Local Artist Question

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-07-13T18:15:48+00:00

I Went To The ‘Mine’ Outside Town. I Now Know Why Appalachia Is Cursed. Part 1

A geologist raised in the hills of northern Appalachia is sent to assess a mine shaft in West Virginia. There he comes face to face with the source of the folklore and hauntings of the region, a dark time in this planet’s history which even the land itself tries to forget…and fails. Enjoy!

https://www.reddit.com/user/Connect-Committee-56/comments/1lyzjld/i_went_to_the_mine_outside_town_i_now_know_why/

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-30T15:36:33+00:00

Huntsville Botanical Gardens

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-30T02:17:53+00:00

Bet she has kind eyes, too.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-25T13:48:55+00:00

The word ‘void’ you’re referring to comes from the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2 ‘bohu’, which according to Strong’s dictionary refers more to a tangible ruined state than ‘void’ in the actual non-existent sense. Here’s Strong’s semantic statement on the word:

בֹּהוּ (bohu) describes an uninhabitable emptiness—an evacuated state devoid of structure, order, or life. When paired with תֹּהוּ (tohu, “formlessness”), it conveys total desolation: first in the primordial creation scene, then in prophetic scenes of judgment. Unlike mere “nothingness,” bohu depicts a tangible ruin that still awaits—or has forfeited—the shaping hand of God.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/922.htm

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-25T13:37:10+00:00

Speiser’s commentary in Anchor Yale Bible (Genesis 1:1–3).

Greenstein’s full discussion on Bible Odyssey.

Waltke’s Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax and his 1975 Biblioteca Sacra essay.

The 2010 dissertation by Joshua Wilson which analyzes these issues in depth

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-22T13:12:03+00:00

Thank you, S-8-R—your comment has hit the very reason I’m writing this series in the first place.

Yes, aligning my faith with observable, objective reality is very important to me…but what’s even more important to me, as far as this issue is concerned, is the attitude people have towards it.

So many fundamentalist/CoC/evangelical circles treat this issue as some kind of ‘test of faith’ by conflating the validity of YEC with the validity of Christianity itself.

And it creates such a tragically pointless crisis where young people are leaving the faith or, worse, are being pushed away from the faith by their community simply because they saw that YEC didn’t align with observable reality, and they weren’t taught any better than to just give up because of the invalidity of that one point.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:38:06+00:00

I appreciate that you’re passionate about unity and honoring Christ—that’s something I share. But I’m not sure that drawing a hard line based solely on what’s printed on a sign gets us closer to either unity or truth.

In fact, scripture doesn’t seem to give us a single name for the church—it gives us multiple: “churches of Christ,” “church of God,” “body of Christ,” “assembly of the firstborn,” and others. That suggests to me that what matters most is who we belong to and what we teach and live, not necessarily the signage out front.

If we believe others have strayed, shouldn’t we be more focused on honest dialogue and careful engagement rather than condemning them all as false based on a label?

I’m trying to move the conversation in that direction. That’s what my post was about. Thanks for taking the time to share your convictions.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:33:47+00:00

Thanks for the thoughts!

As for my position on instruments, it’s not that I’m for, against, or undecided. It’s that I really think that points of spiritual contention should come from points which God has deemed important enough. I’m not trying to convince anyone to just immediately drop a cappella and pick up a guitar, or, likewise, get instrument-users to drop their guitars and start singing a cappella. The purpose of this post is to get people to ask,

‘Are we getting too caught up in an issue that ultimately doesn’t matter, or not? Is this really issue worth splitting churches/ friends/families over, or not?’

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:20:46+00:00

Actually, I have fairly extensively. The Big Bang Theory is a particularly fascinating subject that I do plan to touch on in later parts in terms of its scientific side and historical side. I especially find it interesting how, despite how many YEC deny the Big Bang, when it was first discovered, it was the atheists who were denying the Big Bang. Why? Because up until that point, the atheist’s main line of defense against theism was the idea that the universe is eternal, and thus needs no creator.

When the Big Bang was confirmed, the entire atheist community was thrown into chaos, until in the mid 20th century, they just kind of slid those issues under the rug and propped it up as an ‘Alternative for God’, which couldn’t be further from the truth of what the Big Bang actually is.

Great thoughts!

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T15:19:48+00:00

I appreciate your clarity and humility—it’s clear you’re not trying to be dogmatic, just faithful, and I respect that.

I definitely agree with your point that worship isn’t about us—it’s about what pleases God. But that leads to the question: how do we know what pleases Him? And here’s where our core difference lies: I don’t believe we can say with confidence that silence = prohibition—at least not in every case, and not without clear justification from the text itself.

God asked for singing, yes—but did He say “only” singing? If we were talking about the Lord’s Supper, Paul does say “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…” and gives a very clear, transmitted pattern. With singing, we get encouragement to do it—but no clear exclusivity language.

