It’s pretty much spot-on!
They showed this video yesterday at Crosspoint.tv – Where I’ve been attending church the past 3 weeks.
This hit home, you need to watch!
Here is the blog posting that inspired the video:
I want you to know something. Not all of you will care about this and that’s ok. But some of you will. And for those… I want you to know something.
I know what it’s like to live life with depression.
I know what it’s like to cry yourself to sleep every night of the week. And to wake up crying in the morning.
I know what it’s like to have a cloak of darkness surround your soul.
I know what it’s like to whisper words from your heart when you’re by yourself – to say “Oh, Jesus!” out loud dozens of times each day appealing to him, hoping Jesus understands all the unspoken grief in those two words.
I know what it’s like to constantly plead with God, “Lord, please help me!” when you feel like you’re losing your mind.
I know what it’s like to sometimes feel you’ve been abandoned by everyone you know – including God.
I know what it’s like to comfort eat and gain 60 pounds in six months.
I know what it’s like to take Prozac and then get anxiety so bad that it triggers panic attacks.
I know what it’s like to be ashamed and embarrassed at admitting to other people you take Prozac.
I know what it’s like to almost completely lose interest in everything life has to offer.
I know what it’s like to have romantic relationships crumble apart because you can’t even take care of yourself much less someone else.
I know what it’s like to be forced to quit a job because your depression has rendered you almost useless.
I know what it’s like to weep uncontrollably, thinking you’ve screwed up your life and that it’s over.
I know what it’s like to be exhausted, tired, and worn out from battling against depression for so long.
I know what it’s like to try and hide everything that’s wrong with smiles and busy-ness.
I know what it’s like when that doesn’t work and people you know ask, “Are you doing ok?” with the knowing tone that you’re not.
I know what it’s like when your sense of humor dries up and even speaking seems like an effort.
I know what it’s like to look yourself in the eyes in the mirror and see, through tears, a mere shadow and shell of the person you once knew.
I know what it’s like to wish you’d never been born.
I know what it’s like to think about death and dying every day.
I know what it’s like to cause pain to people close to you because you can’t be anything close to yourself.
And I know what it’s like to walk this road for 20 years.
I know what it’s like to be at a wedding and hear a voice in your head that says, “This isn’t going to happen for you. You won’t get married. You can’t even DATE someone properly. Forget about marriage.”
I know what it’s like to feel there’s a bus parked somewhere over your heart – to have the weight of heaviness in your spirit all day and all night long.
I know what it’s like when simple tasks – like emptying the dishwasher – feel like an ordeal akin to climbing a small mountain.
I know what it’s like to be crushed in the company of other people and desire only to be alone…. And then feel crushed when you’re all alone.
I know what it’s like to beg God for strength to make it through the day while walking from your car into work and then seriously doubt his existence a mere three minutes later.
This isn’t a post telling you things will be ok or offering suggestions on how to fix your life.
I only want you to know… That I know. I know a little bit about where you are and what you’re going through. There are other people who know. You’re not completely alone. You may feel alone but there are other people out here like you.
I know what it’s like to have words like these – words addressed to God – cause your desperate heart to ache…
“Could I talk to you?
Are you listening?
Will you see me through the valley?
Will you hold my outstretched hands?
(Starfield – Outstretched Hands)
I know what it’s like to give all the effort you have and still not have it be anywhere close to enough.
I know what it’s like to feel buried under unending shame with thoughts that you’ve ruined and wasted your life.
I know what it’s like to look at social media and see everyone else having fun, going places, doing things, and living “normal” lives – and being unable to join them because you’re so low and have no energy.
I know what it’s like to believe life and the lives of those around you have passed you by.
I know what it’s like to wish for cloudy days because the sun feels like a lie to your heart.
I know what it’s like to become unhinged when reading the words of David…
“My soul is in deep anguish.
How long, O Lord, how long?”
I know what it’s like to think you’ll always be this way – that life may never get better and this may be God’s will for your life until you die.
I know what it’s like for none of these things I’ve written to be literary hyperbole but day-to-day reality.
