Interesting Facts about Lamentations

In the book of Lamentations, there are five chapters.

Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 each have 22 verses (and chapter 3 could be so numbered -- see below).

Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 (but not 5) are acrostic, with each verse starting with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, starting with Aleph and ending at Tav, in order.

The verses in chapters 1, 2, and 4 each have three lines.

The three lines per verse pattern has been broken into separate verses in chapter 3, giving this chapter a total of 66 verses. (Remember, verse numbers are relatively recent man-made additions to the text and are not inspired.) If the verse number pattern had been retained, this chapter would be just like chapters 1, 2, and 4, except that each of the three lines in the verse would start with the appropriate Hebrew letter. In chapters 1, 2, and 4, only the first line of the verse starts with a letter.

Here it is in picture format (using the English A, B, and Z), so it's easier to comprehend:

Chapter 1:
1. A blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
2. B blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
. . .
22. Z blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse

Chapter 2:
1. A blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
2. B blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
. . .
22. Z blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse

Chapter 3:
1. A blah blah blah for first line of verse.
A second line of verse.
A third line of verse
2. B blah blah blah for first line of verse.
B second line of verse.
B third line of verse
. . .
22. Z blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Z second line of verse.
Z third line of verse

Chapter 4:
1. A blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
2. B blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse
. . .
22. Z blah blah blah for first line of verse.
Second line of verse.
Third line of verse

Chapter 5:
1. Blah blah blah
2. Blah blah blah
...
22. Blah blah blah

Rehash of the Previous Entry

As I was thinking of how it might be explained to someone ...

Typically we've thought of conception as the UPS truck driving up to Mrs. Egg's house, and the driver ringing the doorbell and delivering the package of DNA, and then from that point on the truck and driver are jettisoned from our thoughts.

Now it appears that might not quite be the case; it seems as if the driver himself may enter into the house for a little hanky-panky with Mrs. Egg, leaving behind a bit more than the package he was tasked to deliver.

(Now, my friends, explain to me why we guys always have to turn discussions of sex into sex-related discussions. Disgusting, we are. Or maybe it's just me ....)

Women's Eggs are Immortal?

In researching the meaning of the name "Sisera", I came across this unrelated little gem:

Geneticists have found that the reproductive cells carried by women are actually immortal until they are "poisoned" by fertilization, possibly due to a mutation acquired from the forbidden fruit itself which affects both genders but is carried only by the male. Only by being the seed of woman apart from a man (virgin birth) could the Messiah be truly the Second Adam, bearing the complete image of God and thus able to become fully righteous after passing the same tests Adam failed.

In following the link, I found this:

It is now believed that within the cytoplasm [of the spermatozoan - Kent] and among the minute particles which are suspended in it [as opposed to the DNA-package it delivers which we've always considered the only thing passed during sex - Kent], there are certain carriers of hereditary material which have been termed plasmagenes. These cytoplasmic "genes" are distinct from the nuclear genes which hitherto have been assumed the sole carriers of heredity, and they appear to be (unlike the nuclear genes) susceptible to influences outside the cell.

. . .

Thus although the woman may have been the first to introduce the fatal poison into her body cells, she did not by that act poison her own seed, but the poison of death does enter through the male seed into the seed of the woman by the fusion of the two. By such a mechanism the poison in Adam's body may have reached his seed, and via the cytoplasm of the seed the poison is by fusion with the female seed passed on to the embryo.

. . .

The key doctrine here was that acquired characters were inherited.

. . .

Mortality was acquired by man, yet it was inherited. To quote Romans 5:12 again, "Death entered . . . and passed upon all men."

. . .

By the prodigious labours and elegant methods of research of a number of geneticists and microbiologists, the mechanism is now becoming clear. This research begins to show that there are certain conditions under which an acquired character can, after all, be inherited not via the nuclear genes but by something analogous to them in the surrounding cytoplasm termed plasmagenes.

