Which music will you dance to?

I’ve spent a lot of time explaining and arguing worldviews over the last two years. Frankly, the whole thing is getting pretty boring to me, so I will cut to the chase. It really comes down to this question: “Which music will you dance to?” I really don’t care to argue with you about the validity of either option I will present, or if you think it’s a false dichotomy, or some other dismissal. 

Of course, there are other versions.  But the following two choices seem to distill down to what most of us in the West will dance to. And the point is, none of these can be proven to be absolutely true. Certainly not by science. You must accept either one by faith.

The one thing you cannot have in this life is certainty. Life is an elusive mystery, and no matter how much we know there are things that defy our certitudes.

One more thing. You should make a conscious decision to which you will dance to…because you are dancing right now by default. The question is, is that the music you want to dance to? Will that produce a more compelling and fulfilling life?

Only you can answer that.

So I’ll leave the decision up to you…. Which music will you dance to?

A Secular/Naturalist Worldview:

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless, indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, “River Out of Eden,” New York, Basic Books, 1992, p. 133)

The Christian Worldview:

“The Trinitarian life is a great dance of unchained communion and intimacy, fired by passionate, self-giving and other-centered love, and mutual delight. This life is good. It is right, unique, full of music and joy, blessedness and peace. Such love, giving rise to such togetherness and fellowship and oneness, is the womb of the universe and of humanity within it.” (C. Baxter Kruger, PhD, “The Trinitarian Vision Summary,” 2012)

In case you were wondering, I have already decided. My faith is resolute. I have taken the proverbial leap of faith into His arms of love. I will live my life for the One who holds this world together and has invited me into His Great Dance, to be loved, to be delighted in, and to learn how to love others with this same love. This one thing has transformed my life forever.

And this is more real to me than your arguments.

But I do hope you will dance to HIS music. Either way, I wish you the best.

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 40 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Faith, Father Heart of God, Freedom, Love, Worship and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Which music will you dance to?

  1. john zande says:

    Yes, you’ve presented a false dichotomy, and you know you have, or you wouldn’t have tried to cover your ass by saying so.

  2. tildeb says:

    Okay Mel, rubber to the road.

    You say (again) that “none of these (choices in ‘worldview’ of either scientific of religious) can be proven to be absolutely true. Certainly not by science. You must accept either one by faith.”

    Here’s the test: put finger on trigger of loaded and cocked gun. The gun can either be pointed at a target or at one’s head (you don’t get to choose so it might be either). Now let’s do the ‘faith’ test, shall we? Pull the trigger. Is it really the case that the scientific likelihood that the bullet will be fired is the same as relying on a religious faith that one is believed to be immune from being struck by bullets? (We have multiple real world examples of people claiming this immunity belief inspired by religious fervor. Or protection from poisonous snakes. Or the ability to walk on water. And so on.) You are trying to argue the later belief is as likely to be true as the former. If you really believed this, you would do the test. But I think you HONESTLY do not believe this for one second but pretend the confidence in likelihood of outcomes is roughly equivalent because fo a lack of certainty, that in the test I suggest the firing mechanism may jam or the bullet casing be improperly machined and so the bullet firing and striking its target is not 100% certain. Therefore the outcome is unknown except by faith, that we all must use faith to determine confidence in outcome.

    Come on Mel. This is not true, is it? Yet you continue time after time claiming this oft-corrected false dichotomy based on a lack of certainty is both reasonable and accurate to create the equivalency between the choices you mention. It’s not, though, is it? That is why continue to assert that what you are actually doing is outright lying. For Jesus, of course, for belief in your religious version of faith. It’s dishonest and deceitful and that is what is true and, if you want, demonstrable with my test.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I can always count on you to miss the point, Tildeb. Of course, if I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger I will likely blow my brains out. What does that have to do with these choices I presented? And what happens next after I die? Besides, you still cannot prove why you exist in the first place, and what’s the ultimate purpose for your existence. Science cannot prove or disprove any of these things. So, regardless, you are making a faith decision. Good luck with your choice.

