Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:I choose to start with the fact that God loves me, wants the best for me and further, I love Him and do not wish to grieve Him or the Holy Spirit and based on my desire to please Him, I'll simply choose to walk in a manner that supports and deepens my relationship with Him.

I agree with you on this, but there are some here that would suggest this is impossible for a homosexual. I would gather this thinking is based on the notion that homosexuality is strictly a chosen lifestyle. My suggestion to all is that I believe (most) homosexuals, due to sin in this world, are born with twisted genetics that make attraction to their same sex "normal". It's easy for a heterosexual to make this statement and live by it, but some would say a homosexual cannot make this same statement and live by it. Must a homosexual, upon accepting Christ, immediately shed his/her homosexuality? We give everyone room for growth in most all "sinful" acts when they are new Christians. But to the homosexual whose gender identification problem (I suggest) is not simple a matter of choice, but a difficult matter of choosing something "abnormal" in their skin.

It is my contention that God IS consistent. All those that practice homosexuality without Christ in their lives are dead in their sin. That's not to say one can openly practice homosexual acts as a Christian just like one cannot openly practice perverted heterosexual acts. These (if they truly are a struggle) are something that only God and time can change. It is my position that all homosexual Christians will not be fully changed into heterosexuals prior to Christ's return. Some will remain in that struggle until their own death and until that moment of the twinkling of an eye when WE ALL WILL BE CHANGED and our genetic sinfulness removed.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It's subtle, but believe me, it makes a huge difference. It's the difference between walking in grace confident of God's Love and walking in legalism viewing God as a stern taskmaster who is simply waiting for me to trip up so He can "smite me."

I agree whole-heartedly.

Legalism - You MUST change NOW!
Grace - God changes you.
.
.

Montana, the morality is constant. Homosexual behavior in the OT is noted as a sin, in the NT it is as well.

What is not constant here is the context and the penalty. Those elements are not moral in and of themselves. Those are issues of justice and penalty. That is independent of the moral foundation from which you determine what is right and what is wrong.

In Israel at the time of the passages being written, homosexuality was punished by death. That was based upon the assessment of the morality of the act (is it right or is it wrong) but the penalty was carried out not by God directly but by the civil and criminal system of that nation of Israel at that time. You can argue, and many do, that the penalty itself is tied into the whole picture, but the fact is that God Himself has dealt with people differently in the past according to his own good will. Look at murder for example. Murder is punishable by death in the same OT code you're drawing this discussion from. Yet, God had it in his direct power in the case of Cain's murder of his brother Cain to carry our sentence and execution and instead God was merciful. David murdered Uriah in the aftermath of adultery (another capital crime earlier in Israel's history) and while there were consequences for that sin, God still loved David and declared him "a man after God's own heart."

Don't mistake a legal code for morality itself. Something is moral or not moral solely on the inherent nature of the act and I would argue ulitimately upon God's declaration as to whether it is right or wrong. The system that meets out justice and what form that justice takes can change and be applied differently in different cases for a multitude of reasons (or even no reason at all). The inherent morality of the act itself doesn't change regardless of the degree of justice or punishment or even the absence of the same. At least not temporally. Eternally is another matter and that is entirely in God's hands and independent of earthly justice.

Does that help?

Montana wrote:You say that it has "changed", the expectation to execute homosexuals (as well as many other examples). But are these not examples of relative morality? It was moral then for some, but not moral for others at another time?

The times and government were different. Israel lived in a society whose law was based on what they were told God said to do or not do. There were consequences for the sinful things. The judge and jury was God and if God said this person, because he/she did this needs to die, they went out and served judgment in His name. As time went on, didn't Israel also want to be like other nations with a king? Didn't God warn them of the danger of this? Yet God allowed a king. Now things were changing...judges, kings. There were humans to make judgment calls on God's wishes. Slowly, Israel became a nation like that of the world. They formed civil laws (of course most based on their interpretation of God's laws) and now it was man that was making laws and setting punishment. Pretty soon, if I don't have my own timeline too screwy, God said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" God eventually gave man the ability to judge for themselves. God's law has always been, "Thou shalt not murder".

