Anti-Social Hummingbirds

“Hummingbirds are so cute” Carol said. We saw then flitting around the yard several times, and Carol suggested that we buy a feeder to give them a treat. At Wal-Mart we found two feeders: one for a dollar and one for six. We bought the cheaper one just to see if the critters would flock to our yard.

There are about 300 species of these aerial acrobats. They live only in the western hemisphere: twelve of which spend the summer in North America. They flap their wings from 50-200 times per second, fly up to 34 mph – even upside down, weigh up to three DSCN8828Bquarters of an ounce, average four to five inches long, have a heartbeat of 225 beats per minute at rest and up to 1,260 beats per minute in flight, and have an average lifespan of about four years.

We bought the feeder and a bag of Instant Hummingbird Nectar Concentrate. Filling the container with the red juice, we hung it on a pole just outside the dining room window so we could observe the poor little critters as they enjoyed our gift of life. At first one or two visited us, but then all activity stopped. Curious, I stepped outside to see if there was a problem with the feeder.

There wasn’t a problem with the hummingbird feeder, but with a hummingbird eater. TheDSCN8421B neighbor’s cat was waiting for breakfast to appear. But when he saw me, he sauntered off for less populated pastures.

Within minutes, a green ruby-throated hummer zoomed up. He came within six inches of the port, hovered as he looked around, nervously darted back and forth, seeing if anyone was going to attack him. He finally inserted his needle-like bill, had lunch, and zoomed to the nearest crepe-myrtle tree.

I thought he had tired himself out hovering while drinking and needed to rest. Wrong!

As Carol and I watched, two other hummers zoomed up, stopped in mid-air to see if it was safe, and approached the ports. The first critter came back at full-throttle and attacked the newcomers! Apparently, as the first visitor, this pugnacious little rascal had laid claim to my feeder.

I wanted to catch the little beast and take him miles away, but I learned that another one would just take his place. They are territorial, and it is definitely first-come-first-served. But upon reading about them, I found that they need to eat/drink more than their weight in nectar each day merely to stay alive. That alone explains why they are viciously protective of their find. It’s a fight for survival.

So, where we hoped to make life easier for these cute little creatures (that are relentlessly in search of food) by being nice to them, we were merely successful in creating a new battle-ground for them.

That reminds me of back in 1958 when my father asked me, “Would you like to see someone become angry by being nice to him?” I incredulously asked, “How can that happen?” Dad said, “Just watch.”

Relativity 15BHe called for two of my brothers. Dad gave one a dime, and the other a nickel. The one who received the nickel exclaimed, “That’s not fair! I should get a dime, too!” Dad asked, “What’s not fair about it? You both received a gift. You didn’t earn it and it is not part of your weekly allowance. It’s extra. Go spend it.” The one brother was unhappy and began fussing until Dad gave him another nickel – which was his plan anyway. Then Dad told me, “Don’t forget that lesson. It will come in handy sometime.”

It sure did. Throughout my adult life, I’ve worked to support and accrue benefits for my family. But some of our citizens are truly handicapped and cannot support themselves, so our elected leaders have made benefits available to them – and rightly so. But many others have seen “the feeder with the red juice” and zoomed up full throttle to claim and demand gifts that are not rightfully theirs.

But there is a better way to live.

If people could see who Jesus really is, see all that he offers to those of us who listen, and the minimal he asks from us in return, life would be much more meaningful. Matthew 6:33Bible says, “Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you [assure that you have] everything you need.” Living by that principle would greatly reduce stress and result in greater fulfillment in life. 

I’ll continue feeding the hummers, but I strongly admonish you readers: live to honor Jesus, and reap his rewards.

You Are Wrong!

IMG_1791That took me by surprise. John and I were having an interesting discussion; but when we touched on an idea about which he disagreed, he spat out, “You are wrong!”

We were discussing concepts of how life on earth began. Let me say here that there are hundreds – if not thousands – of theories, myths, legends, and accounts about the formation of life. No longer can we merely say that we believe in either evolution or creation; rather, we must now specify what we believe about evolution or creation.

Among the many concepts in what we call “evolution” we find: modernearth evolutionary synthesis, natural selection, cosmic evolution, and population genetics. Several creation concepts are: intelligent design, the six [24-hour] day creation, the six [1,000-year, or more] day creation, punctuated equilibrium (although a version of this hypothesis is also accepted in evolution); and myriads of pagan creation stories. Here is an Egyptian myth:

 “Atum willed himself into being, and then created a hill, otherwise there’d be no place for him to stand. Atum was genderless and possessed an all-seeing eye. He spat out a son, Shu, god of the air. Atum then vomited up a daughter, Tefnut, goddess of moisture. These two were charged with the task of creating order out of chaos.”

My first question here is: how can a non-existent being – therefore, having no will to exercise – will himself into existence? Absurd. But … back to my friend.