      • tildeb says:

        This is the word game you play to try to cover up your deceit by using the term ‘faith’ to build your false dichotomy between the confidence we hold in the scientific method to reveal what’s true about reality and the religious method to reveal the same. What does that term actually mean, Mel, and for the love you hold for Jesus can you not for one second stay consistent? I claim you cannot without admitting your deception, which is why you try to turn the criticism away from your words and on to anyone who dares point out what it is you’re really doing with this little word game of yours: being intentionally deceitful. Faith – yours or mine – has nothing to do with the results of pulling the trigger, does it? That inconvenient little fact exposes your fraudulent claim of equivalency in faith between the methods of science and religious belief to reveal what’s true about reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! I was wondering when you would get to your favorite name-calling. Tildeb, listen for once. It was NEVER about us not knowing anything for certain, but that we won’t ever know all things (in this life) for certain. For instance, the two conclusions I presented are FAITH STATEMENTS. And I never imagined for a moment that you would agree with me. You’re committed to your conclusions and I am mine. I’m not arguing that. So, good luck with your choice.

        • John Branyan says:

          I don’t know if what you said is true but there is no reason to believe it might be.

        • Mel Wild says:

          What’s funny about this is that Tildeb and his ilk won’t touch Dawkins’ view of the world with a ten-foot pole, even though they essentially march in lockstep to it. And Dawkins can’t prove this conclusion with actual science so it IS a faith statement. Instead, they just call me deceitful and dishonest. Oh well, what else is new. Dawkins actually said exactly that, so I don’t know how I’m being dishonest. And if they want to agree with him, that’s their prerogative, just like it’s mine to think this nihilistic worldview is quite uncompelling. And I’m not ashamed at all to admit what I believe. It’s tangibly changed my life. But we’ll see who’s right in the end. I can wait…there’s no point in arguing about it in the meantime.

        • tildeb says:

          My criticism herd isn’t about Dawkins because what he said is backed up by not just the preponderance of evidence but a significant amount of evidence contrary to the claims religious believers often make about some hidden designing agency. My issue is with you trying to portray scientific inquiry and its tentative conclusions into how the universe operates and by what mechanisms as a matter of faith identical to the kind of faith you have in your religious beliefs. It’s not and you lie shamelessly to try to pretend it is.

        • Mel Wild says:

          My issue is with you trying to portray scientific inquiry and its tentative conclusions into how the universe operates and by what mechanisms as a matter of faith identical to the kind of faith you have in your religious beliefs.

          Then your issue is with something I’m not saying. I’m not saying that science cannot give us very good knowledge of the natural world, or even that we cannot be certain about some things. I’m not arguing against scientific methodology. I am saying that when we go beyond this to conclude, like Dawkins, that this is all there is to the universe, or that it has no purpose or meaning, then we have left the world of science and entered into the world of metaphysics with our pretentious faith statement. Dawkins and his ilk could say, we don’t know if there’s meaning and purpose and I would have no argument. But that’s not what is asserted here.

          Faith simply means what you put your trust in when you cannot prove something. We all exercise faith in a lot of things. Most of the time it doesn’t matter one way or the other. But why we are here and how we should live should matter. And your certitudes (and mine) will fail when we try to say it’s just so. THAT is the dichotomy before us both. We must choose which picture of the world we will put our faith in.

          So the dichotomy is NOT between science and religion. It’s between this brand of nihilism and believing that life is intentional and has purpose. Again, believe whatever you want. You can’t prove it. And to this worldview, I say “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.”

        • tildeb says:

          Your claim, (“You must accept either one by faith.”) is a deepity in that it seems to be true and profound but is actually ambiguous and shallow. What I’ve done is point out that upon examination the claim is not accurate but an intentional deception you use time and time again. It’s a deepity and as such is absolute garbage if you actually wish to maintain a modicum of honesty and truth to guide your discussions. This is what’s lacking from you, Mel; you have no intention to demonstrate either in your quest to uphold your Christian apologetics. That’s why it, too, is garbage.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tildeb, your whole assertion is baloney. The fact is, there are a lots of things you believe to true that you cannot prove. We all do. To try to reduce faith down to just faith in God is what’s deceptive and dishonest. So give up it up. Nobody but hardened fundamentalist anti-theists like yourself believes this fairy tale.