Today we live in a society with civil laws and rights that are afforded to all citizens. Among those are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot kill anyone. (certain circumstances allow killing) Certainly one cannot kill another for a sin against God. There is no civil law that makes homosexuality illegal, much less punishable by death. To kill someone for "God's sake" in our society is to be a criminal. You must submit to man's law fully where it doesn't conflict with God's law.

God has justification to take sinful life. It's morally wrong for one to assume the position of God and take life...that is murder.

Romans 1:26,27 NIV wrote:Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The sentence of "death" to sexual perversion today, I believe, is AIDS and all the sexually transmitted diseases.
.
.

Bav,

I'll confess to you that I don't understand perfectly what makes a person homosexual. Homosexual acts are a choice. Heterosexual acts are a choice for that matter. I believe that there are people who are more attracted to the same sex than to the opposite sex. I think there can be many reasons for that. Environment, the impact of unhealthy relationships or a response to abuse. I think there can even be some hormonal and possibly genetic (although that's speculation and it's not proven to my knowledge) reasons for that inclination. For some, it may be that they are incapable or unwilling to enter into a marriage relationship. That's cool. Singleness is a legitimate and honorable lifestyle for anyone regardless of orientation.

One can, and it's been noted here, note that sexual sin has a dimension to it that compounds in some way that other sin may not. I would argue that's true of both heterosexual and homosexual sin.

It saddens me to see some Christian communities claim that they love the sinner but hate the sin but then homosexuality is elevated to all but the unpardonable sin and so focused upon that the result is that regardless of what is said the actions are such that anyone with the orientation or struggling with that behavior in that life gets the unmistakable message that they personally are not welcome. I've seen a church where a young person "came out of the closet" and confessed their orientation (no behavior associated with it at that time) and they were screamed at, and turned out of their home by their parents, shunned by the members of the church who when they spoke at all the young woman it was to condemn her, and challenge her to repent (apparently for confessing an attraction to women which she had not acted upon) and it was clear until that happened she was not welcome not only in the church but also in the social circles there.

Yet, and I'm doing more than speculating here, I can guarantee you that there were other elements of sexual sin in that church that were known where that was not the response. An associate pastor was caught viewing porn on a church computer and a seach showed that this was a habit (and statistics show that a significant portion of pastors and elders in churches engage in the same behavior.) The approach taken there was considerably different.

In fact, if you look at it as a percentage of the population, raw numbers and impact on families and children, Christians should be spending far more time and effort combatting heterosexual sin and passing laws against adultery, and pornography than is focused upon homosexuality. There's something more going on there.

The sentence of "death" to sexual perversion today, I believe, is AIDS and all the sexually transmitted diseases.

Ouch Bav. It's one thing to argue that death and disease are a result of sin in general, it's quite another to suggest a one-to-one correlation between a particular disease and those who die from it engaging in sinful behavior. AIDS is not just transmitted sexually and in many areas where it is rampant, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of those dying are not the one's who acted wrongly.

We're all sinners. As such we all could be argued to deserve AIDS if not for sexual sin, then for something else. A "sentence of death" implies a sentencer. Are you suggesting that God has placed AIDS upon these "sinners" and rejoices in the justice of that? No, I don't see that. I believe God weeps with us and for those afflicted with the disease no less for those who have contracted it from their own behavior than for those who have had it transmitted to them in childbirth or by blood transfusion. We live in a world tained by sin in every realm. God in His mercy allows much to continue for reasons that I think I partially understand but in the end are known ultimately only by God.

I really hope you take another look and reconsider what you're saying here.

blessings,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:

The sentence of "death" to sexual perversion today, I believe, is AIDS and all the sexually transmitted diseases.

Ouch Bav. It's one thing to argue that death and disease are a result of sin in general, it's quite another to suggest a one-to-one correlation between a particular disease and those who die from it engaging in sinful behavior. AIDS is not just transmitted sexually and in many areas where it is rampant, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of those dying are not the one's who acted wrongly.

We're all sinners. As such we all could be argued to deserve AIDS if not for sexual sin, then for something else. A "sentence of death" implies a sentencer. Are you suggesting that God has placed AIDS upon these "sinners" and rejoices in the justice of that? No, I don't see that. I believe God weeps with us and for those afflicted with the disease no less for those who have contracted it from their own behavior than for those who have had it transmitted to them in childbirth or by blood transfusion. We live in a world tained by sin in every realm. God in His mercy allows much to continue for reasons that I think I partially understand but in the end are known ultimately only by God.

