Did God create the universe?

It seems that many people today are of the opinion that God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. They even deny the existence of God and claim that the universe came into being by itself.

They believe in evolution.

And let me just state a fact here: EVOLUTION IS A THEORY!!!

It has never been proven. It is a theoretical model devised to try to explain how the universe and life as we know it came into existence.

As a Christian, I been criticized for my belief in God. According to one of my colleagues, the only reason that I believe that God created the universe is because the American government is dumb enough to allow American schools to teach their students that the universe was created by God. In actuality, the school system definitely promotes evolution as the main theory behind the creation of the universe. It just doesnโ€™t go out of its way to discount creationism in the way that the German school system does.

But I was actually not offended by my colleague’s beliefs. The truth is, very few people who believe in evolution actually know why Christians do believe that the universe was created. I also found his comment slightly amusing because I am convinced that most of the people who believe in the theory of evolution only believe in it because they have been taught it in their schools. For the most part, they have just never considered any other plausible alternatives.

So I decided to write this post. My purpose here is threefold:

  1. To answer questions that have been asked concerning what exactly I believe.
  2. To ask some questions about the theory of evolution.
  3. To explain more succinctly why exactly I believe what I believe.

Questions concerning the Belief that God created the universe:

How does your belief that God created the universe not contradict the scientific observations and research that has been made?

To answer this question, there needs to be a distinction made between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution. I am not actually sure if these are terms that are used by the scientific community, so I will define these terms as I understand them.

Micro-evolution refers to the evolution of human creatures on a small scale. It explains how species are able to adapt to different environments, and it includes Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. What? I actually believe in something that Charles Darwin wrote? Yes! What a shocker! Charles Darwin made some observations of some birds on some island and realized that the color of the birds’ feathers changed to adapt to the different surroundings. I respect him greatly for making the discovery and actually find it fascinating to see how all of the species of the earth can adapt to change.

Macro-evolution refers to the theory that all life species found on Earth have evolved from one common ancestor. It pretty much states that there was some sort of electrical pulse that jolted some sort of protein soup and turned into a bunch of one-celled organisms. Then those one-celled organisms ate each other up and turned into multi-celled organisms. After a while, the cells evolved and adapted. The multi-celled organisms eventually crawled out of the soup and grew legs and evolved into all of the other kinds of species on the Earth. Frankly, I just don’t buy it. And the thing is, I did oversimplify the theory and make it sound a bit ridiculous (sorry), but if you actually consider all of the steps that would have to take place in order for this to take place scientifically, it isn’t any more plausible. But I’ll get to that more later.

Why do you believe that the universe is 6000 years old?

I don’t actually believe that the universe is 6000 years old. Some Christians may actually believe this (although I honestly have never met one) because they believe that the universe began when mankind was created (c.a. 6000 years ago). But if we look at the Bible, we notice that it doesn’t say anything of the sort.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 But the earth became waste and emptiness…

Here we can see that the account of the actual creation of the universe is very vague. It doesn’t state that God created the universe and then instantly created mankind. In fact, the gap between the two verses encompasses around 13 billion years. And the thing is? We KNOW that the universe came into existence at a specific point of time. The proof is in the night sky. The universe is supposedly without limits and there are supposedly an incalculable number of stars in the sky. So there is theoretically not a square millimeter of the sky (as we see it) in which a star does not lie. But we don’t see stars everywhere. This is because the other stars in the universe are to far away and their light has not yet had the time to reach Earth. The Big Bang theory (which is held as the main belief of almost all scientists) assumes that the universe came into existence at a single point in time by some unknown and yet unexplained force (what kind of force? I am guessing God…), and it describes the behavior of the universe until the point of creation. What? I believe in the Big Bang theory? Well…I did take astronomy and I found it extremely fascinating.

Questions that I have for any, and all those, who believe in the theory of Evolution?

Sadly, the two questions above are the only ones that I have ever been asked regarding my belief that God created the universe. If you have any more, please comment and I will be more than willing to update this post. However, I also have a TON of questions about evolution because I personally just don’t understand how evolution can even be considered as a plausible theory (and to clarify, as I mentioned above, by evolution here I mean MACRO-evolution, not micro-evolution). Before we go on though, I would like to pose one question and ask you to consider it as you go on to read the other questions:

Why do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in it by default because it is the theory that you have been taught since you were a child, or do you believe it because you have already thoroughly explored all other alternatives (on a scientific level) and found them to be lacking?