John and I agreed that God never had a beginning, and that the Biblical genealogical record suggests He might have created man about 6,000 yearsdumbbell-nebula1[1] ago. So far, so good. But John came to a mental roadblock when I said, “In the infinity preceding the creation of life on earth, I wonder how long God thought about and planned His proposed creation.”

That’s when John informed me, “You are wrong!”

Detecting a potential breach of friendship, I pondered on that before responding. John, a conservative Christian (as I consider myself to be), obviously felt that I had violated Scripture and he entrenched. I instinctively knew that if this was not quickly resolved, the remainder of the visit would be rather cold. Therefore, being considerably older than John, I did my best to identify with him and to keep communications open.

 “Where am I wrong?” I gently asked. “You’re just wrong!” was the reply.

I was surprised at the repetition of his abrupt judgment, so I said, “You and I both live our lives according to the best of our understanding of Scripture. Tell me where I’m wrong, and verify it Biblically, and I will correct my beliefs.”

After considerable contemplation, John finally said, “I cannot verify it Biblically. Maybe you are not wrong, but I disagree with you.”

“Thank you for your openness and your honesty. I welcome disagreement; but please tell me, with what do you disagree?”

 “It just seems to me that you are inferring that the longer it took God to design His creation, the better it would be. Why can’t God think it up perfectly one second and speak it into being the next?”

Now, we were getting somewhere.

“Good point.” I responded. “However, since God was here for eternity past, do you think He did absolutely nothing for multiple eons of what we call time? And was He impulsive in thoughtless creation when He DID ‘go to work’? Or could He have taken some time to think and plan? Who knows how long God actually thought about creating the cosmos, this earth, and life on it? The Bible doesn’t say; and only God knows.”

Communication was reestablished, our relationship was preserved, and John relaxed – a little. I told him I was mentioning ideas, not facts. The Bible doesn’t tell us everything and we are free to use our God-given imagination to fill in the gaps as long as we do not disagree with or conflict with what the Bible clearly and explicitly teaches.

I referred him to Scripture because for any Biblical discussion, we need to have Biblea good understanding of Scripture and history. Second Timothy 3:15-16; “Study [the Bible] to receive God’s approval as you correctly understand and teach the word of truth. But avoid useless arguments: for they will drive people further away from God.”

I suppose the major thought I was trying to help John understand was this: YOUR disagreement does not always mean the OTHER person is wrong. Think about that. In each discussion, debate, or argument, it is probable that both sides have something to learn. So employ the love of Christ as you interact with others.

By the way, John and I are still life-long friends.

Postmodernism

Have you thought about postmodernism lately? Do you know what it is? Let’s take a look.

One report says, “Postmodernism assumes that ‘truth’ is based on an individual’s ownQuestion Mark personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything.”

Another report says: “Postmodernism denies the existence of ultimate principles or absolutes, and rejects scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain objective reality.”

But philosopher Richard Tarnas presents the built-in paradox: “Post-modernism cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the post-modern mind has defined itself.”

Therefore, postmodernism is inherently self-conflicting.

Here are three terms with brief explanations:

1)                Pre-modernism: Ruled by authority. The individual is governed by objective reality and tradition; such as a world-view based on Bible consciousness.

2)                Modernism: The humanistic rejection of tradition and authority in favor of reason and science; such as natural or Darwinian evolution. This is based on viewing the autonomous individual as the sole source of personal meaning and truth. There are no absolutes.

3)                Post-modernism: A rejection of the self-determining individual with an emphasis upon the collective experience; such as the dissolution of distinctions, the merging of subject and object, self and other.

Postmodernists reject objective truth – perhaps best exemplified by French philosopher René Descartes’s famous statement: “I think, therefore I am”. My Biblical response to Descartes is: I am, therefore I think.

The postmodernist distorts reality and attempts to destroy the foundation of truth in order to justify his own reality – that means, he is attempting to justify his own lifestyle. For example, we read: “The term ‘justice’ means many different things to the post-modernist, depending on the positions of the members of the discussion. Outside any DSC02812.Bdiscussion of ‘justice’, there is no meaning which we can find. The concept of ‘justice’ exists only as long as we negotiate its meaning between ourselves in our society.” And that makes as much sense as me trying to push around a 300-pound gorilla!

No wonder our judicial system is in a quagmire today. They cannot identify truth. Here are several examples of postmodern confusion. The courts and lawyers do not argue for objective truth. The battle is over who can win the courtroom debate. That is a great loss for the United States of America.

