Here is an excellent review of the movie Oppenheimer. I haven't even seen the movie, I'm not even advocating you see it either, it's not family friendly including some gratuitous sex scenes apparently. So why am I recommending this review?
Because the review names some very important questions that need answering about immanent dangers in our own time, like AI and biotech, and whether we can or will listen to wisdom from minority voices, rather than simply cancel them. Same with any big issues, like referendums... Better to engage all the facts & reasons. 
Here, look, just read this: Two Lessons from Oppenheimer | Evolution News

Likewise ending Child Slavery requires open conversation, yet some resisted the release of the movie Sound Of Freedom by Angel Studios (The Chosen), labelling it 'controversial.' I'm booking my tickets to this one:  Sound of Freedom - Daily Declaration (canberradeclaration.org.au)

There are two questions in this referendum:
1) about constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, which is due;
and 2) about a new national Voice mechanism.
Part 1) already has bipartisan support. “As a party, we seek to unite the country by constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians.” says Peter Dutton, (Weekend Australian 15 Apr 2023, p21 right.)
[On the next page Peter Craven (ibid p22) gives a false premise by claiming, “the state of Australian politics now means you are for constitutional recognition or you’re against it.” That's clearly false. It's the divisive narrative, falsely casting opponents of the Voice mechanism as anti-recognition, even racist.]

It's only part 2), the Voice, that does not have broad support. Warren Mundine makes that case (ibid p15 below). There are 150 plus aboriginal nations in Australia - who's voice will be represented in The Voice?

And how can The Voice mechanism truly supersede existing processes when it promises to maintain the existing processes it claims don't work! Or do they actually work after all, in which case we don't need the Voice. If the Voice mechanism is a good idea, let it gain support on its own merits, not by forcing it into the constitution. Separate the issue of constitutional recognition from the Voice mechanism.

So what words will be changed in the constitution?
Here is the wording change as initially proposed in March '23:

- One concern is about how submitted Australia would become to this "body," the Voice. Part 3 indicates the mechanism can be changed by parliament to suit the needs of the times. But still, how much political pressure would Voice representations have? Who could ignore them without being labelled racist? "Co-existing sovereignty" is an oxymoron, clearly divisive, yet precisely what is called for by the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which tells us the aims of the Voice.
- A second concern is that The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly submits to a polytheistic worldview with which I do disagree. Albanese's position is that "While the Voice could be done without a referendum, Indigenous people asked in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for it to be enshrined into the nation's founding document as recognition for First Nations people." Now I'm happy with the constitution's current first words, "Under Almighty God..." which belongs there, both absolutely and also because all religions, even Aboriginal, have a concept of a supreme Creator behind it all (although some then diverge into polytheism and pantheism), and even atheists can agree that societies do better in reference to God, even if He's only a unifying concept in their thinking. But is the Voice to be in reference to ancestral polytheism instead, and is Australia to submit to this worldview? 
Wiradjuri man Neville Naden explains reconciliation from a Biblical perspective - it's better. 
And here's some more on the theological considerations of aboriginal recognition - there are limits. 
- A third problem to consider is that building in this extra mechanism separates out first peoples from the rest of Australians. Are we sure we want this? We can never be one people if this specific separation is constitutionally perpetuated. As a Christian I know that all nations ultimately can be united in Christ, as Christianity is the only truly multicultural worldview, (and it even has the foundation for allowing people to not choose Christianity.) Australia could be that kind of unified country, but would this constitutional change be a wedge against such ultimate unity? It is one thing to recognise that Aboriginal people were here first and we need to correct the lies and fallout from tera nullus, but it's another to enshrine a mechanism that will require & maintain two voices, never to become truly one.

Constitutional recognition? yes, something in the constitution is due. The Voice mechanism? no, it will constitutionally commit us to ongoing racial separation, and conflicts over co-existing sovereignty. It is certainly not racist to refuse a divisive mechanism.
That's why I think it very sad that Albanese is blowing this opportunity for constitutional recognition by imposing the Voice.