(http://www.custance.org/Library/SOTW/Part_II/Chapter18.html)


I don't automatically buy into this guy's explanation, but to me, it has the "ring of Truth", not to mention that I had already fairly well adopted the idea that some thing (call it "sin" if you like) was passed from generation to generation via the male seed, which Jesus didn't get. I was speculating that it had something to do with the Y chromosome, but this idea makes a bit more sense to me.

I was just talking with a friend the other day about how some knowledge is passed on to the offspring of certain animals (such as the location of salmon spawning grounds or a new route south for birds, etc) and my suspicion that humans sometimes have a little bit of this going on which might explain some cases of deja vu or memories of so-called "previous lives".

I'd suggest not adopting these thoughts as "fact", but they're interesting enough I thought I'd pass them on.

Come As You Are; Leave Different

Just as Scripture assumes you come as you are, it also assumes you will not stay that way.

The author goes on:

If we are not changed from what we were as recently as yesterday, woe be unto us. The task of spiritual growth is never complete this side of Eternity, so we dare not stop growing. Argue if you wish whether Paul meant "study" or "be diligent" in 2 Timothy 2:15, but to accurately handle the Word of Truth surely requires spending time understanding the Scripture in its own context. That context was a Semitic people in a Middle Eastern country.

From http://ed.asisaid.com/bible/basics/westnoxian.html

What Are You Doing?

A friend hooked me up with some audio Bible-related lessons from a Jewish standpoint. I'm continually finding new nuggets from the lessons.

Tonight I found it profound that the speaker said (paraphrased) ...

"Who am I?" is the wrong question.
The correct question is, "What am I doing?"

That struck me as amazingly true. I got to thinking about all the people seeking psychotherapy, etc, and trying to find out who they are. That doesn't matter. What matters is what they're doing.

Come As You Are

I should be at church this morning instead of at home, blogging, but I've been sick the past two days, and whereas I feel good enough to get out, I'm still sniffly and coughing and head-achy and easy-to-tire, and just don't feel like getting around to make myself presentable. If my brethren at church didn't mind me showing up unwashed and in sweat pants, I'd be there.

Reminds me of a slogan I saw on the side of some sort of church-group bus the other evening: "Come as you are; Leave different". That strikes me as a much more accepting place than the typical church of Christ that expects you to wear shoes and generally "fit in". I know the arguments put forth for "presenting your best", but I'm not sure I buy into those arguments (especially since "presenting your best" never seems to mean "wearing a tux"). I tend to believe the "Cowboy Church" and "Bum Street Meeting" ideas have merit -- Come as you are; Leave different.

Elders in the Church - One, or More?

In the church tradition in which I grew up, it was firm doctrine that each church is to have a multiplicity of elders, as explained in this typical comment from an un-cited source on Titus chapter 1:

But....it seems [Titus'] initial duty....was to appoint elders in every town. The word elders here is plural meaning each group of believers had a plurality of elders. To 'appoint' is to 'ordain.' The verb means, to 'set down' or to 'put in charge.' But next is the most important words. "As I directed you." The preacher is commanded directly from the apostle Paul to "appoint elders." So, there we have it.

Here are some of my thoughts concerning this doctrine.

1.

Using this example more exactly, it seems that one preacher, who himself has been appointed by a "higher level of authority", is to appoint the elders in every town within a certain jurisdiction. That's an uncomfortable thought ....


2.

"appoint elders in every town" could be likened to the phrase, "appoint cooks in every family". Would each family therefore need a plurality of cooks?

Granted, in English at least, if a single elder were intended, the phrase would be better uttered as "appoint an elder in every town".

But what if Paul's intended meaning was that each town have at least one elder? The rendering "appoint at least one elder in every town" is somewhat clunky; I suspect most speakers would short-hand this to "appoint elders in every town", which is the form we have in our text.