I really hope you take another look and reconsider what you're saying here.

blessings,

bart

Maybe too harsh in wording, but that's the reason I put death in quotations. Did AIDS originate from heterosexual sex? While it's true that many heterosexuals get AIDS from adults to children undeserving, that doesn't detract that the disease stems from sexual perversion, be it homosexual and/or heterosexual, hence why I included ALL sexually transmitted diseases. Never once did I hint or suggest that God placed AIDS on these and rejoices of that fact. Did God rejoice in the taking of the fruit off the tree in the Garden? Yet it was there. So it is with AIDS and the like. They are not instruments of His wrath, but consequences of sin.

Being born into sin, being sinful from conception...is that something God rejoices in? Why is it we jump to conclusions on matters of "touchy subjects" but can't jump to the same conclusions on matters of large scale similarities? There is no doubt about it...the sinner will suffer hell. Some believe to no end, I believe as the scriptures tell me...the wages of sin is death. Does God rejoice in the consequences "HE MADE"? So it is in the same vane that it is my understanding the above text may suggest sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, is a punishment/consequence of certain behaviors.

Sorry to offend you.
.
.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Bav,

I'll confess to you that I don't understand perfectly what makes a person homosexual. Homosexual acts are a choice. Heterosexual acts are a choice for that matter.

Yes Bart, that is my point... Homosexual acts are a choice. And we have many stories of people that have conquered that urge...

http://www.exodusinternational.org/stories

As for heterosexual sins, I have wrestled with pornography in my life, but now by the grace of God I have eliminated it from my life and haven't had an urge in months.. But that was a choice that I made, and a wrong one indeed.. Therefore wrong habits can be corrected. I have witnessed it in my own life.. And, if someone really wanted to, they could abstain from sex completely.

Trust me, it can be done...

Canuckster1127 wrote:Montana, the morality is constant. Homosexual behavior in the OT is noted as a sin, in the NT it is as well.

What is not constant here is the context and the penalty. Those elements are not moral in and of themselves. Those are issues of justice and penalty. That is independent of the moral foundation from which you determine what is right and what is wrong.

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

So actions have certain characteristics. Not all have moral values, not all have justice values.

A few questions though...

1) Why don't punishments have moral values?
2) If a child steals a lollipop from a store, are you saying there is no good or evil action that the store worker can take here? Only just or unjust? That if the worker notifies the child's parents or authorities, this is not a good thing (nor bad thing), it is simply a "just" thing? And if the same worker were to shoot the child in the face, this would not be an act of evil? It would just be "unjust"?

If so...then the worker is doing no wrong (not committing an immoral act) by shooting the child in the face. Is this what you are saying? If not...and you do not believe it is applicable...why not?

In Israel at the time of the passages being written, homosexuality was punished by death. That was based upon the assessment of the morality of the act (is it right or is it wrong) but the penalty was carried out not by God directly but by the civil and criminal system of that nation of Israel at that time. You can argue, and many do, that the penalty itself is tied into the whole picture, but the fact is that God Himself has dealt with people differently in the past according to his own good will. Look at murder for example. Murder is punishable by death in the same OT code you're drawing this discussion from. Yet, God had it in his direct power in the case of Cain's murder of his brother Cain to carry our sentence and execution and instead God was merciful. David murdered Uriah in the aftermath of adultery (another capital crime earlier in Israel's history) and while there were consequences for that sin, God still loved David and declared him "a man after God's own heart."

...ok, but how could this not be taken as an example of relative morality (in the sense that God's punishment - assuming it has a moral value because as of yet, it has not been clearly explained why it cannot have a moral value)? I mean, it could be taken as an example of the act of punishment (executing murderers) being relative to the situation or even mood, couldn't it?