The official referendum booklet of Yes/No cases includes other arguments not listed in this blog, but doesn't include the problems of polytheism or co-existing sovereignty. Nor does it address the very involved processes of the Voice that are being planned for all levels of governments, by the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government July 2021.

The upcoming Creation Ministries tour of Israel will be much better than the three trips I've done, and not so much more expensive, plus proper hotels! The reason I'm seriously considering it is the destinations! The tours I've run major on the life of Jesus. But this tour will confirm much more than those events. You'll see in person that the Biblical historical descriptions are confirmed by the locations and archaeological finds. In addition to the main Jesus-related places I've taken others before, this tour visits:

• Ein Gedi (David & Saul)
• Jericho
• Masada
• City of David
• Megiddo (whence Armageddon)
• Lachish (evidence of a Hezekiah battle with Assyria)
  
• Arad (where an Israelite Temple was built outside God's instructions)
  
• Beit Shean (huge archaeological site of various cultures)
  
• Caesarea Philippi (pagan 'gates of hell')
  
• Tel Dan (time of the Judges)
• Hazor (Judges, Solomon, Assyrian and Babylonian times)
• Shiloh (Samuel, and Psalm 78)
• Azekah (David & Goliath)

And did I mention the accommodations (end of page.)
Check out all the details here: israel2023.creation.com
Maybe I'll see you there...