        • tildeb says:

          Only “hardened fundamentalist anti-theists” call you on this deepity? Hardly…

          Science Is Just Another Belief System” (source)

          “On one reading, this claim is obviously true. The enterprise of science rests on a set of specific beliefs—that reality is intelligible, that our deepest intuitions about rationality cannot be doubted without contradiction, and we can increase our understanding of the world by testing hypotheses against reality. Other belief systems—like Greek mythology, Hinduism, and Shamanism—also rest on specific but different beliefs. In this sense, it’s trivially true that science is “just another belief system.”

          But a different reading makes a mind-blowing claim: the foundational assumptions of science are no more valid than the foundational assumptions of Greek mythology, Hinduism, Shamanism, or any other belief system. If this were true, we might look to Zeus, Vishnu, or our local witch doctor to cure cancer and combat climate change. But we don’t do that; we look to science for solutions to such problems, because no other belief system has led to the invention of vaccines, airplanes, antibiotics, and the countless other life-and-labor saving technologies that the world enjoys today. In this sense, science is not just another belief system; it’s a belief system with a track record—measured in increased prosperity, diseases eradicated, and lives saved—that puts every other belief system to shame.”

          Your oft-repeated claims exemplify pseudo-profudity but you fool only fools.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tildeb, you can parrot Daniel Dennett all day long, it doesn’t change what you’re doing here. First, you take my point out of context, then you try to dismiss me by going on and on about “deepity.” You learned a new word. Good for you. But you still don’t get the point.

          Case in point: You just quote me saying, “You must accept either one by faith.” But the “either one” was specifically in reference to the two conclusions I gave in my post. Here is my point in context:

          “But the following two choices seem to distill down to what most of us in the West will dance to. And the point is, none of these can be proven to be absolutely true. Certainly not by science. You must accept either one by faith.”

          So, the point is, what we must accept by faith (believing something we have no proof for) here is whether the conclusions Dawkins made are true, which cannot be proven. We have no way of knowing intent of nature or, as he poetically put it, whether we dance to the music of our DNA, from scientific inquiry. It could be the other way around for all we actually know. He’s making a conclusion based on his naturalist worldview. Or, if Kruger’s assertions are true, which are spiritual in nature so we have no way of proving that either, and scientific inquiry would be irrelevant. Both of THESE conclusions must be accepted by faith. And there are a LOT of things we believe about the world we live in that we may never prove (like “why are we here in the first place”).

          Again, this is not saying that science itself is a matter of faith. But Dawkins and Kruger’s assertions do enter the realm of faith.

        • tildeb says:

          Comment in moderation (I included a link).

        • john zande says:

          Well, perhaps if you copied the full quote by Dawkins, the context of the words would become more apparent, and what you’d see is a rebuttal to theologians and the problem of Evil when honestly discussing NATURE. Hence the title of that chapter: Gods Utility Function, which begins My clerical correspondent of the previous chapter found faith through a wasp. Charles Darwin lost his with the help of another: “I cannot persuade myself,” Darwin wrote, “that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”.

          What’s missing in your quote mined extract (which you’re trying to hint points to nihilism) is any mention of what meaning humans bring to the table. The full quote:

          If Nature were kind, she would at least make the minor concession of anesthetizing caterpillars before they are eaten alive from within. But Nature is neither kind nor unkind. She is neither against suffering nor for it. Nature is not interested one way or the other in suffering, unless it affects the survival of DNA. It is easy to imagine a gene that, say, tranquilizes gazelles when they are about to suffer a killing bite. Would such a gene be favored by natural selection? Not unless the act of tranquilizing a gazelle improved that gene’s chances of being propagated into future generations. It is hard to see why this should be so, and we may therefore guess that gazelles suffer horrible pain and fear when they are pursued to the death—as most of them eventually are. The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

          Theologians worry away at the “problem of evil” and a related “problem of suffering.” On the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus full of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper [The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: “How can you believe in a loving, all-powerful God who allows such a tragedy?” The article went on to quote one priest’s reply: “The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just electrons, there would be no problem of evil or suffering.”