Note that I'm not saying Paul intends "at least one elder"; I'm merely saying that the text, in English at least, is not clear that he intended a multiplicity of elders, either in each town, or over each group within a town.

In other words, using this text alone, I'm not sure you can support the point that "each group of believers had a plurality of elders".


3.

Does the New Testament actually teach that each group of believers have a plurality of elders? I'm not entirely confident that it does.

Sometimes when Paul writes to a church in a certain city, he implies that there are several churches within the city, such as when he says, "Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. ... Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord." (For an interesting (and perhaps enlightening) exercise, go to BibleGateway.com and search for "household" in the New Testament, and quickly read how the term "household" is used. It often "feels" like code-speak for "house-church", although I would not press that definition too greatly, especially without having done further research on it.)

If it's true that the early church tended to meet in houses, chances are fairly good that these house-churches would be fairly small, say 12-30 people. With such small churches, I'm not sure a plurality of elders would have been practical.

In a situation in which one city might have four or a dozen house-churches, each with one elder, it still makes perfect sense for Paul to call for the elders in the city of Ephesus to come meet him. Therefore Acts 20:17 also fails to be an iron-clad proof-text for a multiplicity of elders over each group of believers.

It also makes sense that Titus could appoint multiple elders within a city while each house-church within that city may only have one elder. Or perhaps the elders of a town pastored over the churches as a whole, with some house-churches not even having an attending elder (although this seems unlikely to me; it seems more likely that each house-church would have some sort of ruler).

Also, apparently the early church simply converted their synagogue meetings to church meetings. For example:
* Jesus implies that his followers would be worshiping in the synagogues until they were kicked out - John 16:2
* the new Gentile Christians in Antioch are given instructions to allow them to coexist with the practice of reading Moses on the Sabbath in synagogues - Acts 15:20-22
* the Jews who were angry at Christians beat Sosthenes the synagogue ruler, implying that this synagogue ruler was a Christian - Acts 18:16-17
* Saul went to the synagogues to find Christians he could arrest - Acts 22:19, Acts 26:11
* James speaks of both rich and poor people coming into the Christian synagogue assemblies (James 2:2, Young's Literal Translation, or the Greek text)

As I understand it, the synagogue had a single leader, such as Sosthenes above, or such as described in Luke 8:41, Luke 13:14, and Acts 18:8. So without clear instruction otherwise (which apparently was not recorded in the New Testament), former synagogue-attending Jews who had converted to Christianity would continue assembling as they had all their lives, in the synagogue, with a synagogue leader over them.

Again, please do not mis-hear me. I'm not arguing that the New Testament teaches there should be one elder over each church. I am saying that the evidence is less clear for a plurality of elders over each church than is often claimed. Extra-biblical sources, or further comparison with the Jewish concept of elders and/or synagogue/assembly leaders, might enlighten us on the matter, but it seems to me that any conclusion in favor of a plurality of elders over each group of believers, when made strictly using the New Testament as source material, can only be made by reading a meaning into the text rather than reading a meaning out of the text. Perhaps I'm wrong, and there is some clear-cut evidence that I've forgotten or missed. But I'm tending to think not.

A Common Misperception

When people face a crisis or devastation of one sort or another, they're often reminded that Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him...".

The problem is they never finish that verse, which ends with, "who have been called according to his purpose."

I don't mean to deny that all things do work together for good to those who love God, but I do want to make it clear that this passage has traditionally been misquoted.

And as long as we're on the topic of misquoting, the passage does not say that "money is the root of all evil"; is says that "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10, NASB).

Found an Interesting Blogger

I've recently discovered blogger Ed Hurst, and so far have been fascinated by what he has to say. Here's an example:

Judas had a nickname -- Iscariot -- which has debatable connections, possibly implying he was a member of a political resistance group. It is hardly in dispute this man was all about politics. We would call him today, at a minimum, an activist. While much the same could be said of Simon the Zealot early on, he seems to have finally gotten the message of Jesus: "My Kingdom is not of this world." Judas never got it. To some degree, all twelve of His Disciples kept expecting Jesus to announce His candidacy. Judas alone was willing to force the issue, and Jesus' response was to go willingly to the Cross. He had rejected politics since at least the Temptation in the Wilderness.