      Is a right understanding of Marriage an essential issue?
I'm told some Baptists are wondering what to do with churches in the denomination that want to conduct and affirm gay weddings. Is gay-marriage an essential for unity among us, or a non-essential for freedom?
      First, in all things love.
That is, if male-female marriage is retained as an essential for unity in the denomination, and changers disagree with that and leave, there can and should still be love between us. Disagreeing doesn't mean we stop caring about each other. No-brainer.
      What message would non-affirmation send to LGBTQ people?
1. That love isn't contingent on agreement. It is presumptuous to suggest that affirmation is the only option when it gets personal. Many of us have found there is liberation in being loved in spite of disagreements, rather than dependant upon agreement. (The former is tolerance, the latter is bigotry.) So we provide unconditional love to others with whom we disagree. If love is conditional on affirmation, then where does one turn for love when opinions differ? Thus, here is a group who loves people anyway, whilst they change in theological, spiritual, psychological, social dimensions. This is the truelove.is testimony of more LBGTQ people than the activists. We can disagree over sexual mores, yet with real love and acceptance of the person, "warts and all," as we used to say.
2. That our definition of marriage and gender involves much more than the two people - God instituted it with male-female specifically built in as a sacred model to the world of Christ and the Church (Eph5). This is a non-negotiable theme in our foundational texts.
      "Isn’t marriage a non-essential issue over which we can agree to differ?"
Or is marriage actually sacred, not open to redefinition, an essential at least in the sense of worthy of denominational distinctive. Baptists drew a line about baptism: is marriage of that order?
Here’s the main point (which was mostly omitted during the marriage plebiscite debates, as people debated a handful of passages specifically prohibiting same-sex immorality): marriage is a majestic theme of some 600 verses winding throughout Scripture about marriage/divorce, faithfulness/unfaithfulness, husband/wife, and all in contexts assuming male/female-ness - such that if it is not male/female it is not marriage. This theme includes a special synergy between a man & woman, male-femaleness being part of the original Imageo-Dei (Gen1), and is specifically reiterated by Jesus (Mat19). Marriage is thus a sacred union, an object lesson of Christ and the church, our ultimate destiny in the New Jerusalem, indeed a salvation invitation, “The Spirit and the Bride say “Come!”” (Rev 21,22). This sacred union is therefore not something we can redefine to suit the winds of culture. It is specifically gender-defined by God, as part of our foundational creation, and our eternal destiny, which our puny human marriages are supposed to model in the meantime (Eph5).
      "Is marriage a salvation issue?"
Does an individual have to understand human marriage in order to be saved, no, salvation is not a theology test. But there must be our marriage-like covenant with, and submission to, Christ in view of his saving sacrifice for us. We’re saying “I do” to Jesus, just like …a marriage. Christ died for his Bride. Marriage (male-female) is part of our image-of-God foundations, our relationship with God, and our ultimate destiny. Faithfulness to marriage is about faithfulness to Jesus, which is about our salvation.
Recently I've observed how Naturalism and New Age converge upon the same sexual immorality as supposed gateways to evolution/enlightenment. Kinseyan Naturalism promotes sexual immorality as evolution; New Age Tantric Hinduism promotes sexual immorality as enlightenment. Why would worldviews from such seemingly different foundations land on the exact same marriage-destroying practices? Because they come from the same pit. Same as the gnostic temple prostitution which Paul confronted in his day. Marriage is a prime spiritual battleground. It seems to be more a salvation issue than the world is aware of. Pray into that.
      "Was sex a part of any apostles creed?"
Yes, the Jerusalem Council Acts 15:29. No sexual immorality (ie sex outside marriage [which is male-female.])
      "Does the fact that sex isn’t in most creeds mean it is not a salvation issue?"
Many sins are not mentioned in the creeds, but that doesn't make them ok. In fact we could say that in Christianity sexual morality was assumed as a given, until now. Likewise the nature of marriage a given.
Moreover a big salvation issue is whether we trust & obey Jesus or not, whether we listen to Jesus and do what he says - and what Jesus says on the nature of marriage is actually pretty clear.
      "Is gay marriage like divorce, something we’ll just get used to, and eventually justify?"
No, because in Mat19 Jesus allows for divorce due to hard-heartedness, but he re-affirms male-female marriage. To justify non-hetero marriage, you’d have to ignore Jesus affirmation, and that Biblical marriage grand-narrative.
      "Don’t we want to see love win, not truth win?"
It’s not either or, it’s only both. If it’s not truthful, it's not going to be loving. Good intentions alone pave the road to a bad destination. The road to heaven is paved with wisdom, truth in love.
      "Isn’t disunity a bad witness?"
Sure, so don't depart from Jesus' way. Listen to Jesus, unite around the truth of the matter. It is unity in the Spirit of Christ that is a good witness. Truth in love. Not mere contradictory affirmations of whatever, that’d be disunity. What good is salt if it loses its distinctive flavour. Our unity is in seeking first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, allowing him to add to us what we need. When our hearts are filled with love from him, we start to see our true identity is in him, not in sexual identity or any other idolatry. He leads us into his life-giving truth. God does love the whole world, yet not all will be saved. God loves Jew and Gentile alike as both find their unity in Christ - in fact Col3:11 is in a passage specifying putting off the sexually immoral self, and putting on Christ who is all and in all.
      "Who decides which way is the truth he will lead us into?"
The wisdom of scripture does indicate what his righteousness looks like. And one’s interpretation of scripture must include ALL the relevant passages, not just a handful, not just the love passages, but the ‘put off’ passages too, and the grand-narrative. So although one might not agree at first with his truth, over time the honest enquirer of the LORD will soon be led in that way.
      "So what is a denomination to decide?"
It is fair and fine for Baptists to retain Biblical marriage as a denominational distinctive (it is fair to say that marriage was always assumed to be male-female - until these recent challenges to that unity.) I’d say retain it as we do with baptism, for the sake of truth in love, unity in the Spirit, and scriptural integrity. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things, and if someone disagrees, this too God will make clear to them. Meanwhile they can either concede or secede.
      "What about free speech, freedom of conscience?"
Some have falsely compared this situation to Andrew Thornburn's case where we say he should have the right to think differently than Essendon on marriage, yet here we are saying gay-marriage Baptists should not be allowed to so practice within the Baptist union. This is a false comparison. Every club has its social (or formal) contracts, the parameters within which we agree to operate. A footy club is about playing footy, which has nothing to do with sexual mores: if you play footy you're a team-mate, regardless of whatever else you think about other things, we expect you to cooperate around footy. This makes footy a great Third Place community. A church's focus is around following Jesus, which does have something to do with sexual mores: if you seek to serve him, you're a team-mate, but just as there are rules in footy, there are moral parameters in the church within which to teach and protect the flock from wolves. So every denomination or church defines those, and participants are relevantly expected to concede to those. Thornburn's sexual mores are not relevant to footy, and it is totalitarian to say so. But they are relevant to church, where he may discuss divergence but is expected to ultimately concede to the relevant social contract.
      "Isn’t that still divisive?"
No, and it's actually manipulative to say so. Every group has agreed parameters. In this case the nature of marriage was always an agreed distinctive. (As a marriage celebrant I have a letter from the Baptists of WA about marriage after the plebiscite that clarifies this.) Now that some seek to change it, it’s not divisive to retain the distinctive. It should simply be a matter of the changer deciding that they are now outside the existing parameters of the group. That happens. And if the group disagrees, you can start your own group with your own parameters. What is divisive is for the changers to claim the retainers are divisive, and try to force a change in the name of "unity" - that’s off topic manipulation and should be rebuffed as such. Get back to thinking and praying about the issue itself. And if retainers resist the change, changers don’t get to take over the group and send retainers off to start their own group. Watch out for that deception.