          On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it: For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know. DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Good for you, Zande. You could quote the whole book if you want, it still doesn’t change the point. None of Dawkins’ conclusions can be proven. They are no more than interpolations from available data. How does he know what nature should do or should not do? Or, if DNA dances to our music? He doesn’t. These conclusions are not science. They are faith statements based on his worldview. But you can believe whatever you want. I’m not going to argue with you over it.

        • john zande says:

          Not at all. If you’d bother to actually look for the book (I’ve never read it, but you can read the pdf on the net for free, which I’ve briefly done) you’d see in the next chapter Dawkins talks about Information bombs… We are part of one such slowly expanding explosion. That’s actually a quantifiable truth, and we’ve moved on from genes to memes, which is also a quantifiable truth.

          So, sorry, but your deceptive quote mining has failed again, just like it did with Nietzsche.

          Perhaps, Mel, if you spent less time trying to defend the ridiculous by playing deliberately deceptive games and marvel at what actually is, you might be a happier person.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh, you’ve downloaded the PDF now? That proves it! LOL! I’m sure the information bombs and memes are all quite fascinating. And thanks for going to all the trouble to try to prove me wrong with more irrelevance, but hey, knock yourself out. I won’t be wasting any more time with you. You can continue dancing to the music of your DNA,. I’ve got more interesting things with which to spend my time.

        • john zande says:

          Well, after your previous deception with Nietzsche I figured I should probably have a little look at what exactly you were presenting… and sure enough, completely out of context. Again.

          And that’s what I’m saying. This enraged bent of yours to belittle “others” leads you to do silly things; things that aren’t respectable.

  3. AfroScot says:

    I have decided to follow Jesus
    I have decided to follow Jesus
    I have decided to follow Jesus
    No turning back, no turning back.

    Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

  4. This is beautiful,Mel! Well said. It really is that simple, life is about choices and what music you’re going to listen to, Whose voice you’re going to follow. It takes a leap of faith to trust in His goodness, and that can be scary sometimes, but it is so worth it.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I agree, IB. And I absolutely love the leap of faith I’ve taken! This life on earth can sometime really suck, but the “music” of God that we’re all invited to dance to is always wondrous and full of life! 🙂

  5. Wally Fry says:

    I am right there with you Mel and well said. I think Christians sometimes try to downplay the role faith plays in our beliefs. Faith is nothing to be ashamed of, especially in light the fact that, “without faith, it is impossible to please God.”

    • Mel Wild says:

      Amen, Wally. And I agree, we should not be ashamed of our faith. Smart people exercise faith all the time. And to deny God because we can’t find Him in the natural world is just silly—a fallacious category mistake. Of course, we won’t see Him there! Science cannot address the issue of God at all, so it’s a pointless endeavor. But we can tangibly find Him, though imperfectly, in the transformed lives of those who believe and follow Him. As I said in the post, He’s more real to me than all the naysayers arguments.

      • sklyjd says:

        “He’s more real to me than all the naysayers arguments.”

        Exactly the same as all the Islamic Muslims would say, the Scientologists or Mormons, the Jews and Hindus etc. Christianity is not exclusive, it either shares the same God with all the other religions on Earth or the whole dammed thing is manifested within your brain, just as science is discovering.

    • john zande says:

      I think Christians sometimes try to downplay the role faith plays in our beliefs.

      You are aware, aren’t you, that you’re directing this sentiment to a person who has dedicated dozens of posts (the majority of this blog space, in fact) not to defending faith, but instead to the complete opposite, desperately to trying to present allegedly “rational” arguments (even appealing to science on more occassions than we should mention) for the existence of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Faith can be rational, Zande. Talk about a false dichotomy!

      • Wally Fry says:

        John. Yes. I read, and uderstand. Post stands. There ARE rational argumenst for God. That’s not the point here. Your atheist messiah, Richard Dawkins, and others present their arguments. Ultimately no one can prove or disprove their case. Yeah, live with it John, you can type a million scientific words, many in bold face, and you have never disproved God. You make your ultimate decision based of faith. Mel does. I do. That was the post. Maybe you can explain you me how dust lives forever?

        • john zande says:

          I can easily disprove the existence of the specific god you posit; the god of the Pentateuch with all the attributes you dress it in.