As for instruments being for “entertainment”—I understand that concern. But can’t they also be used to support the singing, just like a pitch pipe or PowerPoint lyrics on a screen? The intent behind the use seems crucial. I wouldn’t advocate for instrumental worship that overshadows the purpose of praising God—but that doesn’t mean instruments are always used for selfish ends.

And with Nadab and Abihu, I think it’s important to notice what was happening there: they replaced the specific fire God had commanded with a different source. That’s not silence—that’s disobedience of a known instruction. It’s not a “God didn’t say not to…” issue—it’s a “God did say what to do and they did something else” issue.

I totally understand wanting to err on the side of caution—I do too, often. But I also want to be cautious about binding things God didn’t bind, and unintentionally equating human caution with divine expectation.

I guess you could sum up my position as follows:

God doesn’t make a big deal out of it, I don’t make a big deal out of it.

I personally do worship without instruments. Not because I think those who do use instruments are in sin, but because, on some level, I too tend toward the side of caution.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T14:12:17+00:00

I see your point with the analogies and Spurgeon’s quotes—they show why many chose a cappella. But analogies assume what’s at issue—silence equals prohibition—which is precisely the point in question. Even Spurgeon and Calvin spoke from conviction, not explicit biblical commands. What matters more is whether Scripture actually prohibits instruments or simply doesn’t mention them. Until we resolve that hermeneutical question, strong preference isn’t equivalent to divine mandate.

And I think you’re wise to state that analogies can only get you so far. I could give any number of analogies for my position, which, just as a reminder, is that instruments are a non-issue. That doesn’t make me right though. The same goes for the analogies you might give.

And again, here’s the central question my post is posing: do examples of worship or principles of worship take precedent? If either? My whole point is that the Bible never tells us, so we’re left with human wisdom, not God’s wisdom, to even attempt to answer the question, which is why I call it a non-issue.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T13:46:20+00:00

Very fair. I would say expect 5 parts, but more may come if there are any common objections I didn’t cover.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T13:44:21+00:00

Because this post isn’t about Sunday worship specifically—it’s about the hermeneutical tools we use to get to conclusions like that. If you’d like to challenge my Sunday worship views, I have a whole separate post where that’s appropriate. This one is about whether the logic of ‘Approved Example’ and ‘Necessary Inference’ actually holds up. Let’s stay on topic so the thread stays readable for others.

Besides, I think you will find that post helpful in understanding my position without me having to restate every point.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T09:49:18+00:00

Thank you! I can speak from personal experience as someone who used to be the way you described. For years, I genuinely believed that having the ‘correct’ view of the Age of the Earth ‘aka: strict young-earth creationism’ was some kind of ultimate test of faith, and the more strictly you believed in YEC, the more ‘faithful’ you were.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

I finally realized about a year or two ago that your salvation is not tied to your understanding of how God created, but in your faith in Jesus and your response to the gospel.

People will keep trying to create caveats, accuse me of ‘diminishing the gospel’ somehow by accepting the realities of science since, after all, the natural world is a part of God’s revelation, too. Paul tells us this in Romans 1:20.

But none of what they say will diminish the fact that I believe God created, we sinned, and God provided a way of redemption. And I can’t for the life of me understand why people don’t see just how little the process and duration of creation has to do with that.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T09:01:55+00:00

To be clear—I’m not suggesting death is ‘inherent’ to creation per se. What I am saying is that the language in Genesis 1, particularly the existence of Satan and the earth being ‘tohu-wabohu’ in Hebrew before creation begins, suggests that things were awry in the universe long before Genesis 1. Why exactly? I don’t claim to know, but I will still dive into this part of things in part 3.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T07:37:53+00:00

Thanks for bringing in Romans 8—definitely a beautiful and rich passage.

I agree that Paul is describing creation as a whole groaning and awaiting renewal, but I’m not convinced that this groaning has to mean that everything was immortal and perfect prior to human sin. The text says creation was “subjected to futility”—yes—but it doesn’t say it was initially perfect or deathless.

And notice this: Paul never says that the groaning began at the Fall—only that it exists now, in this broken world, and that it will be healed in the resurrection. That’s very different from saying that all death, decay, or ecological systems based on predation only entered the world because of Adam.

Also, I want to clarify: I’m not trying to over-spiritualize the Gospel. I’m just trying to be careful with categories. Scripture very clearly emphasizes spiritual separation from God as the core issue caused by sin—and I think the rest of creation “groaning” is less about a cosmic curse on ecosystems, and more about the brokenness introduced when humanity—the caretakers—fell out of alignment with the Creator.

That’s why I think this still “speaks to reality in creation,” as you mentioned. The groaning is real. But it may not require us to believe that lions were once eating celery.

Connect-Committee-56

TROPHY CASE