Census data says Australian "Christianity" is down to 44% - the first time below half the population. No newslflash to those of us who know the percentage of regularly practising Christians is more like 10%, salt sprinkled in the world. But this decline was headline news in May, with broadcasters assuming that this trajectory will continue into the future. But that ain't necessarily so. As Andrew Turner writes:

• "...we Christians have agency and responsibility. We’re not mere victims of vast cultural forces that are eating us up. The truth is that Christ’s kingdom is everlasting, it’s on the right side of history and will rightly prevail. No empire, force, ideology or culture will swallow it up or outlast it. Remember Nebuchadnezzar’s statue dream? There is no better, cleverer road than the way of Jesus, they all end up being detours.
• "Don’t we know this?
  . In the year 1800, on Easter Sunday at St Paul’s cathedral in London, the number who took communion was six. Christianity was on the way out; Science was the bright new star. But looking back, we now think of the 1800s as a century of enormous Christian growth.
  . In Germany in 1930 it seemed clear that the way forward was science, technology, and humanism. Christians were backwards sentimentalists lost in a past age. Forward together! Now we look back on Hitler’s twelve year ‘Thousand-year-Reich’ with abject horror.
  Things change. The direction our society is going in is not obvious, linear, inevitable, or beyond our influence as God works in history through us."

Turner goes on to say that the census should be a good nudge for us to refocus on seeking the lost who the census spotlights - most either Were Christians, or just Dunno. We can help them.

• Were: "8 million Church Drop-outs – describing themselves as Christian in belief, but not intentionally connecting with other believers.
  
• Dunno: "9 million Wanderers – as discussed above, not actively owning a defined world view but defaulting to a humanist/materialist life practice.
  
• Different: "5 million Committed to Something Else –practicing other religions or committed atheists. Rather than wandering, they’re deliberately walking a different road. But hardly out of God’s reach – Saul of Tarsus was one of these, many of us were.
  
• "So friends, there remains an enormous openness, interest in and respect for Christianity, and its message when respectfully conveyed. There remains an enormous thirst for love, meaning, belonging, hope and purpose. What God has given us to offer is hugely attractive and deeply transformative. No Australians are far from God’s kingdom if you, dear ambassadors, are nearby. The sensible census takeaway is clear, I hope, I beg: Not to sook, but to seek."

The Holy Spirit.
"Jesus lived and ministered while on this earth filled with, led by, empowered by, anointed by, and sent by the Holy Spirit... "The Holy Spirit is the secret to living the Christian life... "Jesus finished the work the Father gave Him to do while depending upon the very same Spirit that now lives in me and you."
- Do read this Biblical foundation article, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, by Doug Holliday. Now. Read it? Good...

So when we tune in to the Holy Spirit, like Jesus did, like his followers did, in a dynamic relationship, life becomes much more interesting, more alive. In fact all of life is relational - the only question is, are we participating in that relationship well or poorly.