Anyone in the church today attempting to use the methods of secular politics joins Judas in his error. The very idea of seeking to govern human events by the methods of fallen man is a rejection of God's ways. The weapons of our warfare are spiritual, for our battle is against spiritual forces (Ephesians 6). After piling on that allegorical spiritual armor, Paul's next act is to call for prayer. That's the battlefield. Sure, most of us would agree, for example, abortion is tantamount to murder. However, if you have to legislate such a thing in the face of massive social resistance, you have already lost. Pray, and teach the Word lovingly. If the Lord does not turn the hearts of the nation, your fund raising to pay some smart marketing firm to press that message is an insult to your Sovereign Lord.

You can read the rest of this article at the link provided above.

Qualifications of Elders

Below, I highlight an issue with the Biblical qualifications of elders, which never really resonated with me until I saw the lists from 1 Timothy and Titus side-by-side.

2. The Qualifications of Elders (as given in the KJV)


Immediately you see that the two lists are not identical. A case could be made that some of the last few that don't match up are just differences in wording, but not all of them. For example, Titus has no indication that the work must be desired by a prospective elder, and 1 Timothy does not indicate a need to be holy.

So, how do we explain these differences?

I see the following possibilities.

1. The two lists were, at the time they were given, identical, and have since become corrupted.

2. The two lists are identical even now, but we just don't see the match-ups, for whatever reason.

3. Each recipient of the list already had differing partial lists of requirements, and Paul wrote to each to fill in what each was missing.

4. The requirements were intended to be slightly different in different situations/locales.

5. God intended for each recipient to only get a partial list, to be finished out later by special revelation to each recipient.

6. God did not intend the early church to have a complete list of requirements, waiting instead for the later church to compile the complete list once the New Testament was completed and available in whole.

7. The lists were never intended to be a check-list, but rather as guidelines.

None of these solutions appear totally satisfactory to me, but I tend to find #7 the most intellectually satisfying of the bunch. Of course, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Why does this matter? Because in my experience, we've treated these lists as check-lists, which has led to great debates and division over the meaning of various items, such as elders who become widowed, or how many children, etc. If the lists were never meant as check-lists, then our human insistence on making them checklists is responsible for a great deal of fighting and division.

Am I missing something?

Levitical Sex

In Leviticus 18 are a host of prohibitions against certain types of sex. The "feel" I get from these prohibitions is not the normal Christian ideal concept of sex with your spouse only; instead, it "feels" like men are expected to sleep with multiple partners, and that only this subset of specific partners are to be avoided.

For example, there's the injunction to not sleep with your daughter-in-law. Since you can't have a daughter-in-law without having a son, the implication is that you've already had sex with your son's mother. (Granted, you could be a widower, but that's not the "feel" I get from this passage.)

Another example is the prohibition against sleeping with a woman and her daughter. What? At the same time, as in a threesome? Or perhaps alternating date nights? Or first one, then the other after the first dies?

A quite clear example is the prohibition against sleeping with two women who are sisters (while they both live).

This passage disturbs somewhat my conception of being a "good Christian boy". But Jesus brings us back to the Creation in places such as Matthew 19:

He who created them in the beginning made them male and female....

When asked why Moses was more lenient, his response was harsh against manly desires:

Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

When his disciples then challenged him, accusing him of being unrealistic, Jesus essentially replied, "Tough. Suck it up. Either live as an eunuch, or be faithful to your wife."

His disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it's better not to marry!"

But He told them, "Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those it has been given to. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

And Paul adds his two cents' worth in 1 Corinthians 6:16:

Do you not know that anyone joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For it says, The two will become one flesh.

