OK, I’m ready to admit I have a problem–a lack of consistency in my life. I do a lot more thinking on God’s Word than I do reading it. The only thing I have been consistent about reading the Bible is consistently forgetting to do it or doing it “later.” I have been resting on Ps. 37 for a while. I think there is much the Lord wants to show me here.
Ps. 37:3 “Trust in the Lord and do good; Dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness.”
Cultivate faithfulness. What does it mean to cultivate faithfulness. How do I do that? What does that even look like? Hmm, it is probably the opposite of inconsistency.
Deut. 30:20 … “by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and holding fast to Him;”
How do I cultivate faithfulness? By loving God, obeying His voice, and trusting Him.
Psalm 37 says to delight in the Lord, commit your way to Him and trust Him. So cultivating faithfulness does not begin with a checklist. It begins with a heart attitude of trust. Perhaps thinking on Gods’ Word is not the end of my faithfulness, but the beginning. A mind and heart focused on the Lord is a heart that is prepared to have faith and to cultivate that faith in otheres. I need to put away the shame that the enemy tries to make me wear becuase I failed my “to-do” list. I may have failed mine, while at the same time accomplished the Lord’s purposes.
Crave 
Thanks! Just what I was thinking about today.
Hi… Nance, I appreciate the way you fight the good fight.
Rick, thank you for responding to part of my comment. I’d be interested to hear your origin of life theory.
If there is no truth, can something be erroneous? I’ll have to consider that one, and really, I’d rather avoid word games. So, I’m happy to leave it alone since I am comfortable that I understand what you are saying.
Empiricism is a fairly broad philosophical school of thought. Could you narrow that down a bit?
I should make it clear at this point, I am not a formally educated philosopher. I am very much a lay person in terms of philosophy and theology. I am 44 years old. All I really know about the Bible, my “true north”, I have learned in the past 10 years… the same for philosophical history in general.
The primary reason I came to believe the Bible is because it makes logical sense to me, and no other philosophy does. It’s not even close. Christianity as a world view explains everything we know about the reality in which we live…
Rick, let me tell you, I spent quite a bit of time as a skeptic. Not openly, but in my heart and mind. It did not make sense to me (1 Corinthians 1:18-31). One thing I have going for me… I am honestly in search of the truth – reality if you prefer. In this way, I approached God and asked that if He is real and listening to me, please show me clearly. It wasn’t a test but an honest, heartfelt request (James 1:5-8; Philippians 4:5-7). He answered.
I want to be clear… I don’t know everything. We can’t know anything exhaustively, but we can know truly. I ask you questions in an effort to convince you concerning an infinite, personal Creator. I hope you consider the evidence and decide to believe the Bible concerning Jesus. But, I also ask you questions because I realize that I can learn from you as well. Concerning empiricism, for instance, there is no reason why that school of thought can’t be incorporated into a Christian world view… John Locke showed that. Even Rationalism, which proved to be a slippery slope, does not in its original form (Descartes) preclude Christian belief. To me, we are arguing about how God chose to make it all work. I am not in the least threatened by your doubts nor by your questions. I welcome a more exhaustive understanding of the truth.
oh, and before you hastily respond Nance, some ground rules:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for.php
Feel free to ignore tho comments, or better yet, make a comment! There is no crime in being surrounded by heathens and sinners. Just as JESUS.
Just to be clear.
You aren’t the one making the rules here.
Yes, dear, we all know how disgusted the secularists are that I did not include a link on one of my comments. It was corrected three weeks ago. Funny how cursing, insulting and degrading someone for holding an opposing view is morally acceptable to you, but leaving a link out of a comment is morally reprehensible. If you are looking to me to be Christ, you are going to be sorely dissappointed. I recognized my need for a Savior 36 years ago when I was 4. I need him as much today as I did then.
I will ask you the same question I asked morsecode, now that we have some understanding your version of reality. What evidence could God provide that would convince you of His existence?
Nance, A) was a statement about scripture. You thought of the other immediately, but in fact, i meant the whole religous tradition that underlies even that. B) was just to remind you that you don’t have the moral high ground by default.
Get off the cross. We aren’t crucifying you. Besides, Christians are compelled to be Christ-like. It has nothing to do with your human shortcomings. Even copping- out morally, Nance? Really?
God is easy to prove- A precambrian Rabbit would crash the whole Theory of Evolution. A self-portrait that is preserved in some time capsule that shouldn’t exist. A rock or somesuch in the antarctic ice-cores with God registered trademark stamped on it. A very particular intelligent phenomenon that can be replicated under labaratory conditions by invoking one of the many Gods (Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance). God is easy.
That said, there is no such evidence, in which case the null hypothesis is observed.
By the way, your appeal to authoritative status is cute, Nance. But now i’m afraid, it is due time for you to answer the questrions posed by all these arguments- No hand- waving please. Make a concerted effort. Please.
Nance, A was a statement about scripture. You thought of the other immediately, but in fact, i meant the whole religous tradition that underlies even that. B was just to remind you that you don’t have the moral high ground by default.
Get off the cross. We aren’t crucifying you. Besides, Christians are compelled to be Christ-like. It has nothing to do with your human shortcomings. Even copping- out morally, Nance? Really?
God is easy to prove- A precambrian Rabbit would crash the whole Theory of Evolution. A self-portrait that is preserved in some time capsule that shouldn’t exist. A rock or somesuch in the antarctic ice-cores with God registered trademark stamped on it. A very particular intelligent phenomenon that can be replicated under labaratory conditions by invoking one of the many Gods (Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance). God is easy.
That said, there is no such evidence, in which case the null hypothesis is observed.
By the way, your appeal to authoritative status is cute, Nance. But now i’m afraid, it is due time for you to answer the questrions posed by all these arguments- No hand- waving please. Make a concerted effort. Please.
I am disappointed in your answer, rick. At least morsecode was honest when he said he did not know. Now you are saying that a precambrian rabbit is all you need to beleive in God? Please.
As far as my not answering your questions, to be fair, you answered one, or attempted to anyway. So I will answer one. Ask away. And please do not ramble forever so that I have to try to decifer the actual question. Just ask a question. I’ll be happy to answer it on your blog.
sorry, feel free to delete the extra comment, including this one
I said that a Precambrian rabbit would ruin evolution. Without evolution, God is a great deal easier to believe. I never said that That would be the only thing that would be necessary. I listed others. Even the miracles that people have claimed to be a do, why not replicate them under conditions we’re able to
study such phenomenon? Like i said. there are many easy ways to prove that God- or at the very least, Godlike powers, exist. I wasn’t being dishonest. Sad that you have to assume that just because my answer was simple and to the point.
My question: If God is perfect, then why aren’t we? After all, we must have been imperfect to begin with if we even had the capacity to sin. Perfection is, by its very nature, immutable, correct?