The problem for me is that, as a logical/rational Bible student/teacher, I can lean toward the rational so much that I forget about the relational reality by which I'm meant to be led. It's like studying about a loved one so much that I ignore them!
When I do that with Jesus, life gets colder, harder, and I get more anxious. I focus on my causes-and-effects. Which puts a lot of pressure on my puny self, because in reality I can never know enough to successfully plan my own path. No wonder I begin to fret: "I don't want to get this wrong, I have to nut it out"... My cause-effect is simply too ignorant compared to God's oversight.
Like natural selection which has a role but simply isn't powerful enough to create new kinds, cause-effect has a role, but simply isn't powerful enough to direct our paths. Only God does that. "The heart of man plans his way, but  the LORD establishes his steps." (Prov 16:9) Let's not kick against the goads of reality.
And worse than just me being too puny for cause-effect, my own rationality can make me blind to, and ungrateful for, God's many graces in my life. Jesus works in my life, in fact he enables me to participate in the life and work of God! ...and yet I steal his glory by crediting myself for what happens?
And even worse, leaning on my rationality is me trying to put myself in control - in the place of God! Trusting myself, the original sin - Yikes!

But here's the better way. Relationship is how life really works: Let the LORD direct my steps. Listen to Jesus and do what he says. Let the relational put the rational back in its place. Tune in to His promptings - "do this, trust me."
Recognise and respond to the glow of his active, manifested presence. Look for him in all encounters. Seek first God's Kingdom, and everything else will follow (Mt6:33).
[How? Read. & Pray. Get the Biblical worldview into your head. & Start each day listening, tuning in to the still Voice for what he might want you to do today.]

Suddenly life becomes more inspired. Enchanted with real spirituality. Less my job to figure out, and more my job to seek & trust him on this adventure, and see what he does next.
I work in a rational job, but I need to abide in this relational life, in the Spirit of Christ. It's better for me to teach and lead in this relational way because it is more true to real life.

And so I must keep laying the foundation of Christ at the centre of all of my life & work. For it is Jesus who makes it possible for me to participate in the life of The Father.
He did this through the cross and resurrection, and through the Spirit.
I get to live relationally participating in his life:
How deep are God's riches, and wisdom, and knowledge! How unfathomable are his decisions and unexplainable are his ways! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser?...  For all things are from him, by him, and for him. Glory belongs to him forever! Amen. (Rom11:34-36)

I found myself in conversation with a United Australia Party representative at the local polling booth at last Saturday's federal election. He said, "We all want freedom, right!"
"Mm, that's a value that comes from somewhere," I replied.
He nodded, "it's all about goodness and kindness, right."
"And those values come from somewhere too."
"Yeah, err..." he stalled.
I bailed him out: "Y'see, I like a lot of your values, but I'm voting Australian Christians because they are very open about where their values come from - it's the Bible, it's God, the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. So I know whatever questions they face, they will try to figure an answer from that reference point. What about the other parties - what are their reference points? Clive Palmer? Marx's Communist Manifesto? Prevailing popular opinion?"
So that's my basic question for every party and representative: "What's your reference point?"

Here's is a good challenge: What is a setting you could choose to get involved in, that would expose you to broken, needy people who are not concerned with hiding their brokenness and looking like they are all together, people who are desperately and openly in need of God?

Here's a good summary about why Easter matters so much. It only takes 5-10 minutes to read.

• Why do we need Jesus?
  
• How do we know he's true?
• Why did he come? Why did he die?
  
• Freedom from what? and FOR what?
• Answers to objections
• What to do about it.

Read it yourself, and then share it with your friends.

During 2021 we did have family camp, on the theme of Hearing God. We built in family times to train, including times of solitude and silent listening for the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. We were all met.

And about 40 people got to know each other better around the attractions of Busso.

During the year we were able to continue meeting with youth on Fridays, the Art club, various small groups, and continued our regular meeting together at the community hall. Gathering around the Gospel of John has been spiritually eye-opening - every chapter has more to say about how we should see spiritually. This isn't easy when our cultural default is materialism. We also found each section to have very specific implications, as if we had rigged the section to fit the circumstances, but the 12 month schedule had been planned mid year. God just knows what he's doing. It's our job to listen and do.