So whereas Moses may have expected the men in his culture to sleep around, Jesus expects better of us.

With my "spirit eyes" I can see that Jesus' way is the better way. But my "carnal eyes" are attracted to Moses' apparent viewpoint.

Stupid carnal nature.

Murder of an Animal?

From Leviticus 17:3ff:

Anyone from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, sheep, or goat in the camp, or slaughters [it] outside the camp, instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present [it] as an offering to YHWH LORD before His tabernacle—that person will be charged with murder. He has shed blood and must be cut off from his people.

I've never thought of killing an animal as "murder". But there it is.

Don't worry you hunters and slaughter-house workers. The context indicates that this slaughtering is not just any slaughtering, but that of animals intended for sacrificial worship, as indicated by the next verse, and especially verses 8-9, as here:

Say to them: Anyone from the house of Israel or from the foreigners who live among them who offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice but does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the YHWH, that person must be cut off from his people.

Still, "murder". Interesting.

Jesus' View of Women

Jesus was a revolutionary when it came to attitudes about women.

Some time ago I came across this most interesting site. Having grown up in the 20th century Western world, I never realized just how radical the teaching of Jesus was. As I read this article, it spurs my spirit to honor and respect women on a plane I'm not sure I've ever quite reached. Here I've included a chunk of the article as a teaser:

It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees (Pesahim 111a). Gentile women were considered even lower than a Jewish woman as she was designated an animal (Kerithoth 6b and Berakoth 58a). Women were to be shunned in public social contact. From the Mishna tractate Abot, 1,5: “Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife. How much more does the rule apply to another man’s wife? As long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, for he goes idle from the study of the Torah, so that his end will be that he will inherit gehenna.” Imagine living with this kind of attitude of fear of damnation for a conversation.

...

Women were not allowed to be taught the Torah publicly despite that it was allowed in the Old Testament period (Josh. 8:35; Neh. 8:2-3). Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Bereshit 7:2). Women were restricted from orally communicating the Torah to others, even to children. From the tractate Sota, 10a: “May the words of Torah be burned, than that they should be handed over to women.” In Sota 21b it is written, “Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity.” Women were not allowed to be educated in the same schools as men. They could not learn the Torah by themselves nor along with the men. This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service.

...

These religious limitations were not always found in the Old Testament. This is why Jesus reacted so strongly against the teachings of the fathers (elders Mk.7), because they were not Biblical. Women being accepted in Jesus’ ministry was certainly not the practice of the Rabbis of His time. “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” (Talmud bBerakhoth 43b). Jesus’ attitude toward women in His ministry becomes a liberating factor against these types of religious practices that were accepted in his day. Jesus often did the forbidden in the religious practice of the Pharisees by ministering to both women as well as men that were off limits. He conversed with the Samaritan woman at a well, (John 4:1-42 that was an unaccepted practice for a male and rabbi of His day.) Even his disciples in v:27 “came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman”, as they were taught not to talk to a gentile woman in public. He instructed her and revealed Himself to her as the Messiah and she went forth with the message.

The Rabbis (tradition of the elders) taught that women were intellectually inferior and incapable of studying the Torah. When Jesus was in the house of Mary and Martha, (Luke 10:38-42), as Martha went about her daily chores he instructed her that Mary had actually “chosen that good part” by sitting and learning (Luke 10:42). Jesus did not condemn Martha for going about her household duties, but commended Mary for a better ministry, her desire to learn the Word.

And there's more like this. Recommended reading.

America: Former Home of the Free

David D. writes in a letter to the editor of WorldNetDaily on 30 October 2007:

In America, we are under a much-refined model of state domination. Our rulers have learned that if they allow us to say almost anything, allow us to buy almost anything, allow us the illusion of private property, tell us that we have a voice (vote) and encourage us to use that voice (within limits set by them), we will accept the conditioning and tell ourselves, "We live in a free country."