Don't mistake a legal code for morality itself. Something is moral or not moral solely on the inherent nature of the act and I would argue ulitimately upon God's declaration as to whether it is right or wrong. The system that meets out justice and what form that justice takes can change and be applied differently in different cases for a multitude of reasons (or even no reason at all). The inherent morality of the act itself doesn't change regardless of the degree of justice or punishment or even the absence of the same. At least not temporally. Eternally is another matter and that is entirely in God's hands and independent of earthly justice.

Does that help?

A little. But it seems like it assumes that the system that meets out justice has no moral value. And to be honest, it has always been the position I've leaned towards, but just don't know how to justify. Is it required for one to just assume this to be the case and have no logic or reason behind it? Or is there indeed, a valid foundation for the position that punishments contain no moral value in and of themselves?

BavarianWheels wrote:

Montana wrote:You say that it has "changed", the expectation to execute homosexuals (as well as many other examples). But are these not examples of relative morality? It was moral then for some, but not moral for others at another time?

The times and government were different. Israel lived in a society whose law was based on what they were told God said to do or not do. There were consequences for the sinful things. The judge and jury was God and if God said this person, because he/she did this needs to die, they went out and served judgment in His name. As time went on, didn't Israel also want to be like other nations with a king? Didn't God warn them of the danger of this? Yet God allowed a king. Now things were changing...judges, kings. There were humans to make judgment calls on God's wishes. Slowly, Israel became a nation like that of the world. They formed civil laws (of course most based on their interpretation of God's laws) and now it was man that was making laws and setting punishment. Pretty soon, if I don't have my own timeline too screwy, God said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" God eventually gave man the ability to judge for themselves. God's law has always been, "Thou shalt not murder".

Today we live in a society with civil laws and rights that are afforded to all citizens. Among those are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot kill anyone. (certain circumstances allow killing) Certainly one cannot kill another for a sin against God. There is no civil law that makes homosexuality illegal, much less punishable by death. To kill someone for "God's sake" in our society is to be a criminal. You must submit to man's law fully where it doesn't conflict with God's law.

God has justification to take sinful life. It's morally wrong for one to assume the position of God and take life...that is murder.

This isn't really addressing the issue.

1) I'm not advocating nor arguing that anyone off the streets can execute another being. We are talking about the civil authorities doing so here.
2) There's no doubt that things have changed. Do you think that God's command to execute homosexuals has changed? If not, then Christians are not behaving morally by not executing homosexuals, correct? If God's command to execute homosexuals has changed, then how is this not an example of relative morality? Wasn't it moral to execute homosexuals then...and isn't it immoral to do so today? Thus, a changed moral? While homosexuality itself may be a constant...it would appear that the execution of homosexuals has a changed moral value.

Montana wrote: If a child steals a lollipop from a store, are you saying there is no good or evil action that the store worker can take here? Only just or unjust? That if the worker notifies the child's parents or authorities, this is not a good thing (nor bad thing), it is simply a "just" thing? And if the same worker were to shoot the child in the face, this would not be an act of evil? It would just be "unjust"?

What do YOU say Montana? What would YOU do in this situation - if a child stole a lollipop in your store? Would the action have been immoral on the child's part? What factors would be involved?

How can you even ask, in the context of your argument, if shooting a child in the face is evil or not?

If an atheist comes to the board and pretends to be something they're not, asking for help, and quick help, when it's a fabrication, is that moral or just? Just asking. If I'm on the wrong track, forgive me.

...ok, but how could this not be taken as an example of relative morality (in the sense that God's punishment - assuming it has a moral value because as of yet, it has not been clearly explained why it cannot have a moral value)? I mean, it could be taken as an example of the act of punishment (executing murderers) being relative to the situation or even mood, couldn't it?

Do you think God's values are relative? If "God is good" is the foundation, then His commands are automatically good, which is a moral value to begin with.

There's no doubt that things have changed. Do you think that God's command to execute homosexuals has changed? If not, then Christians are not behaving morally by not executing homosexuals, correct? If God's command to execute homosexuals has changed, then how is this not an example of relative morality?