          And you appear to be confusing rational belief and faith. If religion were true there’d be no need for faith. Faith is religions (necessitated) self-defence mechanism and without it belief would simply crumble under the fallacy of its unsubstantiated claims. Faith and evidentialism cannot coexist. If something can be believed based on evidence it cannot also be believed on faith, and yet faith is the cornerstone of all religion belief. They are antithetical. The minute evidence appears faith is cast aside in favour of evidence. Belief based on evidence is rational; it follows from the evidence and is justified by it. Conversely, belief without evidence (faith) is irrational and cannot be legitimised by reasonable human beings. Faith, therefore is purposefully regressive, anti-intellectual, obstruent, and is set up in such a way to work against reason.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Sure, John…because you say so. I don’t find your argument very compelling, because you have only said it once, and nothing is in bold face. See my point? Your personal relgious convictions are so strong, and your faith so staunch that discussing with you is useless. So peace out. Although I’d still like somebody to explain how we live forever as dust. Don’t you guys ever correct each other’s stupidity?

        • sklyjd says:

          As usual you like to think you are smart. Well the point I am making is we actually exist forever in some form or another, is that not too difficult for you to work out?

          And FYI John Z has just given you a most comprehensive explanation of rational belief and faith that is a fact.

          If you did not just ignore everything of substance because it comes from an evil atheist and motor off on a tangent when you are found out as wrong or something you do not like you would learn something helpful about the real world.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Look Steve, it’s not my fault you write stuff without paying attention. The intellectual failure here is not on my part. You said we exist forever on the planet Earth, not me. Yet, you have proclaimed over and over multiple times to me that when I die I cease to exist. So, the way I understand what you said is I , as a Christian, cease to exist and you, as an athiest, exist forever. And don’t lecture me about faith, you look like a complete moron. Would you like me to go back in history and count the number of times you have expressed your faith that eventually science will provid the answers to everything. You, Zande and the entire atheist hyena pack on this blog have more faith that most Christians do. I pray daily for my brothers and sisters to rise the leve of faith of most of the militant athiest I know.

          Your are an EXTREMELY religious man. Steve.

        • sklyjd says:

          We do exist forever on the planet Wally, of course you would not understand the fundamental science of nature where nothing remains constant, everything is in a perpetual state of transformation, motion and change. Something cannot suddenly surge up out of nothing without having antecedents that already existed, likewise nothing ever disappears without a trace.

          You don’t like or understand science Wally, so have it your way, see if you can understand English such as the meanings of these words.

          I will gladly admit I am religiously atheist, but I am not conforming, relating or worshipping a religion.

          Religiously means, 1. in a way that relates to or conforms with a religion. 2. with consistent and conscientious regularity. (Google)
          Religion means, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. (Google)
          Religious means, relating to or believing in a religion. (Google)

          As usual do not let your pedantic attitude and the truth get in the way of the facts, as it is clear I am not “an EXTREMELY religious man” but maybe religiously extreme in atheism. Now tell me who “writes stuff without paying attention”? Maybe this stuff is over your head Wally?

        • Wally Fry says:

          “Something cannot suddenly surge up out of nothing without having antecedents that already existed, likewise nothing ever disappears without a trace.”

          True that.

          And, no, nothing you have said iis over my head Steve. My reading comprension skills are just fine.

          “it is clear I am not “an EXTREMELY religious man” but maybe religiously extreme in atheism. ”

          Say what?

        • sklyjd says:

          “Say what?”

          As I thought you would not be able to understand straight forward English. Let me explain it for you. If I did not know any better I would say you were having me on.

          Religion means, belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Therefore, atheism or secularism is not a religion because this does not apply, is this quite clear for you Wally?

          Religious means, relating to or believing in a religion. As the religion meaning above suggests it is about gods but as a disbeliever in gods I cannot be religious can I Wally?

          Religiously in my atheist situation means with consistent and conscientious regularity.
          Therefore, I can only be religiously consistent and conscientious in my atheism, not in a religion, whereas your religiously is in a way that relates to or conforms with a religion, right Wally?

  6. sklyjd says:

    There is a much simpler way to divide these world views.

    The first option is the world of the supernatural with the desire to trust your life with faith in ancient scriptures for today and the future within this unnatural world for ever.