But who has the last word in all the most important areas of your life? The State.

The Fed/IRS tell you how much of your own earnings you're allowed to keep. Property taxes tell you if you can afford to continue living in your own home. The FDA and DEA lay a massive claim to your body and what you put in it. The FCC limits your speech. Campaign finance laws shut out a super-majority of would-be challengers to the throne. The war on terror now justifies extreme snooping on all of us.

By any reasonable standard, America as a free county is gone.

Ann Coulter on Jews and Christianity

A week or three ago Ann Coulter was on a talk show and mentioned something to the effect that she wishes Jews would convert to Christianity in order to be "completed" (I don't know if this was her term or not). She caught quite a bit of flack for it from some in the Jewish community (and elsewhere) who claimed this was offensive to Jews, although some in the Jewish community thought it was reasonable for her to speak her beliefs.

When I read the transcript, I thought she could have said it better, but I think she did adequately at explaining the Christian position without having warning beforehand as to how she'd respond to such a conversation.

But last night I casually came across Ephesians 2:11 and following, and the answer that Ann should have given started to gel in my mind.

Approximately 4000 years ago, God called Abraham to be his follower, and made three promises to him: 1) to give him the land in and around current-day Israel, 2) to make him the father of multitudes, and 3) to bless the world through his descendant. Abram believed God, and God counted this faith as righteousness. You can read about these things in Genesis, chapters 12 through 15.

Generations and about 430 years later, Abraham's children were led out of Egyptian slavery by the descendant of Abraham, Moses. As these millions of people moved out of Egypt and into the land which would become Israel, Moses, spokesman for God, established a complex set of rules and regulations for life and worship. This "Mosaic Law" constitutes the bulk of the Jewish Torah, the first five books of what Christians call the "Old Testament".

It's important at this point to realize that the promise made by God to Abraham was established by faith, and had nothing to do with the Mosaic Law.

It's also important at this point to realize that it soon became apparent that the Law of Moses doesn't work well for fallible humanity. So God promised a new covenant. Look what he has to say in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

31 "The time is coming," declares YHWH,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares YHWH.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares YHWH.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know YHWH,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares YWHW.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

So it's clear that the Mosaic Law was only temporary, to be replaced by a new covenant sometime in the future.

Traveling forward in time another 1500 or so years, we come to the time of Jesus. After his crucifixion and subsequent physical, bodily resurrection, the twelve men who had been his disciples for the previous three years then turned the world upside-down preaching the Good News ("Gospel") that the promised seed of Abraham, and the new covenant, had arrived. Although the first believers didn't yet realize it, the time had come for all nations to be blessed via Abraham's seed, and not just the nation of Israel.

However, the nation of Israel by and large rejected this message, being too wrapped up in the Mosaic Law to see the preeminence and superiority of the first promise to Abraham, or to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecy made by Jeremiah. Still, it should be noted that for the first decade or three of the Christian church, every believer was a Jew. It was unthinkable to the Jews that non-Jews were allowed into the family of Abraham. (Non-Jews could be converted to Judaism through a strict rite of conversion, but they were then no longer non-Jews.)

Finally, God got the attention of Peter, one of the early leaders of the Christ-accepting Jews. Through Peter, non-Jews (or "Gentiles", or "the uncircumcised") started to be accepted into the Jewish sect known as Christianity, although not without considerable resistance and difficulty.

Later, another Christian leader, Paul, explains in his letter to the Ephesians (2:11ff) how non-Jews fit in:

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

This same Paul explains elsewhere (Galatians 3:6ff) that the Torah demonstrates that righteousness does not come by the Mosaic Law:

Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
...
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

In other words, the inheritors of the blessings promised to Abraham do not inherit based on bloodline, or on observance of the Mosaic Law, but rather on the basis of Faith, brought to all nations of the world through a bloodline descendant of Abraham.