A core team of young adults joined OAC in delivering the Worldview Australia camp in January. Another big success, and as we tune in it seems the Lord wants to duplicate the ministry with many young people interested in stepping in to various directing roles to enable another camp to begin elsewhere midyear. So we're working on that now.

Sooner rather than later, shift the conversation from world-views to foundation level.
That is where I want the convo to go anyway! But this is imperative, otherwise we can't talk meaningfully. See the video below at 45:54
(Note: Ken defines world-views as based on foundations, whereas I define worldviews as including foundations, but his distinction is helpful here.) If people are attacking you for your world-views (about say, abortion, gender, love), it means you are inconsistent with THEIR foundation.
So exposing the different foundations, allows you to have a deeper more useful conversation about that first. And it raises the question, WHOSE foundation is the true one - God’s Word or man’s word?

God's Word really shines as an objectively reliable foundation. We have objective evidences, and interpretations of those observations which have better global explanatory power. We have good and sufficient reasons to accept the Bible's historical reliability, and its divine revelation. (See apologetics for how we know the Bible is reliable - Core Stuff).
Compare this Biblical foundation with naturalism's…
.Naturalism simplistically excludes any supernatural phenomena, a only admitting self-supporting data, a closed loop for a closed mind.
.Naturalistic science is often biased by peer pressure and financial pressure to conform or be cancelled, especially wherever scientists are unquestioningly wedded to their own interpretation (eg. evolution.)

There is a crucial difference between observational science (which is the measured data), and historical ‘science’ (which depends on interpretations of the data.) All interpretations must work with the same observations (not simply exclude observations that don't fit.) And Biblical interpretations work just as well with all the observations as any other interpretation, in fact better - eg They offer more cohesive interpretations across all disciplines such as design, genetic entropy, biology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, historical archaeology & manuscript evidence... Search creation.com for your subject of interest.

Anyway, until your naturalist protagonists can see that & why our foundations differ from theirs, they’ll not see why our world-views differ from theirs. But it's such an obvious point. Maybe some refuse to look foundationally because it's easier to simplistically label us illogical / primitive / hateful / conspiracy theorists. That would be divisive avoidance of the reality we represent.

In fact we’re none of those things. Rather, our world-views logically flow from a different (better, more solid/good/life-giving, but different) foundation, and one worthy of their consideration... if they only would.
If they DON'T see that much, well that would be illogical, wouldn't it.
If they DO see that much, they should give us a little credit. And consider our foundations.

This is a brilliant read: chapter 1 of the Creation Answers Book.
What do we mean by God, how do we know he exists, what difference does he make.
So many answers, and so concise: https://creation.com/god-existence-cab-1

Our friend, Tas Walker, answers some fair questions about Easter here.

On the origin of the English word Easter, he says:
it came from the Germanic Ost, for east, and rising.
"it’s most doubtful that any Eostre was ever worshipped, because the only evidence is from Bede. And he never mentioned any animal associated with her. A non-existent association with a non-existent goddess is hardly good grounds for seeing paganism in the Easter bunny!"

On the question of three days and nights, he says:
the term "third day" was interchangeable with "3 days & nights" back in the culture of the day.
"So while X days and X nights can mean what it means in English, this was only a subset of its semantic range in Jewish idiom...
"Note that even His enemies understood that ‘after three days’ meant that they only had to secure the tomb ‘until the third day’. If three full 24-hour periods were meant, then they would want to secure the tomb until the fourth day to make sure. So for Jews, the phrases ‘on the third day’, ‘after the third day’, ‘until the third day’ and ‘three days and three nights’ were synonymous."

Enjoy the details.

Follow the events of Easter with in real time with notifications on your device.
From the raising of Lazarus the week before, through Palm Sunday, the Passover meal, the Biblical Stations of the Cross, Resurrection Sunday and the appearances of Jesus.

I made this GoogleCalendar* which you can add to your calendar if you use google calendars. You can add it with this link.
-Remember to allow that calendar to notify you.
-I use a different calendar app than my usual one, so I can see all the events coming up without clogging my daily system.
-It uses traditional timings of events for ease of use with the holidays here in WA.
-Unfortunately it may be locked on the WA timezone*

Try it - see what happens to Jesus, and see what happens to you.

