iPandora

McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.

Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.

Buying votes with your cash.

First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.

But whose money do they use? Yours.

If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.

Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.

It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.

He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.

If only more in the current crop of public megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.

But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.

The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.

The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.

The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:

• We are better at choosing those causes which are actually worthy.
• We’re less likely to be duped in significant numbers and for substantial amounts of money than the government with its fat-handed largess.
• And it doesn’t cost as much for us to get our money to those causes which are worthy, so more money gets to them overall and less is wasted in the endless iterations of bureaucracy.

Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.

Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.

The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.

The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.

Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.

Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.

Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.

Check his closet for skeletons.

Here’s a few funny bits that have got me thinking and kept me laughing in the last few days:

• Top 16
  Wes, Animate Matters

  I was reading a list of Amazon’s top-ten best-selling books mentioned at Vox’s, and it gave me an idea for some fictional titles which would amuse me. And yes, I have too way much time on my hands.

• How To Make A Woman Happy
  MomLovesBeingAtHome

  It’s not difficult to make a woman happy.
  A man only needs to be:
  1. a friend
  2. a companion
  3. a lover
  4. a brother
  5. a father
  6. a master
  7. a chef
  [...and the list goes on, and on, and on...]

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first centuries developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

~ Dr. Richard Lindsen, MIT

I saw a statement from John Stossel, 20/20 reporter, this morning and it got me thinking.

“[S]tudents often ask what can be done about the ‘problem’ of young people who don’t care enough to vote. I always say that I don’t see it as much of problem ‘because most of you don’t know anything yet. I’m OK with you not voting!’ The students laugh, but I’m not joking.“

I agree. Often, voters make decisions without considering their options or looking at the secondary effects of political policies. Take, for example, Social Security.

I was talking with a friend the other day about the relative benefits of a 401(k) versus Social Security.

We were discussing our God-given responsibilities to care for our families and, if given a choice (we don’t have one right now, but hypothetically.) how this responsibility would affect our decision whether to put all our eggs into Social Security or into a 401(k).

At my friend’s current salary, we calculated that he will put $300,000 into Social Security (including the employer portion) over the next 40 years.

Then we calculated the “return” on his investment.

Social Secuirty: If Social Security pays my friend $25,000 a year, he must live 12 years beyond “retirement” to recoup his investment into Social Security. Unfortunately, at this rate, it is not likely he will recoup his investment because his life expectancy is only 75.15 years (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html).

Although his wife will receive a small stipend, his children will get nothing from his investment. Further, $25,000 is close to or below the current federal poverty level. In 40 years, it will be even more so. In fact, it will probably be unlivable.

To be technical, some of these figures are variables. As Social Security becomes more unsustainable, benefits will be cut by increasing the “retirement” age. Also, the average life expectancy will probably be a few years higher in 40 years because of advances in nutrition and medical technology.

401(k)’s: Now for the alternative: If my friend puts the $300,000 into a 401(k) over 40 years until the age of 65, he will have $3,452,839.

Further, if he dies at 75, his wife will have plenty live off of and he will be able to pass the remainder on to his children (more Biblical mandates).

To finish up, here’s the remainder of Stossel’s quote:

“… I only started to think I knew what ought to be done after years of reporting and reading voraciously to absorb arguments from left and right. The idea that most voters vote without having done much of that work is, frankly, scary.”

Scary indeed. We live with the repercussions every day.

Water conservation has intrigued me for a while. It all began when I asked a colleague why she chose to become a vegetarian. Now I have numbers of friends who are vegetarians, one who even thrived as he went through boot camp. I respect them and have eaten with them countless times. I was simply curious about this colleague’s rational.

“Well,” she said, “What would [this state] look like if we used all the water used to produce beef to water the landscape. It would be so much greener.”

What?!?! How the heck would that work? How would you transport the water? How effective would a state-wide watering campaign be? How would you ensure that no more than 50 percent of the water evaporated before it soaked into the ground? (The best way is to mimic western Washington state’s system; 200+ days a year of rain.)

Further, I thought, trying to comprehend the silliness, “Isn’t water kind of like a renewable resource? There’s no more and no less of it on the earth. It’s just in a different form or location.”

And she seriously defended her reasoning.

That reminded me, what are the values of watering bans? In Texas, where it rains less than 100 days a year and there are few resources in which to store water, controls may be necessary. Even in California, limits may be necessary when the snow pack is low or in Southern California, which gets its water from the Colorado River.

But are they necessary in Washington state and Oregon where it rains more than the sun shines. When utility districts in these states encourage water conservation despite the surplus, the only response can be, “Uh, tell that to God.”