Here’s what I also know… I know what it’s like to have hope that maybe something good will come out of all the pain in your depression and to say to God…
“Make my messes matter
Make this chaos count
Let every little fracture in me shatter out loud.”
(Sleeping at Last – Jupiter)
I know what it’s like to hope that the pain will transform your heart and soul into something more beautiful than before – something more like Jesus – more like we’re supposed to be.
I know what it’s like to think the next step isn’t possible. But it is. Because the last one didn’t feel possible. But you took that step. You’re here.
I know the next step feels brutal. I know you feel like a pile because something so simple shouldn’t be so hard. But you know what? It IS hard.
And I just wanted you to know… that I know some of what your struggle is like. I know the tears. I know the aching heart. I know the crushed spirit. I know the loss of strength. I know the foggy mind.
I know what it’s like to live life with depression.
You’re not alone. And I wanted you to know, dear brother and dear sister.
“Oh! You speak Spanish? That’s cute. I also speak Spanish, Italian and French. (Insert smirk). You taught Spanish in high school? I actually started my own company when I was an infant, teaching 3 languages. I funded it myself!”
We get it. You have a burning desire make yourself feel superior because you feel violently inferior. You cannot handle the success of others. You are insecure. There’s a big gaping difference in sharing stories with a friend because you’ve had similar experiences, but to undermine someone’s success or statement with your own is not only embarrassing, it’s extremely annoying and fictitious.
A wise teacher once said, “It is a fool who takes offense when it is intended, but it is an even greater fool who takes offense when it is not intended.”
Self interest is a common theme in the world today, it may even be the basis for everything we do and say, so keep that in mind when you realize that people aren’t intentionally trying to offend you; they’re busy thinking about themselves.
Insecure people will hear a statement, apply it to themselves, and if it happens to be something they’re insecure about, they’ll take heavy offense. It’s not cute to be the person everyone tiptoes around because they’re afraid of saying something you might get upset about.
Putting people down is the equivalent of an illuminated LED sign reading “VIOLENTLY INSECURE” floating behind you in a helium filled thought bubble. To put others down in an attempt to gain attention, validation, or happiness shows how jealous you are of what they have. Even if you’re not jealous of what they have, you show that you’re unhappy with what you have when you intentionally offend them. How you treat others is a direct extension of how you feel about yourself, and when you try to make someone else feel bad or embarrassed of who they are, it’s deplorable. A happy, secure person wants to share their light.
“Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
When you don’t feel secure with yourself, you want words of affirmation to validate you. People are going to form their own opinions about you, and they are usually very different than the opinions you have about yourself. Nobody thinks you have a big nose until you tell him or her that you have a big nose on a regular basis. They might console you and tell you that you don’t have a big nose, but they’re really wondering why you’re spending so much time thinking about your nose when there are things going on that really matter. What really matters is being confident in yourself, your actions, your feelings, and your nose.
It’s one thing to be aware of how people feel about you. It is a WHOLE different can of worms when you are so concerned people won’t or don’t like you that you morph into a validation monster. A validation monster agrees with everyone, changes the decibel and tone of their voice, and contracts their face muscles into a cringe worthy crazy eyed “Jack Nicholson-from-The-Shining” facial expression in social situations.
It’s weird. People can tell when you think they don’t like you, and it makes them wonder what your intentions really are. Do you sincerely want to get to know them and be friends on some normal level? Or do you want their validation as a check on a list that somehow makes you a better person. By being insecure, insincere and hungry for people to accept you, you might miss the opportunity to actually make a friend. A friend will accept you when your face muscles aren’t contracted and your voice isn’t high pitched. They’ll criticize you to your face, and glorify you behind your back. It’s important to be secure enough for friendships like that, because those are the ones that last.
“You want to go get McDonalds? Yeah my dog died and I’m still grieving over my Grandmother’s death 6 years ago, and I can’t pay my bills, and my parents are both in prison and nobody likes me but it’s okay I can totally drive us to McDonalds because I was just broken up with.”