* (In the past I had an App made which adjusted for your own timezone, but the developer ceased. So until a new developer is found, this calendar is the best I could do.)
PS. Just found out about easternow a sparse but good option, available on Appstore & Googleplay.

Question: Where can we see evidence of Jesus today? Are there any facts?
Answer: Yes, facts past and present, much more than many realise...

HISTORICAL FACTS still apply for today.
If facts are true, it doesn’t matter when they were discovered.
Historians exist to get to past facts, like the existence of Jesus.
The facts on the Onepager are not arguments from gaps (info we don’t have), but from facts (info we DO have.)
And those facts all point to Jesus’ reality, not only in the past but today as well. They support the present realities of: a Creator; human sinfulness; the Bible’s reliability and revelation; Jesus's life, death, resurrection, ascension, & Spiritual presence, including in our present day. These facts provide a reasonable foundation for the Christian worldview of today’s world.
These facts still apply - to YOU today. Your existence is evidence of God, your life, every breath you take, are facts. Your Bible reliably explains your sin, the struggle & grace in your life, and it establishes facts about your saviour. Such facts from the past remain relevant to what’s true in the present in your life.

+ NEW FACTS keep arising today.
Examples include:
-Archaeological finds which increasingly confirm the places and events of the Bible.
-Mendel’s Accountant, shows the deleterious effects of mutations over time, disproving evolution as a source of complexity.
-Problems with uniformitarian long-age calculations, support the cataclysmic events in the Biblical worldview.
+ CURRENT CONSEQUENCES continue to prove Biblical facts.
For example:
-Consequences of Godly morals, vs self-centred morals.
-Consequences of civilisations operating "under God” according to the Bible, vs "under self" democracies.
-Consequences of a Biblical worldview are consistently better for individuals, families, politics, war, science, economics, psychology, ethics - and the consequences are often life & death. This suggests that the Jesus worldview is best aligned with reality. (ie. true.)
+ COMMON EXPERIENCES of the living Jesus continue to occur.
Just because they are subjective to each individual doesn’t mean they aren’t also objectively real. Rather, their ongoing occurrence invites deeper investigation. Upon investigation we find:
-Details, nuance, and life-directing impacts.
-Agreement with the descriptions & character of the Biblical Jesus.
-They occur across cultures and ethnicities - they don’t arise merely out of culture but also despite culture.
-Experiences consistently include answers to prayer, awareness of spiritual presence, spiritual inspiration & guidance, deliverance from bondages, and healings - physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, and relational.
-They are widespread, with billions reporting similar encounters, and ongoing relationships, with the life-giving Spirit of Jesus.
-An open offer to all people to experience this Jesus too. These experiences can be qualitatively compared with others, and to the Bible. So the claim is that Jesus is an objective reality you can meet for yourself.

Q: Why doesn't EVERYONE accept these facts?
Hesitations may include:
-Traumas that have left people emotionally wounded, resulting in a mindset of basic distrust, fear, bitterness, rejection, or the like. Understandably this makes them reluctant to entrust themselves to God. Emotional healing is needed.
-Ignorance of the facts, and/or their conclusions. Education can help.
-Self-centredness: devotion to their own self-driven lifestyle & the control to which they have become addicted/accustomed. Facing one’s own wilfulness is very hard.
-Self-delusion is surprisingly easy. Even truths are often misused for false conclusions - for example, “God has never shown himself to me.” This may be true in one sense, that God hasn’t made an abnormal display to force a concession out of that person, but it's not true in other senses, that there are many ways in which God has indeed revealed himself to us. So this "one-sense-true-statement" can be misused for the false conclusion that the creator therefore does not exist. Yet the statement is only true in a limited way, as it remains very possible that the creator exists unrecognised, and that there may be very good reasons why he reveals himself in the ways he does and doesn't. There are many such misuses of truth statements which we must learn to recognise for what they are - self-delusion.
-Peer pressure, pride coupled with fear of rejection, can make a person deny truths they would rationally accept in less emotionally threatening circumstances. (See Peter’s denials.) A healthy sense of identity in Christ will help.
-Fear of exploring the facts, lest discovering Jesus is alive means a significant change to their worldview and lifestyle. Courage to learn is needed, to find and face the truth.
-Fear of the risk that they might miss out on an expected experience of Jesus, so it’s safer not to take the risk. Courage to trust is needed, enough to honestly pray.