All that to say, this forum sounds interesting.

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE – SO WHY IS THERE A WATERING BAN?

JUNE 19 EVENT TO EXPLORE HOW WATER PRICING COULD AID CONSERVATION

BOSTON – Even though the Commonwealth is blessed with adequate rainfall and full reservoirs, many towns* greet summer with watering bans and other draconian conservation tactics that seem better suited to the desert Southwest. Why? Economists Sheila Olmstead and Robert Stavins, in their new Pioneer Institute study Managing Water Demand, argue that heavy-handed, punitive restrictions on water use are not only expensive, but often ineffective.

Have you heard of the human and dog food recall? Four humans have fell sick with signs of botulism poisoning. Connors Bros., a maker of canned fish and meat, has recalled more than 80 food products intended for humans and a few more pet food products.

While it is horrible that they are poisoning people, my beef is that they’re mixing human food with… guess what… pet food!

“Castleberry Food Co. is recalling every product manufactured on a specific production line in the past two years in response to four cases of botulism poisoning in Texas and Indiana.

“Also produced on the line, and also recalled, are a number of pet food products.”

So you’re telling me that pet food is process and canned on the same production line as more than 80 products intended for humans? No wonder my chili reminds me of cat food.

Here’s the company’s web site on the recall.

Read more about the food recall here: 757 news articles 

Behind the scenes, every day, a plugin on this blog protects against comment spam. As of this writing there have been over 550 spam comments caught and deleted by Akismet. My blog, being as it is a little ways off the high-traffic areas of the information super highway, gets relatively little spam, but still 142 legitimate comments compared with 553 spam… Let’s just say I really appreciate Akismet, and you should too.

But there are times when apparently legitimate sites use comment spam to attempt to drive traffic to themselves illegitimately and under false pretense. Consider this comment posted under my review of the movie Flushed Away:

Faction 3 | faction3.us
You cant imagine how much money they spend trying to silence good people who will put their lives on the line to fight for change.

I think you can agree this has nothing to do with the movie I was reviewing here. This comment was not flagged as spam and the only thing that caught my attention was the fact that it really had nothing to do with the article. I checked out faction3.us and found they had a prominent article on Net Neutrality, on which I had written. So I proceeded to look through my site for the article I’d written on Net Neutrality, assuming the poster had just mistakenly posted on the wrong article. So then I checked my spam list in the admin section and found two other posts were caught as spam, one from Faction3.us and one from congresscheck.com. Both these posts are in the form of raps filled with both lingual and mental ignorance, vulgarity, and evil. I’ve included them here, edited only for lingual vulgarity. Please proceed at your own discretion.

NOTE: I decided to post these to illustrate that it is not just mental slavery we battle politically but spiritual slavery at the heart of that mental slavery. The heart is full of sin and deception and the lips speak out of the fullness of that lost heart.

Congress Check | congresscheck.com

I see a message from the government, like every day
I watch it, and listen, and call em all suckas
They warnin me about Osama or whatever
Picture me buyin this scam I said never
You in tune to a Hard Truth soldier spittin
I stay committed gives a f*** to die or lose commission
Its all a part of fightin devil state mind control
And all about the battle for your body, mind and soul
And now Im hopin you dont close ya mind – so they shape ya
Dont forget they made us slaves, gave us AIDS and raped us
Another Bush season mean another war for profit
All in secret so the public never think to stop it
The Illuminati triple six all connected
Stolen votes they control the race and take elections
Its the Skull and Bones Freemason kill committee
See the Dragon gettin s*****er in every city

www.congresscheck.com

And the other from Faction3.us:

 Faction 3 | faction3.us

Now ask yourself whos the people with the most to gain (Bush)
fore 911 motherf****s couldnt stand his name (Bush)
Now even n****s wavin flags like they lost they mind
Everybody got opinions but dont know the time
Cause Amerikkkas been took – its plain to see
The oldest trick in the book is make an enemy
A phony evil so the government can do its dirt
And take away ya freedom lock and load, beat and search
Aint nothin changed but more colored people locked in prison
These pigs still beat us, but it seem we forgettin
But I remember fore September how these devils do it
F*** Giuliani ask Diallo how he doin
We in the streets holla jail to the thief follow
F*** wavin flags bring these dragons to they knees
Oil blood money makes these killers ride cold
Suspicious suicides people dyin never told
Its all a part of playin God so ya think we need em
While Bin Ashcroft take away ya rights to freedom
Bear witness to the sickness of these dictators
Hope you understand the time brother cause its major

www.faction3.us

I was sobered when I first read these in their repugnant glory. Not only is it sad that there are those who believe such terrible falsehoods and are deceived in such astounding ways, but it is sad that they are able to make those beliefs so public on their own blogs. The internet is free and the truth is more than capable of standing up on its own in the face of even the most devious lies and assaults, so I have no fear there. But it gives an importance to my own small efforts here to spread the truth, shining the light to dispel the demons of ignorance.