So Ann Coulter's failure to the Jewish community was in allowing the misperception to remain that Jews who convert to Christianity are leaving their Jewishness to join a non-Jewish movement. Instead, she should have made clear that Jews who become Christians are becoming the Jews that God prophesied they'd be, and non-Jews who become Christians are being adopted into the Jewish faith that God promised in the book of Jeremiah. It's not that Jews are leaving the citizenship of Israel; rather, non-Jews are becoming citizens of Israel.

The problem is not that non-Christian Jews have rejected a "Gentile" religion; it's that they've rejected the first promises to Abraham, and that they've rejected the new covenant God promised to them.

Ann Coulter, and other Christians, just want the non-Christian Jews to seize their inheritance along with us, their adopted siblings, rather than rejecting it. But hindsight is easy. I can't fault her for not being able to articulate this very complex topic in a thirty-second soundbite, especially without preparation time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Creationists often point out that Evolution, if it were true, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (aka The Law of Entropy). This well-established scientific principle basically states that organized systems (living cells, the universe, new cars, sculptures, etc) have a tendency to degrade into a less-organized condition rather than growing into a more organized condition or remaining at the status quo.

For example, new cars eventually break down and become rust-buckets. Living cells develop mutations and become less capable of survival and/or successful reproduction. Sculptures erode away as bird poo and rain water and freeze/thaw cycles eat away at the material. Stars blow up and galaxies spin apart.

Evolutionists are quick to counter that the Second Law only applies to closed systems, and the Earth is an open system, receiving plenty of energy from the Sun to drive the process of Evolution into higher and higher levels of complexity and order.

However, the mere addition of energy will not allow a system to overcome the Second Law.

In order to overcome the tendency toward entropy, toward decay, you need three things:

1) Energy,

2) A machine/mechanism to convert that energy into useful work, and

3) A program to control that machine/mechanism.

As an example, think of a lawn that needs mowing. It is currently in a state of disorder, and we want to convert it into a state of higher order, trimmed neat and level.

If we put this lawn in a big box in order to make it a closed system by preventing energy from reaching the lawn, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does indeed reign within this closed system: the lawn rapidly declines into the disordered state of dead dirt.

However, if we take away the big box, thereby making the lawn an open system, able to receive energy in the form of wind and rain and sunshine, entropy still increases in the lawn: we don't wind up with a lawn trimmed neat and level, but with a field of overgrowth.

So simply adding energy, requirement number one, does not increase the order of a system. It increases the disorder of that system.

So let's add requirement number two, a machine to convert energy into useful work. Let's put a lawn mower out on the lawn.

Are things more ordered now?

Nope. The sunshine and rain is an energy form that the mower can not use. We either need a different form of energy, or a different mower that can use solar and/or rain power. So we learn that not just any energy and any machine will do; they must be matched together.

Our lawn mower needs energy in the form of gasoline. So let's pour a gallon of gas all over the mower.

Has the order of the lawn increased?

Nope. Oh, right; gasoline is just a form of stored energy. In order to release that energy we need a source of ignition.

So we drop a match on the gasoline-doused mower.

Increased order?

Nope.

The two requirements of energy and a machine to convert energy into useful work are not sufficient to overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So we add the third requirement: a program to control the machinery.

In the case of our lawn mower, part of this control program is built into the design of the mower. Part of that control program requires that the gasoline go into the gasoline tank rather than being poured all over the mower. (But that's not sufficient either; try dropping your match into the tank. Increased order? Nope.) More of that control program is inherent in the length of the piston rod, and the size and shape of the combustion chamber, and in the timing of the spark, etc.

Now we have energy (gasoline) being converted into useful work (the spinning of the mower's blade).

But even that amount of control program is insufficient to trim the lawn. We need even more of a control program acting on the machine itself, not just one inherent in the machine. In our case, we can use a control program in the form of a person pushing/steering the mower, or of a computer control program in the case of a "smart mower".