Not correct. All justice and punishment are God's. Israel was performing these according to God's commands for that time and place. God's view of the sin has not changed - so His morals are not relative - but the circumstances have changed. As Bav pointed out, judgment comes sooner or later. Is it wrong, Montana, for God to give homosexuals more freedom - more time - to extend their hearts to God and receive strength and forgiveness and love? That is another aspect of morality. It doesn't mean God's morals have changed. In our country, say, if someone was found guilty of murder and put to death sooner after the sentence, as in earlier times, does that mean that our contemporary view of murder has changed simply because the court process has changed (and execution comes years later, if ever)? No. Other considerations have come into play, not the fact that murder is still just as wrong as it ever was.

cslewislover wrote:

Montana wrote: If a child steals a lollipop from a store, are you saying there is no good or evil action that the store worker can take here? Only just or unjust? That if the worker notifies the child's parents or authorities, this is not a good thing (nor bad thing), it is simply a "just" thing? And if the same worker were to shoot the child in the face, this would not be an act of evil? It would just be "unjust"?

What do YOU say Montana? What would YOU do in this situation - if a child stole a lollipop in your store? Would the action have been immoral on the child's part? What factors would be involved?

The action of stealing the lollipop would be immoral. The action of me shooting the child in the face would in turn, be immoral.

How can you even ask, in the context of your argument, if shooting a child in the face is evil or not?

By drawing the parallel between punishments.

It would seem that there are immoral punishments. That they DO exist. Shooting a child in the face for one, would be. All this does, is show that there is a moral value attached to punishments, correct? If so, then executing homosexuals (back then), was moral (and I'm fine with that). But if we have a moral value attached to the execution of homosexuals, and it is good, or moral or "ought to be", then we have a challenge today...because it means that the moral value attached to execution is either moral or immoral.

If moral (to execute homosexuals), then Christians are not moral by advocating the death penalty for homosexuals. If it is immoral (to execute), then it seemingly shows the existence of relative morality (the moral value of the act of executing homosexuals has changed).

I do not believe God is a relativist. I do not believe morality is relative. But I do not know how to justify this belief considering the circumstance of this issue.

If an atheist comes to the board and pretends to be something they're not, asking for help, and quick help, when it's a fabrication, is that moral or just? Just asking. If I'm on the wrong track, forgive me.

You are on the wrong track. I'm indeed a Christian. Please do not confuse my confusion on this issue, or my objections to illogical arguments that defend certain positions, as me not being a Christian.

...ok, but how could this not be taken as an example of relative morality (in the sense that God's punishment - assuming it has a moral value because as of yet, it has not been clearly explained why it cannot have a moral value)? I mean, it could be taken as an example of the act of punishment (executing murderers) being relative to the situation or even mood, couldn't it?

Do you think God's values are relative? If "God is good" is the foundation, then His commands are automatically good, which is a moral value to begin with.[/quote]
I do not believe God's values are relative. And the commands (directly or indirectly) seemingly conflict. One is "Execute homosexuals" and the other is "Do not execute homosexuals [any more]", which appears to be an example of changing moral values, thus relative morality (it would seem).

I'm WANTING someone to prove me wrong...to show me where I have erred. Merely because I am a Christian discussing an issue with fellow Christians does not mean that a) all Christian arguments/explanations are rational or even true, and b) that we just have to accept what should have a reasonable explanation, as a matter of faith (it must be Good both ways because God is good and cannot do bad). Saying "just because" isn't sufficient nor compelling. I think God granted us intellect and reason for a purpose.

cslewislover wrote:

There's no doubt that things have changed. Do you think that God's command to execute homosexuals has changed? If not, then Christians are not behaving morally by not executing homosexuals, correct? If God's command to execute homosexuals has changed, then how is this not an example of relative morality?

Not correct. All justice and punishment are God's. Israel was performing these according to God's commands for that time and place. God's view of the sin has not changed - so His morals are not relative - but the circumstances have changed. As Bav pointed out, judgment comes sooner or later. Is it wrong, Montana, for God to give homosexuals more freedom - more time - to extend their hearts to God and receive strength and forgiveness and love? That is another aspect of morality. It doesn't mean God's morals have changed. In our country, say, if someone was found guilty of murder and put to death sooner after the sentence, as in earlier times, does that mean that our contemporary view of murder has changed simply because the court process has changed (and execution comes years later, if ever)? No. Other considerations have come into play, not the fact that murder is still just as wrong as it ever was.