  1. The concept of right and wrong has no foundation or meaning except what the individual decides – and that varies day-by-day. Many of our judges, congressmen and women, and scientists don’t know who or what the human race is. Upon launching a space probe searching for extra-terrestrial life, Carl Sagan said: “When we know who THEY are, we’ll know who WE are.” Evolution tells us that human life is an eventual product of a chance electrical discharge in the carbon-rich primordial soup millions of years ago. But the Bible tells us we are created by God; made in His image.
  2. Although our medical profession endorses pre-natal care, they don’t know or acknowledge when life begins; and some people feel free to murder these humans for whom they prescribe pre-natal care.
  3. Although A) the Bible clearly defines marriage as a union between man and woman, B) it’s obvious that the human race cannot continue without the interaction of man and woman, and C) we have proof that the family with a mother and father provide for the best chance of healthy children, postmodernists deny it all in a futile effort to deny God.

When I asked several postmodernists if it was okay to murder someone, they said, “No! That is wrong!” I asked, “On what basis?” They wouldn’t answer because the answer required a standard of right and wrong – a standard of truth that they rejected.

The world without the Bible is lost in a white-out of deception. They are in a spiritual and intellectual vacuum where truth has been sucked out. They are in a spiritual and mental vertigo without any instruments to tell them which way is up or down, left and right.

But the esteemed apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias presented reality when he asked: “How can something that has been current for so long be ‘post’?” He meant, How can the BibleBible and objective truth, which has been our proven standard for life for so long, now be wrong? Without a solid foundation in God and the Bible, life is hopeless, worthless, meaningless. That’s why there are so many suicides, murders, drug usage and overdoses: life is void without faith in a caring, loving God.

But Jesus Christ lived, died, and raised from the dead to offer us eternal life. That is truth you can base your life on. Choose life – and live!

Your Reality – My Reality

Critical Thinking 2“Your reality may be good for you, but I have my own reality.” Have you ever heard that? Have you ever said that?

Statements like that have made the rounds for decades, if not centuries; but the question is: Do we have our own realities? I think the answer is a qualified “yes.” Hold on now, and let me explain. My reasoning is simple: we all perceive, feel, and think differently. I experience things and situations differently than you do.

What is real to me (what is understandable, comprehensible, vivid, important, beautiful, unpleasant, detestable, etc.) may not be real to you. You may not have seen someone die, I have. Your favorite color may be yellow, mine is blue. You may enjoy the mountains while I enjoy the oceans. You might be moved by country-western and rock music while I listen to church hymns and John Philip Sousa marches. You may study art, music, and eating habits, while I study the Bible, science and history. What strongly impacts your emotions or mind may not appeal to me. And, of course, you and I have different family backgrounds, personal histories, and possibly different religious beliefs. Even my siblings (I am one of ten children) and I view life differently.

However, although you and I may have different realities in a temporal or philosophical sense, we must not confuse these differences with absolute reality or absolute truth. I remember when a philosophy instructor exclaimed, “There are no absolutes!” One student asked, “Is that absolutely correct?” How should the professor respond? Either “yes” or “no” would invalidate his primary statement. So rather than try to unsuccessfully pry himself out of that predicament, the professor merely changed the subject. The Prof didn’t realize that absolutes, or absolute laws, govern the universe, and that his statement was self-contradictory.

Normally when a person states, “I have my own reality,” the statement is based on relativismIMG_1797. That is the concept that all truth is relative to the individual, time, or place. However, relativism is a faulty philosophy that attempts to negate absolutism. Absolute means: complete; not limited by restrictions; unconditional; unrelated to and independent of anything else. Interestingly, after a short investigation we find absolute truth in math, history, the Bible, and in every-day life. Often, the denial of absolutism is not about life, but is aimed at the reality of God and the deity of Jesus Christ. And the one who claims his own reality actually claims to be the supreme ruler in his own life; but living for just twenty-four hours will prove that is false.

An example of the difference between a temporal reality and absolute reality is: A blind and deaf person may not know you exist. Therefore, you are not real to him, and you are not part of his reality. However, you do exist. But when you are brought into his presence where he is allowed to touch you and is “introduced” to you through a Braille or hand-manual message, you are incorporated into his reality. Absolute truth hasn’t changed; but his understanding, or his temporal reality, has changed.

In the same way, many folk do not know that God exists because they are “blind” to His existence. But they can be introduced to God and Jesus Christ through the “Braille” of Holy Scripture and Holy Spirit-directed lives. Many of us need a guide, such as a blind person needs a guide dog or as wagon trains on the Oregon Trail needed guides to get them across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The guides we need today to help us understand absolute reality are pastors, teachers, and primarily the Holy Spirit. Temporal realities change all through our lives; but absolute reality never changes.

pict0377Another example of absolute reality: God knew you would be born and that you will live forever – somewhere; but it is your choice as to your eternal destination. Whether or not you believe in heaven or hell does not change the reality of either place: our personal belief neither establishes fact nor eradicates truth. Absolute truth stands on its own foundation.

Your reality? My reality? We need to align our temporal realities with the time-tested truths of absolute reality as found in the Bible, and prepare ourselves to meet the author of absolute truth: Almighty God.