Why doesn’t God just "poke his head out of heaven" and "definitively PROVE" himself to us all?
"Is He toying with us, playing some kind of cosmic game of hide & seek? Offering himself, then hiding from us?" Well, that’s one (perhaps bitter-&-twisted) way to look at it. But here are some other ways to look at it:
1. How much MORE evidence do we really need?
Truthfully we already have more than enough evidence: the existence of all physical things, design, life, complexity, universal altruism, conscience, free-agency, reason, relationship, religion, archaeology, history of the highest order, reliable records of his personal presence and action, spiritual experiences to today, all matching the Bible. Plus the offer of your own personal relationship with his Spirit. Outside of those things… what else is there?!
2. Would some plain, spiritual, revelation REALLY make us believe?
-If it happened to someone else, couldn’t I still merely discount it as “just another subjective experience”?
-If it happened to me, couldn’t I just rationalise it away as, “just some psychotic episode"?
-If it happened to a lot of us at the same time… as happened with Jesus’s miracles before his death, with his resurrection appearances, and with his Spirit's manifestations from Pentecost onwards... all those eyewitnesses were still ignored by many.
As Jesus said in one of his stories, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’
3. The free agency of each person’s heart plays a key role, their disposition, whether they WANT to face up to Jesus.
- If they DO want to meet and serve Jesus, there are more than enough facts to go on, they aren’t hidden, they can find them, and they can pray.
- If they DON'T want to meet Jesus, then humans are very capable of ignoring or rationalising away from God. If that is what they want, then the creator allows them room to do that. For the Supreme Being of the Universe to allow this seems remarkably gentle and humble.

NB: TURNING AWAY also has consequences to consider
God’s ultimate plan is to gather the people who will come to him, to be with him forever. But those who refuse him will not be in that gathering.
That’s why Romans 1 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
We have observed all of this happening in our time too. And it simply constitutes further evidence for the truth of God’s word.

Meet Jesus EVERYWHERE
What if I want to meet Jesus? Once I've recognised the veracity of these many facts, how do I start a real relationship with Jesus?
1 - PRAY.
Simply tell the ever-present spirit of Jesus that you want to do things his way from now on, and ask him to show you what that is.
2 - LOOK & Listen for his answers.
Some places to look are obvious: read the Bible, and ask other Christians about what is already very clear, that he is likely to do with you.
Some listening takes practice. Our modern world is crammed with voices & signals throwing so much information at us, that we now actually have to learn to unplug, declutter, be still and quiet, in order to sense God’s gentle presence and promptings. Then we can begin to learn to put off and put on: put off bad identities, habits of thinking, behaviour, addictions, and put on Christ-filled identities, habits of thinking & conduct.
3 - DO what he says.
Follow his purposes for our lives. Try it, and see how you deepen and grow. Core practices include time with him, time with other believers, and time with other people as salt and light in the world. The aim is not legalistic obedience, but closer togetherness. You can learn to meet with Jesus everywhere you go, in everything you do. When it's his will, you will encounter his pleasure and joy in it. When it’s not his will, you will find he challenges you there, to put off that thing and put on something better.

Colossians 1 says, "For in him ALL THINGS were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
When we learn to meet with Jesus at all times, in all places, literally in all things, then the evidence for Jesus becomes clear in the air we breathe, our very life. The factual truths outside of us merely confirm the living Truth inside of us. It turns out that evidence for Jesus is actually... in all things.
And all these facts become clearer for those with eyes looking to see them.

So it turns out that the first step to RECOGNISE him is actually in your heart, your basic motivation. Or as Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear."