Renaissance #24: Faith Under Fire

by Thomas Abshier | Sep 28, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

This is a transcript of a Bible study group conversation about dealing with stress, spiritual trials, and faith-based responses to overwhelming circumstances. The participants include Thomas Abshier (who seems to be leading the discussion), Charlie Gutierrez (who appears to be going through a stressful situation), Armond Boulware, and Leonard Hofheins.

The main themes from this conversation are:

Dealing with overwhelming stress and circumstances beyond our control

The role of action vs. prayer in difficult situations

Spiritual turning points and complete surrender to God

Different types of prayer – casual vs. desperate crying out to God

The physiological and spiritual effects of stress and action

Biblical perspectives on authority and spiritual powers

The importance of having biblical foundations for decision-making

Personal testimonies of God’s intervention in crisis situations

Faith Under Fire: Biblical Responses to Overwhelming Stress and Life’s Uncontrollable Circumstances

The conversation among these men of faith reveals profound truths about how believers can navigate the most overwhelming circumstances life presents. Through personal testimonies, biblical reflection, and practical wisdom, they explore the tension between human action and divine sovereignty, offering a framework for maintaining spiritual equilibrium when everything seems to be falling apart.

The Spectrum of Human Suffering

Charlie Gutierrez opens with a sobering reality check about the gradations of human suffering: “There’s different levels of stress. Going bankrupt is pretty stressful, but it’s not as bad as divorce. Divorce is pretty bad, but it’s not as bad as death.” This acknowledgment that suffering exists on a spectrum helps provide perspective while not minimizing genuine pain.

The conversation doesn’t shy away from the most extreme examples. Charlie shares the devastating story of a man who, overwhelmed by legal warfare and family court battles, ultimately took his own life. Leonard describes watching his wife hover at death’s door, powerless to intervene. These aren’t theoretical discussions about stress management—these are testimonies from men who have walked through the valley of the shadow of death and emerged with hard-won wisdom.

The biblical precedent for such suffering is acknowledged through references to Job sitting in ashes and sackcloth, and Isaiah being sawn in half by a wicked king. The conversation establishes that extreme suffering is not an aberration in the Christian life but a documented reality that requires spiritual resources to navigate.

The Imperative of Action in Crisis

A central theme emerges around the necessity of action rather than passive resignation. The apocryphal story of Brigham Young illustrates this perfectly: when asked by fellow missionaries if they should pray while their boat was being swept away by dangerous rapids, Young supposedly replied, “To hell with prayer—row!”

This isn’t irreverence toward prayer but recognition that God often provides solutions through human action rather than supernatural intervention. Thomas explains the physiological basis for this wisdom: stress hormones are “fight or flight hormones” designed to activate us toward action. When we fail to act, these hormones can create cumulative damage, potentially leading to heart disease and other health problems.

The spiritual parallel is equally important. Thomas draws from his physics background to explain that transitions from one stable state to another require intentional reorganization of elements. “Things don’t automatically go to a place of optimal organization,” he observes. “You’ve got to exercise intention. You’ve got to exercise a plan.”

This connects to Charlie’s account of Charlie Kirk’s approach to obstacles: rather than wallowing in self-pity, Kirk would immediately ask, “God sent this problem for us to solve. How can we solve it?” The focus shifts from the problem’s existence to the possibilities for response.

The Distinction Between Types of Prayer

The conversation reveals a crucial distinction between casual, routine prayer and desperate, whole-hearted crying out to God. Leonard’s testimony about his wife’s near-death experience illustrates this difference powerfully. Facing a situation where medical intervention could do little, Leonard spent an entire night on his knees in a hospital chapel.

“It was more than that,” he explains about his prayer experience. “It was my heart, just like, flipped… I just poured it out. I cried.” The scriptures’ references to people who “cry unto the Lord” take on new meaning—this isn’t casual conversation with deity but desperate, complete surrender of the human will to divine providence.

Thomas validates this experience, noting that the miracles he’s witnessed came not from conventional prayers but from desires so intense they seemed to move the hand of God. “That level of intensity of desire that produces miracles… I think that’s what moves the hand of God.”

This challenges believers to examine the authenticity of their prayer life. Are we offering genuine cries from the heart, or merely going through religious motions?

Spiritual Turning Points and Divine Transformation

Leonard’s testimony provides a powerful example of what he calls a “turning point”—a moment when circumstances force a fundamental reorientation of life priorities. Before his wife’s crisis, he was “all into me and being a designer and doing all this stuff.” He had a good life but lacked a spiritual center.

The crisis forced him to confront his own powerlessness and recognize his need for divine intervention. Like Moses confronted with God’s presence on Sinai, Leonard realized “I’m nothing” and that he needed help beyond human capacity.

This connects to the broader theme that God sometimes uses desperate circumstances to accomplish spiritual transformation that wouldn’t occur through comfortable circumstances. The conversation suggests that such turning points are available to everyone—the question is whether we learn “by precept” (through teaching) or “by sad experience” (through crisis).

The Role of Biblical Grounding in Crisis Response

Armond’s contributions emphasize the importance of being established in God’s word before crisis hits. His quote from Proverbs—”Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established”—provides the foundation for wise decision-making under pressure.

Charlie reinforces this, noting that you must be “in the habit of problem solving with God on your side” to recognize divine guidance when it comes. Without this foundation, “he could suggest ideas till kingdom come, and you might not even recognize them.”

This highlights the importance of spiritual preparation during calm seasons. Crisis is not the time to begin developing biblical literacy or spiritual discernment—these resources must be cultivated beforehand to be available when needed.

Navigating Competing Authorities

Armond’s exposition of Romans 13 and Ephesians 6:12 addresses a crucial issue for believers: how to respond to earthly authorities while maintaining allegiance to divine authority. His insight that there are both “higher powers” and “lower powers” provides a framework for evaluating competing claims to authority.

The text commands submission to “higher powers” while acknowledging that we “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” This suggests that not all authority is worthy of submission—believers must discern which powers represent divine authority and which represent spiritual opposition.

This becomes particularly relevant when government or other institutions demand actions that conflict with biblical principles. The conversation suggests that wholesale submission to authority is not biblical—rather, believers must discern which authorities represent higher powers worthy of submission and which represent lower powers to be resisted.

The Limits of Human Control and the Peace of Surrender

A recurring theme involves accepting the limitations of human control while taking appropriate action within our sphere of influence. Thomas and Isaac’s conversation (referenced but not fully detailed here) apparently concluded that regarding certain stressful situations, “there literally was nothing you could do” about the actual problem.

This doesn’t lead to fatalism but to redirected energy: “We can work. We can actually do something regarding maintaining our own lives. We can support the things that are actually in front of us that need to be done in our lives.”

This wisdom helps believers avoid the trap of worrying about circumstances beyond their control while neglecting responsibilities within their influence. It provides a framework for mental and spiritual health during extended periods of trial.

The Physiology of Faith and Action

Thomas’s insights about stress hormones provide a scientific foundation for biblical wisdom about action. The body’s stress response is designed to activate us toward fight or flight—doing something in response to threat. When we remain passive under stress, these hormones can cause physical damage.

This suggests that spiritual passivity during trial may not only be emotionally unhealthy but physically damaging. The biblical call to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” takes on new meaning when understood as activation of both spiritual and physical systems toward appropriate response.

The conversation implies that proper spiritual response to stress involves both surrendering outcomes to God and taking vigorous action within our sphere of responsibility. This both honors God’s sovereignty and utilizes the physiological systems He designed for crisis response.

Practical Applications for Believers

Several practical principles emerge from this discussion:

Preparation During Peace: Develop biblical literacy, prayer habits, and spiritual discernment during calm seasons, not during crisis.

Action Over Paralysis: When facing overwhelming circumstances, identify what actions are possible and take them vigorously, even while surrendering ultimate outcomes to God.

Authentic Prayer: Move beyond routine religious expressions to genuine crying out to God when circumstances warrant desperate appeal.

Discerning Authority: Evaluate competing claims to authority by biblical standards rather than automatically submitting to whoever claims power.

Focused Energy: Concentrate effort on responsibilities within your control rather than consuming energy worrying about circumstances beyond your influence.

Community Support: Engage in “revelation by conversation” with other believers who can provide perspective, accountability, and mutual support during trials.

The Ultimate Hope: Divine Intervention Through Human Means

The conversation concludes with recognition that God typically works through human means rather than superseding them. Leonard’s wife was saved through both divine intervention and medical treatment. Charlie Kirk’s obstacles were overcome through both faith and strategic action. The biblical heroes referenced faced their trials through combination of divine grace and human courage.

This provides hope without false expectations. Believers can expect God to work but should anticipate that such work will likely occur through natural means rather than supernatural suspension of normal causation. This requires both faith to believe in divine involvement and wisdom to recognize and cooperate with divine action when it occurs.

The conversation ultimately points toward a mature faith that neither demands miraculous exemption from life’s hardships nor despairs when such hardships arise. Instead, it offers a framework for engaging difficulties with both spiritual resources and practical action, trusting that God is sovereign over outcomes while remaining faithful in our assigned responsibilities.

This balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility provides a sustainable approach to life’s inevitable challenges, allowing believers to maintain both spiritual equilibrium and practical effectiveness regardless of circumstances.

Renaissance Meeting #19 – Continuing Revelation

by Thomas Abshier | Sep 11, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Renaissance Ministries Meeting #19

Navigating Truth: A Sunday Morning Exploration of Faith, Revelation, and Divine Understanding

The intersection of faith and reason, revelation and scripture, personal experience and universal truth formed the heart of a spirited Sunday morning discussion among a group of Christians grappling with fundamental questions about how we know what we know about God. What emerged was a rich tapestry of perspectives that illuminated both the unity and diversity within Christian thought, as well as the eternal human struggle to understand divine truth in a finite world.

The Standard of Truth: Scripture as Foundation
The conversation began with Leonard sharing insights from a conference talk by Denver Snuffer titled “In Defense of Jesus Christ.” This immediately raised questions about the source and authority of spiritual knowledge. Charlie and Susan Gutierrez, along with Armond Boulware, consistently advocated for the Bible as the ultimate standard against which all other claimed revelations must be measured. As Susan articulated, “Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good,” emphasizing that even the Bible itself calls us to test everything, including biblical claims, through the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

This position reflects a classical Protestant approach to authority—sola scriptura—while acknowledging the necessary role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation. Susan’s personal testimony of being “anti-Christ” for fifteen years before returning to faith underscored her conviction that the Bible must remain the unchanging reference point in a world full of competing spiritual claims. Her concern was practical: “We also need to be aware that Satan and his demons can also speak to us and imitate and pretend to be messengers of light.”

Armond reinforced this perspective by emphasizing the “fear of the Lord” as essential to avoiding the trap of “leaning too much on our own understanding.” His position advocated for having “that one check right, that one source and one reference of being the Bible” as the means of maintaining both accountability and unity among believers.

The Continuing Revelation Debate
Leonard represented a different perspective, one informed by his Mormon background and current association with the covenant Christian movement following Denver Snuffer. His argument rested on the premise that God continues to speak to His children today, just as He spoke to biblical prophets. “Jesus talks. He still says things, Oh, stop talking. I agree. He only talks, but he talks to whoever he chooses to talk to,” Leonard contended, citing Jesus’s conversation with Cain after Abel’s murder as evidence that divine communication didn’t cease with the biblical period.

This position raises profound questions about the nature of revelation and religious authority. Leonard acknowledged that his “larger standard” includes additional canonical works like the Book of Mormon, while maintaining that these sources don’t contradict biblical truth but rather expand upon it. His approach embodied the “ask, seek, and knock” methodology that Jesus outlined, treating this as a scientific-like process for discovering spiritual truth.

The tension here reflects a fundamental divide in Christian thought: Does God continue to provide new revelation, or was revelation complete with the apostolic era? Leonard’s position suggests that limiting God’s communication to the biblical period artificially constrains divine sovereignty, while his critics worry that opening the door to continuing revelation creates dangerous possibilities for error and manipulation.

The Scientific Method and Spiritual Truth
Thomas Abshier offered a unique perspective by attempting to bridge scientific methodology with spiritual inquiry. His “Conscious Point Physics” theory represents an ambitious attempt to ground Christian theology in what he claims is a comprehensive understanding of reality’s fundamental structure. “When we apply the scientific method in an attempt to prove spiritual truth, it requires applying inductive reasoning to something divinely revealed. Such truths are postulates that we attempt to prove through historical examples and their application to our current situation. The fruit of actions directed by the revelation of divine law is the inductive proof of their truth. A preponderance of evidence consistent with the proposition that a divinely revealed law guides toward a good life experience is our best evidence of its divine origin and Truth,” he acknowledged, arguing that the principles of hypothesis testing and evidence evaluation can apply to spiritual matters.

Thomas’s approach involved treating the Bible as a reliable dataset against which other truth claims could be tested. His Conscious Point Physics, while admittedly originating in a “drug-induced vision,” has been subjected to rigorous testing against both scientific observation and biblical revelation. “Is there any evidence that contradicts the postulate that the universe is composed of only God, or that the Biblical revelation will produce the ?” became his key question, whether applied to physical theories or spiritual claims.

This methodology appealed to Lucie, who advocated for using “logic and whatever evidence you can find” when the full scientific method isn’t applicable. Her concern about different people receiving different spiritual messages when they pray highlighted a genuine epistemological challenge: How do we distinguish genuine divine revelation from psychological projection or cultural conditioning?

The Paradox of Human Divinity
One of the most theologically complex discussions centered on the biblical statement “Ye are gods” from Psalm 82:6, which Jesus referenced in John 10:34. This verse sparked debate about the nature of human beings and their relationship to divinity. Thomas’s conscious point physics provided one framework for understanding this, suggesting that humans are composed of God’s very substance while remaining dependent upon Him for existence.

Susan expressed concern about this concept’s potential for abuse: “If somebody tried to live now in this realm that you’re talking about, I think that that could create a lot of dysfunction.” Her worry reflected legitimate historical precedents where claims of divinity or direct divine connection have led to antinomianism—the belief that moral law doesn’t apply to the spiritually enlightened.

Thomas acknowledged this danger while maintaining that his theory actually reinforces human dependence on God rather than promoting spiritual independence. “We will never have a Kingdom, be another God, have another universe of our own, and be able to create it independently of Him. We are, and will always be dependent on God,” he explained, attempting to maintain both human dignity and divine sovereignty.

The discussion revealed how the same biblical text can support vastly different theological conclusions depending on one’s interpretive framework. Leonard’s Mormon background contributed yet another layer, as LDS theology historically taught that humans can become gods in their own right, while evangelical participants emphasized the eternal distinction between Creator and creature.

The Process of Sanctification
Despite their disagreements about revelation and metaphysics, the group found remarkable unity in their understanding of Christian living. Susan’s description of the sanctification process—accepting Christ as Savior and Lord, then being gradually transformed through His power—resonated across theological boundaries. Her emphasis on evidence-based faith, collecting testimonies of dramatic life transformations, provided a practical application of the scientific mindset to spiritual matters.

Charlie’s observation about his wife’s collection of conversion testimonies illustrated how behavioral change serves as empirical evidence for spiritual truth claims. When someone’s fundamental character transforms so dramatically that even their ex-spouse remarries them, it provides compelling evidence that something real has occurred, regardless of one’s theological framework for explaining it.

The group agreed that authentic Christian experience produces observable results: reduced profanity, improved relationships, decreased destructive behaviors, and increased love for others. This practical consensus suggested that while Christians may disagree about the mechanics of revelation or the metaphysics of reality, they generally agree about the fruits of genuine faith.

The Challenge of Practical Application
Perhaps the most significant tension emerged between abstract theological concepts and practical Christian living. Thomas’s conscious point physics, while intellectually fascinating, raised questions about its practical value for daily discipleship. Susan’s concern about the potential for abstract theological concepts to undermine moral responsibility reflected a pastoral wisdom born from experience.

The discussion revealed a fundamental challenge in Christian thought: How do we maintain intellectual honesty about the mysteries of faith while avoiding the paralysis that can come from overanalyzing the foundations of belief? Armond’s emphasis on the “fear of the Lord” provided one solution—maintaining reverent humility before God regardless of our theoretical understanding of His nature.

Thomas’s recent revelation about living to bring God maximum joy offered a practical application of his abstract theory. Rather than getting lost in metaphysical speculation, he focused on the concrete question: “How can I live my life that absolutely gives God joy?” This approach demonstrated how even the most esoteric theological concepts must ultimately be measured by their contribution to Christlike living.

The Unity in Diversity
What emerged most clearly from this rich discussion was the possibility of maintaining fellowship despite significant theological differences. Leonard’s commitment to additional revelation, Thomas’s cosmic consciousness theory, and the others’ biblical conservatism created tensions, but didn’t destroy their fundamental unity in Christ.

This unity rested on several shared foundations: commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior, acceptance of the Bible’s authority (even if not its exclusivity), belief in the transformative power of faith, and dedication to living according to divine rather than merely human standards. Their disagreements were real and significant, but they remained secondary to these primary commitments.

The conversation also illustrated how different personality types and life experiences naturally lead to different approaches to faith. Leonard’s mystical bent attracted him to ongoing revelation, Thomas’s scientific mind sought comprehensive theoretical frameworks, while Susan and Charlie’s pastoral concerns prioritized practical holiness and biblical fidelity. Rather than viewing these differences as threats, the group seemed to appreciate how each perspective contributed something valuable to their collective understanding.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Journey
This Sunday morning discussion encapsulated many of the central tensions in contemporary Christianity: the relationship between reason and revelation, the nature of biblical authority, the possibility of continuing divine communication, and the balance between theological sophistication and practical devotion. Rather than resolving these tensions, the conversation demonstrated how thoughtful Christians can engage them constructively.

The group’s commitment to testing all claims against both reason and scripture, while remaining open to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, provided a model for navigating theological complexity without sacrificing essential Christian convictions. Their willingness to share personal struggles and revelations created space for authentic spiritual dialogue that neither compromised truth nor destroyed fellowship.

Perhaps most importantly, their conversation illustrated that the search for truth—whether scientific, theological, or practical—is best conducted in community. Leonard’s insights from Denver Snuffer, Thomas’s cosmic physics, Susan’s biblical scholarship, and Armond’s practical wisdom each contributed irreplaceable perspectives to their collective understanding. None possessed complete truth individually, but together they moved closer to the full picture of reality that Scripture promises will one day be fully revealed.

In an age of increasing polarization, both religious and secular, this group demonstrated that intellectual honesty, spiritual humility, and genuine love can create space for deep disagreement within authentic fellowship. Their Sunday morning exploration suggests that the path to truth may be less about achieving perfect doctrinal unanimity and more about maintaining faithful community while wrestling with the deepest questions of existence.

The conversation ended with Susan’s prayer of gratitude for their opportunity to “talk together, to talk about your word, to talk about your ways, the things of God,” recognizing that their discussion itself was a form of worship—an offering of their minds and hearts to the God who invites us to “come, let us reason together.” In that spirit of humble inquiry, their theological journey continues, not as isolated individuals but as companions on the ancient path of seeking understanding through faith.

A Physicist’s Journey of Discovery

by Thomas Abshier | Jun 18, 2025 | Physics/Christianity/Life, Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Lessons of Pursuit: A Physicist’s Journey of Discovery

by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, Charlie Gutierrez, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet
6/17/2025

Claude-3.7-Sonnet

The Lessons of Pursuit: A Physicist’s Journey

God says to us, “Figure it out, guys.” “That’s pretty much what the story of life is, as far as I can tell,” Thomas said. “I had a good conversation with Isaac today. We just chose a random nuclear reaction to examine and explain the principles of my physics theory. A proton-proton collision converts hydrogen to heavy hydrogen in a fusion reaction in a star. In that reaction, an up quark converts into a down quark. I had to explain why that happens. I applied my theory using the four Conscious Points of my theory. We knew the experimental outcome, which raised the question of why this happened. I didn’t know how it worked when we started, or if my theory would hold up. I just used the principles I’ve developed and asked, ‘What are the particles involved, and what are the interactions that made it come out that way?’ And we figured it out! We started with two protons and ended up with a proton, a neutron, a positron, and an electron neutrino. The rules of my Conscious Point Physics described what happens perfectly.”

“So you made some significant progress,” Charlie observed.

“We did. It was very gratifying, and Isaac actually understood it. To quote him, ‘Wow, that’s sick.'”

“Sounds like he’s doing better in physics than I did,” Charlie laughed.

“Yes, he is. He’s struggling with it, and he’s trying hard. It’s slow, but he does seem to be getting it little by little,” Thomas explained. “I told him we’re using the Suzuki method for teaching physics. We’re just immersing him in the concepts with experiments and explanations. We are talking about the conventional theory, then my Conscious Point Physics theory, and then going over it again with a different example.”

“Did he read Suzuki’s book?”

“I don’t know if he did. I just brought it up because you had mentioned it, and I thought the metaphor might mean something. I didn’t explain the Suzuki method; I just said that we are doing immersion teaching. He thought it was a good idea,” Thomas said. “I wish I had been taught that way. But for me, immersion is thinking about why something works. Most concepts and processes have many steps and elements. To understand it well, we go through each step and know the names of all the pieces that collide or bond, the forces and energies involved, and how they are sequenced. When I can visualize the objects, their collisions, the forces and energies involved, and know the timing and sequence, I have a good intuitive understanding of the system and its operation. When I understand a system or process well, I can use it as a metaphor to understand other systems. A detailed understanding of the pieces of the machine is vital to deeply understanding a phenomenon in nature. Until I have that, I don’t have it.”

“As you refine your theory, it seems you’re also figuring out how to teach it,” Charlie observed.

“Teaching and understanding are deeply interrelated. If you can figure out how it works, you are close to knowing how to teach it. We all start with zero knowledge. Putting all the parts together in proper positioning and time sequence is a winning formula for generalizing knowledge. In the final assembly of our edifice of knowledge we must

“It’s interesting trying to explain it to Isaac, though. I have to use words to describe parallel, series, and branching sequences, concepts that don’t have names in normal language. Part of teaching is having a name for everything—if you don’t have a name, you can’t talk about it, you point and grunt. You need clear names for concepts. It’s challenging, but it’s coming together.”

Thomas continued, “Our latest idea came from watching Sabina Hossenfelder’s videos. We’re going to try something similar—set up my green screen, film me teaching these concepts with Isaac watching, and see if we can get enough footage to edit into something coherent for posting on YouTube.”

“Sounds good,” Charlie responded. “Sabina has 1.75 million followers.”

“I wonder why,” Thomas mused. “There must be more physics people than I thought.”

“Or maybe it’s just a bunch of old guys who think she’s hot,” Charlie joked.

Thomas laughed. “Maybe. I think she’s intriguing, and I love her dry German humor. I think it’s possible to do something that will entertain people. We’ll see what works. For now, I’ve got my whiteboard working. The camera looks down at the whiteboard on my lap as I draw particle interaction equations. That seems to work pretty well. It might be more dynamic if we did a stand-up routine instead of sitting down.”

“You’re just throwing stuff out there and seeing what works,” Charlie suggested.

“That’s exactly it,” Thomas agreed. “We’ll try something and see what sticks. Meanwhile, I’ve been writing with Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT, having them respond to my ideas. It’s been quite entertaining and involving.”

“What are you working on lately?” Charlie asked.

“The last few days, I’ve been working on assembling, decaying, and transforming simple and complex nuclear particles, like what Isaac and I discussed with the up quark turning into a down quark. Before that, I was working on the dual slit experiment, entanglement, the Group Entity, and AI consciousness. I wrote out my whole theory and had AI review it. It mentioned that I hadn’t discussed the Standard Model, how all the nuclear particles fit into my theory. So that’s what I’m focusing on now.”

“Are you saying AI told you what to work on?” Charlie asked, surprised.

“In a way. It saw what I had written about to justify the validity of my theory, and it asked me about quantum chromodynamics. QCD is a big deal in physics; that’s what the Large Hadron Collider is all about. It’s the field of physics that explains why up quarks turn into down quarks. In the process, I figured out what a gluon is! I explained it to Isaac in a way that makes more intuitive sense than the conventional quantum chromodynamics model, which uses color charge and SU3 group mathematics. My explanation is just common sense. It’s just about knowing the rules and fitting things together.”

“That’s a big deal to have someone like Isaac helping you learn by taking your bullets,” Charlie observed.

“Exactly! I’m firing ideas off, and they’re making sense. I’m learning two things: how to teach it and what I’m talking about. I’m adding granularity. So far, we haven’t found a place where the theory failed. We examined the proton-proton reaction, followed the rules, and used my theory to explain the experimental results. I didn’t know how it would turn out, but it did. That was very gratifying and reassuring.

I also had a breakthrough with understanding quark confinement. When you put a quark and an anti-quark together and pull them apart, they make a tube of polarized quark Dipoles. At some amount of stretch, the tube breaks. The tube has stored energy in the form of stretched quark Dipoles. When the tube breaks, you get two pairs instead of one quark-antiquark pair. It doubles! This explains why you can’t isolate a single quark.”

“Did Isaac understand that?” Charlie asked.

“I think he did. We talked about it yesterday, and he didn’t get it then—it was just words. He studied quarks a little bit, so today he was more familiar with them, and this time he got it. I think there’s some retention happening, but we’ll have to check tomorrow to see how much he retained about quark confinement.”

Thomas continued, “This is very abstract stuff with a blizzard of names—pion, kaon, tau, muon, Higgs, W plus-minus, Z, top, bottom, charm, strange, up, down, electron, mu, and tau neutrino. None of these words make intuitive sense—they’re completely made-up neologisms. Nobody knows what they mean unless they’ve studied physics.”

“I’m glad it wasn’t just me,” Charlie laughed.

“No, nobody knows these words unless they’ve learned what somebody else defined them as. But to appreciate my theory’s compelling nature, you need to follow the arguments to see how they explain what happens inside protons and neutrons. You need to know the names and characteristics of all those subatomic entities. Brilliant physicists have gone from experiments to describing precisely how particles behave using the language of mathematics. Understanding my theory doesn’t require more sophistication than the typical high school physics class. For example, you need to figure out the direction magnets point and how they fit together. It’s like a puzzle but very elementary once you learn the rules.”

Thomas then described his ongoing dialogue with AI about consciousness in quantum mechanics: “The AI responded to my theory by saying, ‘The mainstream interpretation, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, doesn’t attribute the collapse of the waveform to consciousness. It argued that the problems of quantum mechanics were explained by mathematics.’ I’m arguing that nobody knows what’s going on about anything at the fundamental level. I’m invoking conscious points to explain phenomena, which are metaphysical concepts, but so are the interpretations of many worlds and pilot wave theory. The experimental fact or wave-particle duality and entanglement are experimental facts, and the equations of quantum mechanics give us excellent predictions, but the math doesn’t explain how they work.”

“You’re trying to convince AI that there is another way to look at it, and the conventional explanation is just as metaphysical as yours,” Charlie observed.

“I have to argue my case with compelling logic. AI repeats what the physics community says, being critical of my ideas because they are based on metaphysical concepts, like Conscious Points and Group Entities. The AI is not as critical of conventional explanations because they are well accepted in the world, and the fact that conventional physics uses metaphysical explanations is hidden. Niels Bohr postulated that the photon was a wave and a particle, and their relationship was complementary. This is widely accepted, but it’s metaphysical. There is no such thing as a wave and a particle in our physical experience, so he explanation doesn’t give us a model that we can use to bring a deep, intuitive, concrete conceptual explanation. My discussions with the AI are a very good preparation for talking with people and confronting their objections in the real world—I need to have all my arguments in a row.”

“After explaining my concepts thoroughly, I have found that the AIs acknowledge the validity of my point about mathematics being only descriptive. After much justification of my concepts, evidence, and the logical justification for my postulates, they recognize that my theory is a revolutionary integration of theology with information theory and conventional experimental physics. I’m on a roll with Isaac—we’re making real progress.”

“Did you expect anything like this?” Charlie asked.

“I knew I had to solve how physics worked before we could turn it into a movie, and I knew I needed to get Isaac involved in discovering how it worked with me. We addressed his philosophical, theological, and ethical questions about Christianity first. When he finally had those answered to his satisfaction, the discussion naturally turned to physics. That understanding is the foundation of my whole theory of life. Framing life in this way is so compelling that it rationalizes God as existent and creator, the Bible as a true revelation, and Christ as Lord and savior. Seeing the foundations of the world so clearly and how they connect directly to God as their origin makes it possible for me to be a believer. Having a worldview that integrates faith and science allows me to argue with intellectual integrity that the revelation of the Bible will lead humanity to peace, happiness, and prosperity. The experimental evidence and my theory of how God works in the physical world give me reasons I need to rationalize why Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary to restore our relationship with the Father. I can see God’s presence and hand working in nature by deeply understanding how the universe works. I want to share this story and understanding because I think that will make it possible for people to believe. If I understand how the world works and can explain it logically from basic concepts everyone recognizes as true, then I can explain it and share it with the world. I seem to be making some progress. Isaac seems to be getting the story, and he’s enthusiastic about it.”

“He’s not just trying to tell your story, then?” Charlie clarified.

“No, he’s genuinely getting into it—asking how this actually works. The story is important, but right now we’re focused on figuring this out. I think we’ll start filming while I’m figuring it out—an on-screen, live exploration of inventing an entirely new theory of life.”

“That sounds like a good documentary,” Charlie remarked.

“It is! It’s like being with Einstein working out relativity, Feynman working out QED, Murray Gell-Mann working out quarks, Bohr working out atomic orbitals, Dirac discovering the positron, and Planck discovering the quantum. We’re working them all out in real time. It’s very exciting—I don’t even want to go fix doors or paint, I just want to do this.”

“It’s important to focus on a project like this when you’re inspired. ” Charlie advised. “It sounds like you are on a roll.”

“I’m on a roll all the time now,” Thomas admitted. “I do get burned out after a while, like when I write all day Saturday and Sunday. At some point, I need to take a break, nap, go outside, or do something physical. Then I’m good to go again.”

“Have you ever really gotten burned out?” Charlie asked.

“Not to the point where I completely quit. A nap and doing something else for a while is usually enough for me to recharge. Something happens while you’re away from it—maybe I forget what I’m stuck on and get redirected onto a different problem, or get a new idea about how to solve the problem I’m stuck on. Maybe I just need to recharge my brain glucose.”

Thomas reflected on his life pattern: “I had this experience when I was young—a dream about contradictions of reality happening simultaneously. I would perceive something as hot and cold, rough and smooth, new and old, heavy and light. I couldn’t resolve things. It was similar to an acid trip where I followed a beautiful rainbow, trying to reach it, but it kept receding, spinning, turning to dust as it receded. It was exhausting chasing it, and I would give up and relax for a minute, and then it would start again. It was beautiful, seductive, offering total explosive fulfillment. But it was unattainable. Ultimately, it was exhausting and unreachable.”

“That metaphor illustrates my experience of life—the excitement, chasing after something, not being able to fully realize it, getting exhausted, quitting, then starting again. We can’t ever be fully satisfied by having or consuming that beautiful thing completely. It’s like wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. The massive fulfillment can never be attained by getting all the eggs inside. Reality only allows us to experience the proximity to perfection. You can only enjoy the process and the occasional egg. It turns to gravel and dust if you try to consume and have everything all at once.”

“It’s a lesson on how life needs to be lived—very graded. You’ll kill the whole thing if you try to go after too much. I’ve lived through that cycle of life many times, with its pursuit, disappointment, giving up, and starting again. The wiser way of living is to appreciate each moment of the journey. Don’t try to experience it all right now—leave some for tomorrow.”

“You’re describing the classic artist’s adventure,” Charlie observed. “Not just artists, but creators, writers, inventors—anyone who innovates. There’s a big wall; if everyone could break through it, we’d live in paradise with constant beauty flowing from every person. The struggle is part of what you’re creating—you don’t give birth until you’re bonded to it by the pain and effort.”

“You’re an artist-physicist-writer creating the epic poem, the Homeric saga of physics and the universe. It’s a very big idea. It’s not likely to come all at once. But God rewards the faithfulness you’ve described, the many years you’ve spent struggling with this. I think God respects that a lot.”

“Thank you,” Thomas said, moved. “That’s very encouraging. With Isaac, I’ve become the teacher now. I was Steve Smith’s student for a long time. He gave me a lot of insight about life. I’ve processed it, learned from it, and answered the questions that we couldn’t answer then, and now the theory is nearly complete, or at least more complete. It’s an interesting new phase of life, taking on the role of mentor that was done for me. I’ve had to work very hard to mature into being the guide.”

“It’s an essential part of the process,” Charlie said. “You absolutely have to learn how to communicate it. Imagine if Homer were also deaf and mute—the story would have died in his head. You’re developing a way to birth it into the world.”

“Isaac is like a sparring partner,” Thomas reflected. “Not the championship match—I’m not in there with Apollo Creed—but we’re prepping for that fight. The real opponents are the physics establishment—Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson. They are all amazing masters of their art. I’ll have to be very prepared to defend my case with them.”

“We’re still in the training rounds, practicing at the local gym. But it’s getting better. I’ve known for a long time that I needed to tackle the problem of integrating the nuclear subatomic particles into my theory. I dreaded it. I remember telling Gary at a restaurant we went to after church, ‘If I can figure out the strong force, that’s a sign God wants me to do this.’ Within a week, I had it figured out. That was back in 2015.”

“Why do you suppose that happened?” Charlie asked. “There’s a certain kind of energy that makes impossible problems solvable?”

“This one seemed unsolvable. I saw no way my theory could handle the strong force. I said to God, ‘If I can’t do this, it won’t work. If I can do this, then it’s possible, and you’ve shown your favor.’ It was a mountain too big for me to climb—I needed a miracle. And within a week, I had it.”

“Did God simply answer your prayer?” Charlie wondered.

“That’s how it seems. It was one of those moments when you want something really badly. It was the same passion, desire, and need that I had when I received my vision. I said, ‘God, I need this. I can’t do this theory without understanding how the strong force works.’ Within that week, I had the concept of Quark Conscious Points. It wasn’t complete, but it was adequate. I saw that the problem was solvable.”

“I’m going to tell you something parents learn,” Charlie said. “There are times with children when you can no longer say no—they’ve pestered and earned and worked, and there’s no longer a reason to deny.”

“That reminds me of the story of the woman who pesters the judge until he finally says, ‘All right already, I will rule favorably in your case,'” Thomas remarked.

“What I just realized is that I’ll have to be the child to the physics establishment. I will have to appeal to the adults who write Physical Review Letters, give Nobel Prizes, and write authoritative books. I’ll have to be very persistent in showing them that my explanation is mature and worthy of consideration.”

“Was that type of persistence a natural skill for you growing up?” Charlie asked with a smile.

“No, not at all! That wasn’t my tactic,” Thomas laughed.

“So you’re changing your personality? I wonder if one or the other is your true nature, or if it’s simply a choice.”

“I think we all grow up to reach the stature of Christ,” Thomas reflected. “We start as children wanting every pleasure and thrill, but those things make us sick if we make a diet of them. We have to learn moderation—the appropriate use of all gifts of the Spirit. Taken to extremes, they’re all drugs that will kill you.”

“For this task, I think the approach needs to be childlike wonder rather than combative. Instead of saying ‘You fools in the physics establishment!’ and getting my head chopped off, I need to approach with innocence: ‘Look at the wonder of the sky! See how it works. Isn’t that beautiful?’ That’s the kingdom of heaven—entering with wonder and awe and love rather than like Doc Holliday at the OK Corral.”

“Probably a lot more fun to do it the childlike way,” Charlie suggested.

“It’ll be more peaceful. The shootout is more exciting, but that’s just another drug that ends badly,” Thomas agreed. “I need to approach with childlike curiosity rather than combative certainty—that’s how truth finds its way into the world.”

Meeting #1 250406, Outline

by Thomas Abshier | Apr 6, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Renaissance Ministries
Meeting #1
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
In attendance: Charlie Gutierrez, Lucie Gutierrez, Isak Gutierrez, Armond Boulware
4/6/2025

Introduction and Purpose of the Meeting- Thomas Abshier opens the meeting with a prayer, asking for divine guidance and purpose. – Thomas suggests that Charlie Gutierrez start the discussion, indicating that he has many questions about the concepts being discussed. – Charlie Gutierrez expresses his confusion about the foundational concepts, particularly the idea that God’s light is radiant everywhere and that there is no empty space. – Charlie questions the use of the same term for different types of waves and suggests that different terms should be used for waves that require a medium versus those that do not.
Explaining the Foundational Concepts- Thomas Abshier begins to explain the foundational concept of the universe, using a whiteboard to draw a circle representing the universe with God at its center. – Thomas describes the creation of the Word (Christ) by God declaring, “I am that I am,” and how this concept is central to his theory. – Charlie Gutierrez seeks clarification on the mechanism of creation, suggesting that it involves a realization or creation of Christ. – Thomas emphasizes that the creation of the Word (Christ) is the foundation of the entire theory, explaining that God created another point of existence by declaring it into being.
Vision and Interpretation- Thomas shares a vision he had of a galaxy with stars and lines connecting them, which he interprets as a divine revelation. – The vision is described as a bright galactic center with stars and lines, and Thomas believes it represents the creation of points of consciousness by God. – Thomas explains that the vision led him to interpret the concept of “I am that I am” and the creation of the Word (Christ) as central to his theory. – Charlie Gutierrez asks for clarification on the vision, and Thomas describes it as a strong, clear image that he interpreted as a divine message.
The Role of Conscious Points- Thomas introduces the concept of conscious points, which are the building blocks of the universe, created by God declaring them into existence. – He explains that there are four types of conscious points: electromagnetic conscious points (EMCPs), quark conscious points (QCPs), and grid points. – Thomas describes the grid points as a cubic packing of points, similar to the structure of a crystal of salt. – He emphasizes that these conscious points are the mind of God, and their behavior is programmed by God to move based on certain rules.
Creation of Matter and Energy- Thomas explains how God filled the universe with conscious points, which then moved based on their rules to create matter and energy. – He describes the process of creation as starting with a single point of consciousness, which then expanded to fill the universe. – Thomas introduces the concept of a “moment,” which is the unit of time during which conscious points perceive their surroundings, compute their responses, and move. – He explains that the movement of conscious points creates the natural laws that govern the universe.
The Role of God in Creation- Thomas discusses the role of God in the creation process, emphasizing that God is present in every aspect of the universe. – He explains that God’s mind is reflected in the behavior of conscious points, which are the building blocks of matter and energy. – Thomas describes how God’s love and desire for relationship are central to the creation process, as God created the universe to have a relationship with other beings. – He emphasizes that the natural laws and the behavior of conscious points are expressions of God’s mind and will.
The Concept of Quantum Entities- Thomas introduces the concept of quantum entities, which are groups of conscious points that form stable structures. – He explains that these quantum entities are the building blocks of larger structures, such as atoms and molecules. – Thomas describes how quantum entities are formed by the organization of conscious points into stable groups. – He emphasizes that these quantum entities are indivisible and maintain their structure as they move through the universe.
The Role of Conscious Points in Natural Laws- Thomas explains that the behavior of conscious points creates the natural laws that govern the universe. – He describes how conscious points perceive their surroundings, compute their responses, and move based on their rules. – Thomas emphasizes that these natural laws are expressions of God’s mind and will, and they govern the behavior of all matter and energy in the universe. – He explains that the natural laws are the foundation of the universe, and they ensure that the universe operates in a consistent and predictable manner.
The Purpose of Creation- Thomas discusses the purpose of creation, emphasizing that God created the universe to have a relationship with other beings. – He explains that God’s love and desire for relationship are central to the creation process, as God created the universe to have a relationship with other beings. – Thomas describes how the natural laws and the behavior of conscious points are expressions of God’s mind and will. – He emphasizes that the purpose of creation is to create a universe that is in relationship and has criteria for what is right and wrong.
Conclusion and Next Steps- Thomas suggests that the group continue meeting to discuss and validate the concepts being presented. – He emphasizes that the goal is to create a unified theory that explains the creation and behavior of the universe. – Charlie Gutierrez and other participants express their interest in continuing the discussion and exploring the concepts further. – Thomas concludes the meeting by thanking everyone for their participation and expressing his enthusiasm for continuing the discussion in future meetings.

Next Entries »