    The second option is the world of reality with the desire to trust your life with the natural evidence and the scientific facts today and the future on planet Earth for ever.

    Of course, the first option will take what it wants from the second option in regards to faith and what they desire, when in reality why do you not live your life solely from what the supernatural world delivers to you?

    Yes I know…..God made everything…..right? Very convenient.

    • Wally Fry says:

      “The second option is the world of reality with the desire to trust your life with the natural evidence and the scientific facts today and the future on planet Earth forever.”

      Do you actually read what you write, Steve, or do you just copy and paste from the slow atheist’ handbook?

      Good to see you acknowledge that you do, in fact, live forever. But, it’s not because of science LOL.

      You and the other atheist blowhards don’t even bother to read the posts you comment on, you just say the same stupid things on every post. Surely you understand that the host was actually writing about how he believes by faith? I suggest that if you want to say something, counter his statement. I mean, Steve you know everything(as you know how to GOOGLE). Surely you can tell Mel how he doesn’t actually understand why he believes?


      • sklyjd says:

        Yes, atheists live forever as dust in the Earth or worm food and for a certain amount of time in peoples memories just like everyone else will, yourself included Wally, even though you are too frightened to want to believe it.

        By the way Wally, you have conveniently not recognised that you too are a blowhard. And to use your term of anxious exasperation…. LOL.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Live forever as dust?

          Ba ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

          Anyway, back to the post. Do you have a rebuttal for Mel’s point in the post, or do you just want a pulpit to preach in? I believe that was comment number 2 you just made from the Handbook for slow atheists. One more and you have hit number 3 and will have to move on to another post so you can start over.

          Seriously, though, do you offer some rebuttal to Mels post? Or perhaps you can explain how exactly one lives forever as dust.

          That’s hilarious!

  7. Isabella Ravndal says:

    Dear Mel. Have you learned something from discussing with atheist that you would not mind sharing with me? :-)<3

  8. jim- says:

    How about neither? I really feel no need to align with any particular view. I will choose my own choices, not someone else’s best option between two wrongs.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And you’re certainly free to do that. Thanks for your opinion, Jim.

      • jim- says:

        Most of our lives were given two wrong choices. Left or right, catholic or Christian, black or white, capitalism or communism. There’s always another option or better way. Curious what you think about my short post tonight if you have a chance.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sure. I don’t think life is one big dichotomy. That wasn’t my point. And I agree, there’s usually a better way, even within our choice to believe or not believe.

  9. John Branyan says:

    This is upsetting to some but it really is a simple dichotomy, Mel. You either believe God exists or you don’t. It’s your choice.

  10. Pingback: Moving on… | In My Father's House

  11. Kristi Ann says:

    Amen-Amein!! I Love that Christian Song Above!! Thanks so sharing!!

    Amen-Amein ❤ ❤ GOD BLESS YOU!! ❤ ❤

    Thanks so very much Brother in Christ-Messiah Jesus-Yeshua MEL!! ❤ I LOVE YOU ALL!! ❤

    GOD BLESS ALL my Sisters and Brothers in Christ Jesus-Yeshua and my Messianic Jewish Sisters and Brothers in Christ-Messiah Jesus-Yeshua and Your Families and Friends!!

    I am Pro-Israel-Yisrael / Pro-Christian and Jewish People who STAND with the Holy Land of Israel-Yisrael and our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America / Pro-Zionism / PRO-LIFE!!

    Please Pray for Israel-Yisrael / Christian Nation United States of America, and our Christian Earth Everyday “Pray Without Ceasing.” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17 KJV )!!

    ( Psalms 33:12 KJV ) “Blessed is the Nation whose GOD is the LORD; and the People whom HE hath Chosen for HIS Own Inheritance.”!!

    Our ONE True GOD’S LOVE 💕💜 is ETERNAL THROUGH HIS SON Christ-MESSIAH Jesus-Yeshua for Today and Everyday Forevermore!!

    I Love you all Everyone through Christ-MESSIAH Jesus-Yeshua, because HE LOVED 💜💕 EVERYONE FIRST!!

    Love 💕 Always and Shalom ( Peace ), YSIC \o/

    Kristi Ann

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.