OK, makes sense. Would it be a case of morality however, if the punishment for a murderer was not simply execution, but the execution of his/her entire family?

That to me, seems wrong, or immoral. But it seems that you are arguing that there is no moral value attached to punishments. That punishments can really be anything, for any crime...and there is no right or wrong that can be applied to them.

Is shooting the child in the face for stealing a lollipop moral or immoral or amoral?

Gman wrote:Yes Bart, that is my point... Homosexual acts are a choice.

Totally correct. I have not argued that homosexual acts are not of choice. THE ACTS are of choice, however IF sin has corrupted humanity down to genetic gender affections (as I *think* it has), then there is no CHOICE in chooseing WHO those acts are acted out with. There is no chance for me, as a heterosexual, to ever have thoughts of engaging in homosexual acts with another male. It's utterly repulsive to me.

Choice is not the point. It's the non-choice that is the question.

Montana wrote:I do not believe God is a relativist. I do not believe morality is relative. But I do not know how to justify this belief considering the circumstance of this issue.

I'm glad you don't believe this. Can the created understand things or ideas of the Eternal? Some things maybe, but not all. I think it should be enough to know that God's judgement comes. To some it comes swift, to others not so swift. Ultimately, judgement comes whether by human hands or divine fire from heaven.

I think csll hit the point correctly.

cslewislover wrote:In our country, say, if someone was found guilty of murder and put to death sooner after the sentence, as in earlier times, does that mean that our contemporary view of murder has changed simply because the court process has changed (and execution comes years later, if ever)? No. Other considerations have come into play, not the fact that murder is still just as wrong as it ever was.

.
.

Hi Bart! I was wondering who everyone was calling Bart...

Bart, I in no way, what so ever support legalism. I believe fully that the most important thing (and I have said this a few times here) is our relationship with God and loving him, not performing rituals and actions that we believe will save us.

This is a quote of mine from another thread.....

I know that God knows the heart, if we are sincere then he will respond and forgive and we should feel secure and know that we are Gods child forever. I think what is true in our hearts matters to God and we all know when we are just fooling ourselves and not really giving it our best effort.

I stand by my first post in this thread 100%. But I am not saying you are wrong at all about what you have said between the first page and this one. The core of your message is what I believe to be the truth. But what I have said is the truth as well, the two do not contradict, none of God’s word contradicts, we may not understand it all but God’s word is perfect (I am not suggesting that you did not understand me, you did not disagree with the core of my message).

However, (extremely respectful)...God placed more of an emphasizes on some sins not I, God said we are judged according to what we have done. He gave death for some sins and other punishments for other sins. God said in the new testament that those who practice the sins he pointed out will not inherent the kingdom of God and it was God that told us what he hates. And God said there is lesser or greater rewards in heaven. And he did it all for a reason, each sin is a sin for a reason, not just so he could accuse us of something.

I agree, Scales of sin, scorecards and elevating which sins are worse than others, is an all too human activity.

But I am not that human, I say what God said, nothing more or less.

God is the judge of Mans heart and you are right that if someone loves God, sincerely wants to do what he said is right but continues to sin then God will always forgive and that person will live with God in heaven.

But I am also right.. If a Man practices sin and loves his sin more than God and desires it more than God. Then that man (according to the bible) will live with what he desires, forever separated from God, that is the desires of the Man. We do not disagree here and I agree with the overwhelming majority of your message. I just wanted to point out a few things and give a reason for why God said to kill people. It all has a metaphoric meaning and it deals with matters of the heart and of the spirit. That was always Gods focus, he just wants a relationship and wanted to teach us who he is so we can decide if we like him or not. But he is also extremely meticulous and thorough. If we change just one thing God said or interpret improperly, we will leave wholes for lies to slip in and room for men to deceive themselves and there will be no way (but for God to open their eye’s) for a flawed version of God’s word to defeat their reasoning and open their mind and heart. I believe what I said in my first post here along with what I said in this post is the truth. But everyone understand that what I said in my first post is what I believe to be the reasons for why sins are sins. And I believe the end result of developing a character that loves those sins above God is as God showed. But it is right to say that one who loves God and desires him above their sins, despite their sin, will live with God forever. Let the weak say I am strong.....Just try your best, that’s all God is asking.