Questions relating to microbiology/chemistry:

So my first set of questions have to do with how a single cell could evolve. I am by no means a biologist, but I did pick up some general knowledge of the working of cells during my high school experience, and even did some experiments with DNA extractions and DNA replications using PCR. Even the tiniest human or plant cell is extremely complex (see diagram below). It consists of a cell wall and many different organelles, which carry out many different functions, most of which have to do with the reproduction of DNA.

(I got the above diagram from this site).

It consists of a cell wall and many different organelles that carry out many different functions. Of course, the theory of evolution doesn’t actually claim that such a complex cell was created in an instant. Rather, it claims that cells similar to bacteria evolved over a period of time. Bacteria only consist of a cell wall, a bunch of DNA that floats around inside of the cell wall, and a bunch of proteins that carry out the DNA replication process. But that is the thing that you really have to understand about cells, proteins are the basic building block with which a cell is made. They also carry out every step of the DNA replication process. Pretty much, without proteins, there is no life.

So we are coming closer to the point where I actually begin to ask questions about the theory of evolution (this is not an anecdote, I promise. But I do find molecular biology absolutely fascinating). Now we have established the fact that life is fully dependent on protein and the reproduction of protein. So, how is protein reproduced today? It turns out that we have this fascinating thing called DNA. It consists of four molecules that, when connected together form a really long double helix. And the order of the molecules in the DNA is very important, because it is actually a code which tells the cell how to create a certain protein. Proteins are very complex molecules that are made up of smaller molecules called amino acids (of which there are 22 different kinds). But there is something remarkable about the molecules that make up DNA and the amino acids that make up proteins. It is called “Chirality”. It turns out that if you have a carbon atom which has bonded with four other molecules, and the other molecules are all different, there are actually two different shapes that are formed. Get a chemistry kit and build a such a molecule and then switch two of the groups and you will see what I mean. The difference is the difference between your left hand and your right hand. The two molecule types, or isotopes, are actually mirror images of each other. Therefore, the scientists classify these two groups as being “Left-Handed” or “Right-Handed”. The thing is, DNA is made up completely of right-handed molecules (Adenine (A), Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Thymine (T)) and proteins are made up completely of left-handed molecules (Amino acids). But when these compounds are produced in nature, they are ALWAYS produced as a 50/50 compound of left and right-handed isotopes.

Please check out this article. Dr. Charles McCombs explains chirality much better than I ever could.

So now after attempting to give you a couple years of science courses in a few paragraphs, I will finally get down to the questions I wanted to ask for all those who adhere to the theory of Evolution:

  1. DNA relies on proteins for its reproduction. Proteins rely on DNA in order to be reproduced. So which was created first? Proteins or DNA? (Much like the chicken or the egg question…which is also a good question by the way)
  2. What is the probability, considering that half of all isotopes of A,T,G, and C produced in nature are the left-handed isotope, that DNA created would be completely composed to the right-handed isotope?
  3. What is the probability, considering that half of all isotopes of amino acids produced in nature are right-handed, that proteins created would be completely composed of the left-handed isotope?
  4. What is the probability that all of the A,T,G, and C molecules would come together in the right order to form a functional piece of DNA that actually translates to a valid protein?
  5. What is the probability that the proper DNA would be coded for all of the known proteins necessary to sustain life?
  6. What is the probability that simple cells would evolve into more a more complex cell like the plant cell?
  7. What is the probability that these complex cells would adapt and clump together to form a living, multi-celled organism?
  8. How would a multi-celled organism evolve so that different cells would have different functions (eye, nerve, blood, bone, hair, etc.)?
  9. What is the probability that the process described in the previous question would actually happen?
  10. What is the probability for all of the other steps that would need to happen in order for life as we know it to evolve?

Questions related to philosophy:

  1. ย Considering all the immensely small combined probability discussed in the previous section, WHY IS BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION ANY DIFFERENT THAN BELIEVING IN GOD???

  2. Why is there beauty on this Earth? It is not actually necessary for our very existence, so why did it evolve?
  3. Why do human beings always spend their whole entire lives wondering and looking for the meaning of life?
  4. Why have all known human civilizations had some sort of religion? Why don’t other animals search for the meaning of life or try to worship God?

The Reason I Believe in God

I took the opportunity to add the following verse to my list of my favorite Bible verses:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made so that they would be without excuse.

I have considered everything I have learned in school and by living life and decided that all things considered, believing that some higher being designed and created the Earth is a much more plausible explanation than evolution.

