February 25th, 2014

Currently…

I am a counselor in training— growing is hard.

February 25th, 2013
christusexemplar:

Though I respect the sincerity of the responder to his anonymous inquirer, the argument could address more than what he has already established here. The inquirer is asking for “proof” of God’s existence. First it must be asked what the inquirer means by “proof”. If he means scientific proof, then he is looking for something along the lines of some proposition (e.g. “God exists”) being empirically verified by means of observation, hypothesis, deduction, falsification, and etc. 
Scientific proof (usually used in the flawed sense) is really a reference to a logical method of investigation known as induction. Induction is moving from specific examples to a general statement about the examples. For example, in a closed system things fall if not supported, hence gravity. 
The limitation of this method is that unless one is working with an necessarily limited set (meaning that there is only a limited number of examples of the item one is generalizing about) one can never say that she has knowledge as a unknown example may not conform to the rule that one developed. This is why scientific method can never really provide knowledge strictly speaking and at best provides degrees of probability.
If he means philosophical proof, then the same proposition (“God exists”) could be substantiated on the basis of logical deduction. Lastly he could also be referring to historical proof, but that insists that God could be substantiated by some means of observable archaeological, paleontological [or what have you], evidence to where the historian can look and examine God’s existence that way. It is of course not by science nor historical methods can we “proof” the existence of God because God (according to traditional theism) cannot be verified by natural or empirical means, nor by detected by some method of historical discourse.
Philosophical proof, which may or may not include scientific claims, in its deductive form offers logical proof for a particular claim which, I am convinced, can actually be stronger than scientific proof. Legal proof is an evidence based medium that that offers criterion for what evidence is acceptable in support of a claim and can be very powerful proof in a given argument. Historical arguments have their own criterion for what rises to proof and though the arguments in this discipline are probability based, experts can and do distinguish between stronger and weaker probabilities.

christusexemplar:

Though I respect the sincerity of the responder to his anonymous inquirer, the argument could address more than what he has already established here. The inquirer is asking for “proof” of God’s existence. First it must be asked what the inquirer means by “proof”. If he means scientific proof, then he is looking for something along the lines of some proposition (e.g. “God exists”) being empirically verified by means of observation, hypothesis, deduction, falsification, and etc. 

Scientific proof (usually used in the flawed sense) is really a reference to a logical method of investigation known as induction. Induction is moving from specific examples to a general statement about the examples. For example, in a closed system things fall if not supported, hence gravity. 

The limitation of this method is that unless one is working with an necessarily limited set (meaning that there is only a limited number of examples of the item one is generalizing about) one can never say that she has knowledge as a unknown example may not conform to the rule that one developed. This is why scientific method can never really provide knowledge strictly speaking and at best provides degrees of probability.

If he means philosophical proof, then the same proposition (“God exists”) could be substantiated on the basis of logical deduction. Lastly he could also be referring to historical proof, but that insists that God could be substantiated by some means of observable archaeological, paleontological [or what have you], evidence to where the historian can look and examine God’s existence that way. It is of course not by science nor historical methods can we “proof” the existence of God because God (according to traditional theism) cannot be verified by natural or empirical means, nor by detected by some method of historical discourse.

Philosophical proof, which may or may not include scientific claims, in its deductive form offers logical proof for a particular claim which, I am convinced, can actually be stronger than scientific proof. Legal proof is an evidence based medium that that offers criterion for what evidence is acceptable in support of a claim and can be very powerful proof in a given argument. Historical arguments have their own criterion for what rises to proof and though the arguments in this discipline are probability based, experts can and do distinguish between stronger and weaker probabilities.

(via stevenchristus17-deactivated201)

February 7th, 2013
January 22nd, 2013

wisdomfish:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
   
(Galatians 5:16-26 ESV)

(Source: zenpencils.com)

January 21st, 2013
I am found. I am yours. I am loved. I’m made pure. I have life. I can breathe. I am healed. I am free, cause You are strong. You are sure. You are life. You endure. You are good, always true. You are light breaking through. You are more than enough. You are here. You are love. You are hope. You are grace. You’re all I have. You’re everything.
Here’s My Heart -David Crowder (via more-than-conquerors837)

(via hiscalledlovewarrior)

January 19th, 2013
January 7th, 2013
I’ve told the Lord I want to be an obedient servant, and He shot back, “And are you willing to face grief and pain or whatever it takes for Me to make you that?” Even though I felt unable, I said, “What choice do I have? I know too much to drop the ball now. There’s no turning back.” I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid. But He has brought me this far and already my joy is unspeakable.
Passion and Purity  (via coffeeishtea)

(Source: kelseyfindingbeauty, via oceanswithoutdepths-deactivated)

January 1st, 2013

amartyrschallenge:

Take me
Break me
Mold me
Use me 

December 26th, 2012

I stand before You, Awed by Your Majesty
Covered by Your mercy, Your blood has made me free
Draw me to You, and set my heart on fire

I want to Know, 
Your my one desire

I give you my worship
All of my Passion
I give you my whole heart
All my devotion

Grace never ending, Your hands they carry me
Your body is broken for all the world to see
My heart is held by love so unconditional

You captivate me 
Your the lover of my soul

I give you my worship
All of my Passion
I give you my whole heart
All my devotion

Here I will bow down
Say that I need You
Here I will worship
Say that I love you

Oh how I love you (4x)

I want to know You
Let Your Spirit overwhelm me
Let Your Presence overtake my heart

December 18th, 2012
The more we let God take us over, the more truly ourselves we become - because He made us. He invented us.
C. S. Lewis  (via mordaciouslyyours)

(Source: strategos, via mordaciouslyyours)

December 14th, 2012
newyorker:


This is the way that we deal with such incidents in the U.S.—we acknowledge them; we are, briefly, shocked by them; then we term it impolite to discuss their implications, and to argue about them. At some point, we will have to stop putting it off, stop pretending that doing so is the proper, respectful thing. It’s not either. It’s cowardice.

Alex Koppelman on the school shooting in Newtown, CT, and the right day to talk about gun control: http://nyr.kr/TZgCVM
Photograph by Michelle McLoughlin/Reuters.

newyorker:

This is the way that we deal with such incidents in the U.S.—we acknowledge them; we are, briefly, shocked by them; then we term it impolite to discuss their implications, and to argue about them. At some point, we will have to stop putting it off, stop pretending that doing so is the proper, respectful thing. It’s not either. It’s cowardice.

Alex Koppelman on the school shooting in Newtown, CT, and the right day to talk about gun control: http://nyr.kr/TZgCVM

Photograph by Michelle McLoughlin/Reuters.

(via austinyourface)

November 14th, 2012
The greatest knowledge we can ever have is knowing God treasures us.
October 3rd, 2012
The thing about being an adult, that no one tells you when you’re growing up, is that you don’t feel like an adult. All your stupid insecurities and anxieties, they’re still there. Only you feel even more stupid and insecure about being stupid and insecure because you’re not suppose to be stupid and insecure anymore. You’re supposed to have the answers, you’re supposed to know—but we don’t always know. And those answers, they’re not alway easy to come by.
Emily Owens, MD
September 4th, 2012
My faith rests not on what I am or shall be, or feel, or know, but in who Christ is, in what He has done, and in what He is now doing for me.
Charles Spurgeon  (via beauty-for-ashes)

(via a-friend-of-god)