Rough times get the best of us, but don’t let them get the best of you when you’re at a social gathering and the morale is high. If you need emotional support, the football field of social situations is not the place to ask for it. When an insecure person asks for sympathy and attention, it places a heavy cloak of distress, obligation and concern over everyone involved. Everyone lost their appetite for McDonalds when the insecure person started openly talking about his eating disorders and family issues AT A PARTY.
I read this originally on The Poached Egg website. Really great viewpoint and information. -jamie
In order to please my readers, I have made the bold decision to begin this essay in an utterly groundbreaking fashion…by providing a surprise bonus feature (that will, at first, seem unrelated to the topic of this essay): I will now explain the mystery of the JFK assassination. The decades of waiting are finally over. Sit tight…here it goes:
The ignition of a powder mixture consisting of the chemicals sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter caused a rapid expansion of gasses which, consistent with Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, forced a lead projectile down a metal tube at a supersonic velocity. The collision of the projectile against certain of Kennedy’s vital organs caused a transference of kinetic energy, which severely damaged these organs, resulting in death.
What’s that I hear you say? You’re disappointed?! You were suspicious of my bold claims from the outset?! All I did was describe aspects of a gunshot (and subsequent wound), in pretentious scientific terms, rather than explain the assassination? You were hoping I would explain who the guilty parties were, and what their motives were?
Well, you were justified in feeling suspicious and then disappointed. The same suspicion, and then disappointment, should surround any bold claims atheists make about science “explaining” things without the need for God. As I note in The God of the Gaps: Why God and Science Are Not Competing Explanations, atheists commit what is known in philosophy as a category error any time they declare that science and God are competing explanations for natural phenomena. Below is an excerpt from the Wikipedia post for Category Error:
A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which “things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another”, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. Thus the claim that “Most Americans are atheists” is not a category mistake, since most Americans could be (contingently) atheists. On the other hand, “Most bananas are atheists” is a category mistake. This is because bananas belong to a category of things that cannot be said to have beliefs.
Just as bananas cannot have beliefs, science cannot provide complete explanations for natural phenomena. This is why bold declarations from atheists that “science explains things without the need for God” amount to a category error. Bo Jinn writes in Illogical Atheism:
“In no way does it logically follow that something was not designed and built from the mere fact alone that that something could be understood scientifically. The law of gravity and Newton’s Laws of motion are to God and the universe what binary strings and electronics are to Alan Turing and the computer processor. Function and agency account for two entirely different explanations as to how and why something exists. Aristotle explained this over two thousand years ago… Aristotle stated that everything in the universe could be understood in terms of:
A formal cause, a material cause, an efficient cause and a final cause.
Science accounts for only two of those causes; the formal and the material. If we were to apply Aristotle’s theory to the Harrier jump jet in the allegory above:
-The Harrier’s material causes are the components from which it was constructed.
-Its formal causes are the laws of mechanics, aerodynamics and internal combustion.
-Its efficient causes are Ralph Hooper, Sir Sydney Camm and Sir Stanley Hooker [the designers of the jet].
-Its final cause is to be flown in dogfights.
Only the first of those categories of causes were open to the scientists in the story. Only the first two of those categories are open to science in the study of the universe.”
Science, in short, does not even address efficient and final causes in regards to such issues as the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Therefore, a statement such as, “Living things were not caused by God, but rather, by a process of evolution,” is every bit as much of a category error as the statement, “Aircraft are not caused by human agency, but rather, by a manufacturing process.” God and human agency are proposed efficient causes. Evolution and manufacturing processes are proposed formal causes. Atheist reasoning commits a category error when it confuses different levels of causation. Further, atheist reasoning suffers an explanatory failure when it disregards the need for explaining all levels of causation.
