I not choose also to believe His inspired Word (the Bible)? God reveals that He created the universe in six days in Genesis chapter one. As a believer in Jesus Christ, as Lord and Savior, I find no other option for the believer than to accept God's Word as it is written and to accept a literal six day Creation Account. For me, what I found more difficult, was to come to terms with the Young Earth model of creation.

With two decades worth of indoctrination, telling me that the universe was billions of years old, my old presuppositions did not die easily. I don’t even remember the exact reason I abandoned the Old Earth model, but I think it had to do with the historic nature of dinosaurs in the form of dragons. Because of my former beliefs, I understand why people think Young Earth Creationists are crazy. I also know that the reasons they won’t lend an ear to creationists are pride, arrogance, and ignorance. I know this because THAT was me.

www.williamhseng.com

Velociraptor: Not a 6 Foot Turkey

Have you ever heard of the cassowary? It is an enormous bird that lives in New Guinea. It is a remarkable bird with a feathery coat, scaley legs, and a blue head with a thick bill-like crest on top. The cassowary can run up to 30 miles an hour and is only smaller than the ostrich in the bird kingdom. Some would say that looking at this bird is like getting a glimpse of its ancient ancestors, the dinosaurs.

One educational video I watched about this bird portrayed a man visiting one of these birds in an up close encounter. It was a supervised visit, because these birds can be hostile towards people and could deliver a deadly blow with one of its powerful legs. The crest upon its head is reminiscent of some dinosaur species. As the host of this program described, it bobs its head up and down like the velociraptors from Jurassic Park. Think about that statement for a moment. Does a cassowary move like the velociraptors from Juraasic Park or did the velicraptors from this movie move like a cassowary?

Clearly, the veliciraptors, from the movie, moved like a cassowary. The creators of Jurassic Park, in trying to figure out how a velociraptor moves, took the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds and observed birds to figure out how some of the dinosaurs may have moved. Unfortunately, this is where we have arrived with paleontology. We assume that everything has undergone evolution. Thus, it is reasonable to say that this bird moves like a velociraptor.

How did velociraptors move? That is a difficult question to answer. Nobody has ever observed a velociraptor in motion; thus, it is impossible to know exactly how it moved. The problem is that pop culture has forged an image of how various dinosaurs moved. For instance, people believe that the triceratops moved like an ox, tyrannosaurus rex moved like a large bird, the large long necked dinosaurs moved like elephants. These assumptions are virtually unquestioned today.

In addition, evolutionists are presupposing that dinosaurs had feathers. This assumption brings people to believe that birds move like dinosaurs, when, in reality, we just portray dinosaurs moving like birds. The only sources of information that scientists have concerning dinosaurs in motion is their footprints, postures, and other fossilized tracks that have been uncovered. Scientists can also study
creatures that most resemble them in today's world. Today, the closest creatures we have to dinosaurs are other reptiles.

Let's stop passing along the fairy tale stories (in educational material) to our kids, when the stories reflect nothing more than our imagination.

Global Elitists Propagate Terrorism

*Propagate means to spread, to promote, and to cultivate, according to Google.com.

A sad reality is being exposed through the frequency of terror attacks in today's world: the global elite of the world do not care a bit about the average citizen.

The reasonable response to a terror attack would be to take measures to defeat those who make threats of terror so that they are not successful in carrying out their wishes. The global elite, on the other hand, have decided to normalize terror. After a terror incident in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan told the public that there is nothing to be concerned about. President Donald Trump issued a Tweet criticizing the statement by pointing out facts. With at least 7 people dead and 48 injured, how can a public servant expect his constituency to not be concerned?

Khan's solution is to increase the police presence in London, and that's not a bad start. Nonetheless, it appears that he is looking at this as an isolated incident. He's treating it as though it is Chicago and the issue is that there are warring gangs. That is not the case. An extremist segment of a prominent religious organization has declared war on Western civilization. In Europe there have already been multiple terror attacks this month alone. With the accumulation of all of the attacks and with their frequency, there is only one conclusion: these are not isolated incidents. It is all part of the declared plan to destroy the Western way of life. This is terrorism and the terrorists will not discriminate in choosing their victims.

Take France, as a more troubling example. Instead of upping their efforts to combat terror on any level, they have chosen to impose a tax upon its citizens so that after terror attacks happen, the families of the victims can be duly compensated. So it is a terror tax. Somehow, the politicians in France think that financial compensation is a reasonable way to handle the lose of loved ones.

Or what about Germany? Despite clear evidence that terrorist organizations were plotting to infiltrate refugee programs in Europe and America, Chancellor Merkel declared that Germany would increase their intake of refugees. Certain politicians in America proposed the same thing and were fortunately denied.

The only globally recognized official, at this point, that seems to understand the devastation of Islamic terrorism around the world is none other than President Trump! After each terrrorist incident, he expresses his deep sorrow and condolences towards those affected by the incidents and then vows to combat Islamic terrorism. Despite his reputation for being harsh against Muslims, he issued a counter strike against Syria for killing its own civilians with toxic gas. A CNN news anchor asked a Syrian refugee, who was settled in Germany, what he thought about President Trump's action and the refugee praised Trump for being the only one in the world who cared about the injustice happening in Syria. Furthermore, the refugee then stated that refugees did not want to be relocated in other countries, but wanted to return to their homes. He concluded that actions, such as Trump's strike against Syrian military targets, were the type of actions that were needed in order to bring refugees back to their home countries.

So, are the global elitists (as described in England, France, and Germany) just stupid? Probably, but it is not pure stupidity that drives their decision making. We can only speculate their goals, based on their elitist mentalities.

For the average person, we know that A + B = C. We know that terrorists + terrorists being let in to a civilized society = more terror attacks. If "C" is the most undesirable result, why do the elites not change "B?" Why do the elites keep letting more terrorists into their countries?? It obviously is not for the well-being of their people.