But why do I actually believe in my God?

I have called out to the Lord, and as an answer, I had a certain, unmistakable, real, touch of Him. I like to say that I have tasted Him, because I find that the faculty of tasting is one of the best metaphors to describe the feeling that you get when you touch God. Through these experiences, I have come to believe two things:

  1. I am absolutely certain that God exists.
  2. Through my contact and tasting of Him, I have come to know something of His power and ability. Therefore, I believe with my whole heart that God is fully capable of creating the universe and every little tiny detail within it.

It only takes a tiny amount of faith to go from believing that God CAN create the universe to believing that He DID create the universe. And that is exactly what I believe. I believe that my wonderful, lovable God created the universe.


  1. Incredibly well said! thank you! I hope many can read this and see too that our wonderful God is the only answer to the creation of the universe and also is the meaning of our human life!

  2. Hello, sorry that you’ve been treated disrespectful by your colleague. This is very stupid. I’d like to write down some thoughts on your blog post. I cannot answer all of your questions (most of them are rhetorical anyway) because I am also not an expert in all these subjects. However I do respect the beliefs of others and my comments are not meant to hurt anyone.

    OK, let’s start with the fact that Evolution is a theory. That is totally true. It is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. It is a model that explains how life form changes over time. Scientific theories cannot be proven but a theory must devise an experiment or observation that can falsify the theory. Evolution is a theory in that sense because it can be disproven if we find lets say a mammal in a sediment that is from the jurassic. It is also a good theory because it can be used to predict the outcome of experiments – that is the way pharmacological research works these days. I am not aware of any experiment or observation that could be used to falsify creationism, thus it is not a scientific theory. If you know such an experiment I would be happy to read about it in your blog.

    Bottom line: Evolution is a theory and maybe there are different theories that are plausible. Creationism however is not a theory because there is no experiment that can disprove it.

    By the way – I don’t think that evolution and believing in god are incompatible.

    Concerning chirality … Molecules form and break up into pieces. If we observe something that looks like a steady state it is just an equilibrium. If you synthesize organic molecules in a test tube you will get a racemic mixture. But if you put in a catalyst (such as a protein) that is itself left-handed you will get a different mixture preferring one of the two forms. If the products are removed from the mixture (by forming bigger molecules) you will get even more of the single form. Chirality does not conflict with evolution theory.

    Regarding your questions about the probability. I think these are rhetorical, but … lets say the probability is 1/p. Now you need to multiply it by the number of planets in the universe to get the probability that it happened. This might result in a probability that is not ridiculously low.

    Regarding philosophy:

    1) You don’t believe in a scientific theory. It is a model that partially explains how nature behaves. Not more and not less. Evolution theory answers the question how things happen, not why (in a religious or philosophical way)

    2) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How do you know, that if the whole planet were covered with yellow slime you wouldn’t think that it is beautiful.

    3 and 4) I personally don’t, so I cannot give a good answer. Maybe just a curiosity of human neurobiology. Who knows?

    Regarding the reasons you believe in god … I totally respect that. However I think it is not good to mix religion and science.

    • Thank you for your thoughtful response. And thanks for your insight regarding what makes up a scientific theory. I honestly can’t think of an experiment that could disprove that God is real. If I do think of one, I’ll let you know.

      And I agree with you as well that evolution and believing in God aren’t incompatible.

      And maybe we shouldn’t mix up God with science, but since God, and my belief in God, are so intermingled with every thing else in my life, I would have difficulty doing so. Whenever I study anything related to science, it all seems to make me appreciate God even more.

  3. Hello,

    I appreciated your post, it was well thought out and you articulated a lot of ideas that I’ve had a hard time expressing logically. I believe that evolution is a fact, rather than a theory. The Bible was written in alegory (spelling??) because the mechanisms of the Earth and the universe are extraordinarily complex. It’s my personal opinion that science is discovering how G-d created the universe what these mechanisms are and how they work. Science has also shown just how infantismally fragile these are. If one simple piece is missing or out of place, the whole thing can come crashing down on us. It’s truly amazing how precarious the balance of life is.

  4. Hi Joy,
    Thanks for the detailed blog post, which must have taken a while to put together.
    To add to what one of the commenters above said, while science gives us the “how”, it doesn’t answer the “why”.
    In my experience, the answer to “why” does come through faith. And that answer includes more than “just” who or what caused the universe to come into existence, which is in a sense objective, and much easier to debate about. Faith in the sense of knowing God (not merely nodding one’s head in agreement with a doctrine) gives us a whole other perspective, I would even say sense of purpose, in our own lives, too.