Science describes natural phenomena in terms of laws, but it does not explain where those laws came from, who (or what) enforces those laws, or why the universe has laws in the first place (rather than just chaos). Scientific description, in other words, ends at the level of natural/physical laws. So how does theism explain the above mentioned phenomena? The answer is simple. As I put it in I Believe In Science, Why Do I Need Religion?:
Such laws are the result of a lawgiver (God). Moreover, theism asserts that matter is nothing more than a manifestation of consciousness (God’s consciousness), which is the view most compatible with modern physics, as I demonstrate in God Is Real: Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism. Robert Boyle, the founder of modern chemistry, summarized the theistic explanation of why matter follows physical laws succinctly when he said: “The nature of this or that body is but the law of God prescribed to it [and] to speak properly, a law [is] but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior.” [the word “notional” italicized by me]
Or as James Joule, the propounder of the first law of thermodynamics, for whom the thermal unit of the “Joule” was named, put it: “It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed.”
Albert Einstein marveled at the existence of physical/natural laws, and the exquisite order (rather than the chaos that we should a priori expect) which lies therein. He wrote (as also cited in The God of the Gaps: Why God and Science Are Not Competing Explanations):
“…a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. The kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”
But this is only the beginning of the problem for atheists when they claim that science “explains” things without the need for God. The next problem is that there is much in nature that cannot be described by referencing physical/natural laws. Edgar Andrews writes in Who Made God?:
“…When we play chess, the laws determine the moves we can make but not the moves we do make. That is, the laws are not deterministic; they don’t impose a particular outcome for the game. In the same way, the laws of nature determine what is and what is not physically possible, but they do not determine what actually occurs within the multitude of available possibilities.”
A similar point is made by the former Manhattan Project physicist, and leading information theorist, Hubert Yockey, in the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (also cited in Why God? Why Not Just Plain Luck?):
“The laws of physics and chemistry are much like the rules of a game such as football. The referees see to it that these laws are obeyed but that does not predict the winner of the Super Bowl. There is not enough information in the rules of the game to make that prediction. That is why we play the game. [Mathematician Gregory] Chaitin (1985, 1987a) has examined the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.”
“The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws.” (Yockey 1992).
This is why Yockey concludes that the origin of life from non-living matter is “unsolvable as a scientific problem.” Scientific description cannot continue past the level of physical/natural laws. Science can only describe “the rules of the game,” not the events or outcome of the game. And, more importantly, it cannot describe who or what is playing the game in such “games” as the origin of life from non-living matter, and the origin of the universe (or universes if you prefer multiple universes) from a state in which there were no universes.
Further, both above mentioned “games” involved an almost unimaginable information specificity and complexity. As I mentioned in Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God, the simplest living thing (the first self-replicating molecule) is several orders of magnitude more complex than anything humans have ever produced…supercomputers, spacecraft, anything.
Regarding the immense information content contained in the language of life (the language of DNA), Nancy Pearcey writes in her book Total Truth:
“…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.”
“To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u ), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.”
So who or what is the author of the codified information contained in DNA? It is not merely the case that science has failed so far to answer this question. Rather it is that science can never, even in principle, answer this question. And one is more likely to get a coherent answer to this question from a banana than from an atheist. As I point out in Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God, the cream-of-the-crop atheist scientists have proposed answers to the question of the origin of life that include such gems as aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship (called “directed panspermia”), and life-came-to-earth-from-space-without-alien-assistance (just “panspermia” without the “directed”), and life emerged as a result of a piggyback ride on crystals.
And how did a universe (or universes, if you prefer) emerge from a state in which there was no universe…and therefore no space, no time, no matter, no energy, and no laws? As the great astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, “The beginning [of the universe] seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”
Or as Allan Sandage, who is widely regarded to be the greatest living cosmologist, put it:
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
Put another way, naturalistic explanations are simply insufficient for explaining why there exists a natural world for us to explain, in the first place. (Please read OK…I Want Numbers. What is the chance that the universe is the result of chance? and Is There A God? (What is the chance that our world is the result of chance?) for a further discussion of the origin of the universe).
Just as the scientific description of a gunshot that I gave at the beginning of this essay provides an incomplete explanation for the JFK assassination, scientific descriptions of natural phenomena provide an incomplete explanation for those natural phenomena. Because science cannot provide complete explanations to such questions as the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the suggestion that science provides an alternative to God is an open-and-shut category error.
Which is your favorite of these two classic Guardian releases?