You better believe I think I’m a crusader!

There are times I do not feel God’s presence. The popular poem Footsteps in the Sand describes a stylized and reassuring portrayal of God’s care for us, but it is only empty words and platitudes for the most part. God has instead given us a concrete method of reassurance which we may use at any time. Whether we feel as though our prayers are hitting a ceiling, or as though the lamp guiding our feet is dim or has gone out, God’s plan works. This plan is outlined in Psalm 13:

1 How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
3 Consider and answer me, O LORD my God;
light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,
4 lest my enemy say, “I have prevailed over him,”
lest my foes rejoice because I am shaken.

5 But I have trusted in your steadfast love;
my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.
6 I will sing to the LORD,
because he has dealt bountifully with me.

The first four verses display an emotional and spiritual state many of us can relate to: Where is God when I need Him most? When God seems to have forgotten, when David is seeking counsel, when his enemies are succeeding in their aims against him, when he feels all hope is lost, David cries out and does not hear a response.

The turning point in this psalm does not say that God heard him even that there was any change in his circumstances. Instead he merely trusted and remembered. God had dealt bountifully with him in the past. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, therefore God will continue to deal bountifully with him. There are times each of us can look back to where God worked obviously and with great result in our lives. When we don’t feel His presence we can remember those times we did, and then we can trust Him to continue to work in us.

…an expulsive power in a new affection.

“Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”"Yes, sir.”

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could… in fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.

[No answer.]

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella.”

“Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?” The student falters.

“From… God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience.”I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian.

“Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?

[No answer]

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things – do they exist in this world? ”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them? ”

[No answer] The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian’s face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”

[No answer]

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?”

Pause.

“Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

[No answer]

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen him? ”

“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus…in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

[No answer]

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling.”According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

[The student doesn't answer]

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”

The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”

The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”

“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super- heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -

You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. “Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

“Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”"

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?”

The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.”

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.

Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies.

“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

“Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”

“I believe in what is – that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face splits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?” The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?” No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits down.

This is a humorous story of dubious veracity, but it is accurate in it’s description of the fight a Christian must deal with in the college classroom. I’ve been in my share of science, philosophy, even speech and literature classes where the instructors taught things so diametrically opposite God’s law and against His nature I wondered at their capability to contain a rational thought inside themselves without being torn apart by the lies the lived and espoused. I’ve felt like that first student before and many times decided not to confront the class in order to maintain peace. There were a few classes where I spoke up, Biology to challenge evolution, speech to argue for a moral good. But there were many more where I sat by quietly and received my grade.

There really are serious holes in so much of what we base our lives upon. Science is a vaunted, hallowed term which tolerates no controversy. However it is stiff and unable to capture the whole of the human experience. To deny all that Science cannot define is to deny a large and important portion of the human experience and ourselves as humans. The proper perspective must be kept in regards to Science, Philosophy and our spiritual natures.

We are created by God in His image, as spiritual and eternal beings. This physical life is a process, a lesson, a test. The correct answer in this test is to accept Christs redemptive work on the cross as covering our sins and failures, justifying us before God. The correct practice for the lesson is to love the world the way Jesus does, grieving over sin and bringing others to His love and forgiveness. The correct method for the process is to live each day trusting in Gods’ holiness and Christs forgiveness and the Holy Spirits assistance in all our life. Science is brought into perspective with Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their measuring line goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Science serves to illuminate the order and rationality of God and sheds light on His breathtaking creativity and wisdom. And it shows His unbounded love. All creation is made for Him and for our enjoyment of Him. Philosophy seeks to understand the logic of God in the realm of ideas and concepts, morals and ethics. God is logical by nature, though His thoughts are high above us, beyond our comprehension. He has deigned to give us the ability to understand logic so that when we pass the gate of death and stand before Him, His logic and wisdom will awe us and impress us with our own inadequacy, and His amazing love and glory.

Our spiritual natures are what will continue past this fallen, failing earth and physical universe after it is destroyed and into the next, the new Jerusalem and Zion. With new physical body to enjoy the new physical creation God is creating for us we’ll learn ever more about God’s glory and holiness. As Keith Green sang, God made this world in 7 days and consider its grandeur to us, now consider that He has been working on heaven at least 2000 of our years. I know it is foolish to even think of God constrained by our time, but just consider…