  5. I don’t see why the explanation of how the human race came to be has to be connected to the proposition of a metaphysical creator of the Universe. Even if we completely drop every aspect of the theory of evolution and everything we know about DNA, you still have all your work ahead of you if you wish to propose a theory based on an interpretation of the bible.

    It seems to me (and please correct me if I misunderstood) that one of your primary arguments includes your perception of beauty that can be encountered on the Earth. There are a number of issues with this assertion, and I will try to dive into my primary quarrels. (A) Most obviously and also most boringly one could observe that this is completely and utterly subjective — what you perceive as beautiful, I might perceive as ugly and vice versa. In fact I consider the world we live in today primarily disgusting and the superficial red herring of beautiful landscapes is insignificant compared with the corruptness, cruelty and indifference towards the suffering of others of what you (or rather the old testament) claim to be god’s master piece: Humanity. I wont go into the “Why is there evil in the world if there is a god?” nonsense. But arbitrary perception of beauty motivates well my objection (B), even if we would agree (which we don’t) on which is beautiful and what not, that the world is primarily beautiful and even if we could come up with some objective criterion for beauty (which I guarantee, we cannot) it still wouldn’t explain why the best or rather the only explanation for this beauty would be your proposition of a creator. It’s a romantic assumption that a fatherly god made humans and installed a world around them which they would approve of. That’s mighty nice of this god being, right? I guess so, but why is your assertion correct? Just because it feels cozy? If you merely want an allegorical explanation that helps you have pleasant dreams at night, be my guest, but please don’t pretend this is objectively true, just because your stomach tells you so. See, that is really my main problem; I plainly have to take your word for it. I cannot go home and check if this god theory has merit, because it is based on your personal perception of the world and the result it has on your level of comfort.

    I hope you already see the answer to your question 2. (which is the first that doesn’t address evolution, which is an entirely different topic, even though I personally have come to the conclusion that this particular theory is the best model of reality we have so far). The premise to your question, and the implicit answer you provide (“god must have done it!”) simply do not have any practical meaning.

    Question number 3 is actually incorrect. A number of rationalists have given up searching for a meaning of life, because the search already implies that there is an objective meaning of me and you being here. It is my own conclusion (if you really insist you can call it a conviction, but I’d very much appreciate if you didn’t call it a belief) that the question of the meaning of life is a logical fallacy, because we imply purpose where none exists, simply because humans are used to things having a purpose — created things, by the way. A hammer has both a creator and a purpose, but a natural cave has no intrinsic purpose nor does it have a creator, if you ask me. The fact that a cave makes a fairly good shelter and a person makes a good carpenter, doesn’t mean they have a purpose.
    You might argue that since humans are created by god, according to your theory, they probably have a purpose, and I would even agree that if they were, they would have. Contrary you may claim that since they have a purpose there has to be a creating god. I would again agree, that if they had the first they probably would also have the latter. But you cannot conclude that they must have both, just because some wonder if they have, just as I cannot conclusively prove that they have neither. But since you are making a positive claim that there is a god, it is your obligation, not mine, to produce evidence. I have yet to be presented with a single hint of evidence for any kind of deity.

    If you insist on an answer to question number 4, I cannot offer you a conclusive one, but I can speculate. For this I would, however, require some evolution theory, and I couldn’t keep my promise to leave it out (if you are interested in speculation, I can add another reply, though). So, I can only ask to revisit the answer to question 3; It is irrelevant that some people deem it worth their limited time to believe in some sort of metaphysics (which is a generalisation of the existence of a single Abrahamic god), it simply doesn’t help any argument. I suppose we can both agree that people believe and esp. used to believe all sorts of bollocks (if the flat-earth isn’t convincing (and you would be right not to be convinced by one example) just google for “list of common misconceptions”), but that doesn’t contribute to it being true or false. It just means that humans are curious, yet gullible beings.

    I sincerely hope you read this reply in an objective way and are not offended by it, just as I am not offended by your claim that there exists no evidece to support the theory of evolution, which is a slap in the face for every single botanist, zoologist and generally every scientist that devoted their life to the exploration of terrestrial life.

    I would however, very much appreciate a reply.

    • Thank you for your comment. I know it is about a half a year after you posted this comment, but I did appreciate your comment. I am essentially a logical person. Otherwise, I would not study computer science.

      I have no real expectations about what this article has done. If anything, I hope it would cause everybody to think a little bit outside of the box. Maybe to reconsider the things that we take for granted.

      However, I have no real intention of trying to convince people that God exists. I am fully convinced that only He can convince anybody that He exists.

      I’m sorry if my treatment of the God question bothered you. When it comes to objective fact, I do treat the statement ‘God exists’ as an objective fact. But this is not because I claim to know everything in the whole entire universe. It is because in my subjective universe, “God exists” is an objective fact.

      That is faith. It is not that I hold to some superstitious belief in order to make myself feel better when I go to sleep at night. It is because I actually DO BELIEVE that God exists, and not only that He exists, but that He became the man Jesus and died on the cross for my sins and is now the life-giving spirit so that I can contact Him any time that I want to.

      This may not be “objective fact”. But I believe it as strongly as I believe that the sky is blue, or that I was born in November of 1990. So when I write, I write about my God as if He actually exists, as if I can actually talk to Him right now, as if He is my personal savior, my life, my everything. As if I love Him more than anything else in the whole universe. Because I do.

      If I were to write about my God on something published by another person, I would feel responsible to make sure that I did not publish anything that went against their view of the world. But since the posts I write are on my blog, I have only one responsibility: to not contradict to myself (and my God, because that is important to me).

      I feel no need to treat the “God question” as if it were a subjective topic. Because to me it isn’t.

      I hope this reply is objective enough. I apologize it is was not. =)

  6. Hi Joy,

    my name is Tim and I live in Germany also, but I was born here. So I hope my English is not too hard to understand. ๐Ÿ™‚ Nevertheless, for the other readers I will go on in English and not in German.
    I deeply appreciate your blog text that I stumbled upon by surfing on a website of a friend. Actually I read your blog post several times. So there are many good points in it for me. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Until a year ago I was a very strong believer in God also. I was the one telling all my family members to go to church at least for Christmas even if it took much effort to convince them, which I always was able to. I prayed every night of course, mostly “Our Father” (“Vater unser” Matthew 6,5-15 if the translation is wrong) and added some other things after that which were important for me at that time. As a Christian (Protestant) I was criticized several times too by people that called themselves atheists. You told us some things about you, so it is only fair if I do the same. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Your first question was answered very good by Mac the Knife I think. He (?) stated what a scientific theory is and that there has to be a “theoretical” way (e.g. an experiment) to falsify the scientific theory, otherwise you cannot call it like that. I mean “theoretical” in the sense that no scientist found out till now that evolution did not happen by finding a fact. For instance there were never found bones of an animal that should not exist and that evolution theory was not able to explain.
    I myself thought the same way you did, when stating that the Big Bang does not disprove the existence of God. God himself could have created the Big Bang, of course. And that is still to be considered possible.

    The other three questions (2, 3 and 4) I would like to answer together because the reason from my point of view is the same. You actually stated it yourself in your blog: “I also found his comment slightly amusing because I am convinced that most of the people who believe in the theory of evolution only believe in it because they have been taught it in their schools. For the most part, they have just never considered any other plausible alternatives.”

    This goes even further. Because it’s very hard to understand (at least it was for me) I will try using easy examples to communicate the idea.
    Think of a new-born baby. She is completely empty in her mind. She just has some reflexes. Over time she learns and learns. All that this human being will know was given her from the outside. That is also the case for most of the believers of evolution. They did not hear of anything else or understand it so they are not able to state something else. An Eskimo who lived all his life in the same village in the ice will never dream of going for a walk on a palm beach, if he did not see a movie of it or talked to somebody who was at a palm beach before. If this Eskimo sees a foreigner he will think that the foreigner mainly eats seals, too. Anything else is out of the frame of reference of the Eskimo. What you often hear is “Men are only looking for the breasts and the butt of girls. That’s just like they are.” No, that’s not like they are, it’s how they were brought up. Nearly the whole movie industry is concerned with filming female breasts and butts. If a female leans forward, the camera zooms in. There are even artificial nipples that actresses have to put under their shirt so they shine through (very obvious in “Batman Begins” for example). That way some guys ought to buy the DVD or go to the cinema to see the movie again. I hope, I was not too direct here and did not embarrass you with that. I did not want to. ๐Ÿ™‚ It is just a good example that happens in our current society.

    For the same reason you are stating in your “about section”, that “6. Growing up, I always considered myself to look average (dirty blonde hair, unremarkable features, not fat, not thin). My opinion on that subject has actually not changed, but I now donโ€™t mind being average. Itโ€™s better than being ugly.” and “15. Iโ€™ve never had a boyfriend.” Your attachment of importance to that shows that you were indoctrinated to do so. Before getting mad at me, please let me explain it. ๐Ÿ˜‰ If you think a guy looks very beautiful and then you talk to him and the following happens: He states something you do not like at all, like “Americans are all fat and dumb” or “Christians don’t know what they are talking about” … something like that, you realize very soon, that he has a pimple there, a scar there and a wrinkle here. With every sentence he says he gets uglier and uglier to you. The same works the other way round. I don’t know if you had such a moment or even know what I mean, but I hope you do.

    If all people had horns, the few that would not have and are not old enough would say to their parents: “I cannot live in such a deformed way.” They would cry until their parents would send them to a plastic surgeon to give them artificial horns. Whoever says to you that you are ugly, average looking or even very beautiful really does not talk about you but about their personal upbringing. If you love your Grandpa very much and he has a beauty patch in his face, you will like guys with similar beauty patches in their face a little more, even if you do not know them at all.
    If you are interested in this way of thinking, you might find more information here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_bTUJp39o

    For all believers in God I have a question: When you are praying, don’t you say then “Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven”? For me this means we should start working in that direction. We should not fight each other, pay each other off, let children die of starvation, kill people that are different than us and so on … That’s all just verbal, if we do not know about an alternative to strive for. A possible solution to our problems could be the system proposed by http://www.thevenusproject.com
    At least it is worth looking into in my opinion.

    I don’t know if my answers helped at all or if you even read this, because your blog post is fairly old regarding that I am posting this in 2014. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to get an answer from you. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Whoever reads this: Thank you very much for doing so.

    • Hi Tim,

      Thank you for your response. As you have said, I posted this two years ago, and have therefore had two years to think about the questions that I have posted here. I have also researched a bit more into the topic out of interest, but essentially I have reached the conclusion that there is only one person who can convince anybody that He exists: God Himself.

      I agree with you completely. The Lord’s Prayer is a great prayer. We should concentrate on the Lord, and pray that His will would be done. Not as we think it should be done, but done as it is done in heaven.

      • Hi Joy.

        And thank you again for your response. It was faster than I thought it would be. ๐Ÿ™‚
        However, I feel a bit disappointed now, because it took me much effort to answer to your blog entry in a way that is as comprehensible as possible. I did put so much effort in it, because I saw how much effort you did put in your blog entry. But you just answered in a very standardized and non-personal way, not going into detail at all. ๐Ÿ™

        “I have also researched a bit more into the topic out of interest, but essentially I have reached the conclusion that there is only one person who can convince anybody that He exists: God Himself.” — I am interested which research helped you to come to that conclusion. I envy you for your clear mind and strong believe. At the same time I am asking myself, how you got into this and how it would be possible for me too. Were there any events in your life that lead to your believe? In my life it was my family who showed me God and the Bible. It seems to me, that it goes much deeper for you. I am thinking of something like burning thorn bushes etc. ๐Ÿ™‚ Just a little joke, but I hope you know what events I am referring to. How did God show Himself to you?

        You said “I agree with you completely.” — What do you mean by that? In which way do you agree? What are the ideas you are agreeing with? Could you state it with your own words?

        “We should concentrate on the Lord, and pray that His will would be done. Not as we think it should be done, but done as it is done in heaven.” — I am not sure, if I understand that statement correctly. There are about 13000 children dieing of starvation each day. Should we pray for them or accept the will of God? If it is the will of God who is omnipotent what will our prayers do to change that? What are the religious organizations like “Brot fรผr die Welt”/”Bread for the World” doing? If we pray to God to let less children die of starvation, is it not a sign that we do not trust Him? God knows everything, so He knows what He is doing, doesn’t He? It’s not clear to me. What do you mean by your statement?
        The same holds for car accidents then. Why do we use airbags and safety belts in the cars? We use it, because less people die in car accidents that way. So is it against the Lord, if we try to distribute food more appropriately, so less children die? I really don’t get the idea here. ๐Ÿ™

        Please, could you elaborate more on these topics? I am still interested in it as you can tell.
        I hope I did not sound too disappointed though. ๐Ÿ™‚


Leave a Comment.