Now, finally, we have an increase in order within the lawn.

The only way we've overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy (the tendency toward disorder), is to fulfill the three requirements needed: an input of energy, a mechanism to convert that energy into useful work, and a program to control that mechanism.

The idea that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems is simply wrong. An open system is only one requirement of three needed to overcome the Second Law.

Psychologists Doing More Damage Than Good?

I met a young girl in University a week or two ago, and in talking with her learned that she comes from a family quite dysfunctional (yes, I know; many people do). Upon learning this, I asked if she thought she was "normal" and "healthy", and she sort of hemmed and hawed on the way to answering "Yes".

So I jumped to the chase, going for a shortcut to the answer, by asking, "Let me put it this way. Are you a psychology major?"

She answered, "Yes," and all of us in the room found that funny. My experience with college psychology majors is that they tend to be messed up and subconsciously looking for help for themselves, and are thus drawn to that field of study. (Please forgive me for my over-generalization.)

Tonight I was reading a book on an unrelated topic, but it mentioned the presuppositions of various fields of study, including Psychology. And reading that blurb reminded me of this young lady.

There are only two basic approaches to the study of human psychology: either

1) humans are specially created in the image of God, or

2) humans are the result of a long evolutionary climb from animal forebears.

If the Psychology department at a university adopts the wrong approach, the entire result of their methodology will be flawed, and therefore is likely to result in more damage than good to the customers of their field.

The book I was reading pointed out that by far the bulk of the psychological field is dominated by the belief that humans are evolved animals, and will thus treat their patients as such.

However, if Genesis is true (and I believe that it is), then the bulk of the psychological field is contributing to the mental illness of society rather than to the healing of society's mental illnesses.

Sad, to me, that this young girl may be steering her life in a direction that does mental harm to herself and to her potential future patients. I guess it depends on the presuppositions adopted by her instructors and textbooks, but I fear that my concern is well-founded.

A Safe Web Site for the Kids

If you need a kid-safe web site for your kid[s] to peruse ... I just recently learned of kidsanswers.org, a branch of AnswersInGenesis.org. Their blurb in a recent publication of theirs says:

Based in part on the popular "Kids Answers" section that's in every issue of Answers magazine, the site is fun, safe, and honors our Creator. It even features kid-friendly Christian video streams and facts about a new animal each week, plus downloadable coloring sheets, click 'n find posters, and more.

I found a cartoon version video of John Bunyon's Pilgrim's Progress on the site, and although I've only watched the seventh segment (out of nine, I believe), I found it interestingly entertaining. And speaking of their magazine, Answers; it is awesome. Highly recommended.

Fictional Heroes who Contributed to Who I Am

"It was a dark and stormy night. A shot rang out. Suddenly, a ship appeared on the horizon."

That's how his novel starts. I'm still waiting to see how Snoopy ties it all together in the second chapter. I've been waiting quite a while. Probably around 30 years or so. But I always knew that Snoopy was all about vivid imaginations, and that he one day would tie these disparate events together.

About the same time I was reading Peanut's booklets, I was also reading Archie comics. I remember the principal of Archie's high school teaching Archie that old cliché: "Winners never quit, and quitters never win."

Then there was the book series that had as its hero the guy with the ring that left a tattoo on his enemies' faces when he'd punch them; I can't remember his name, but I do remember that he could walk in a dark cave/tunnel, flipping on his light only for a second, memorizing what he saw, and then walk confidently in the dark for a good distance.

This guy was probably the lead-in for my later influence by Louis L'amour characters; be observant, travel by different routes to avoid patterns, do the Right Thing even when it costs, move silently when needed, don't waste bullets by missing your target; not that I'm good at any of these things.

Captain Kirk taught boldness, and risk-taking, and adventure.

Spock taught logic, and emotional control.

Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford taught the use of brains over brawn.

Col. Robert Hogan demonstrated coolness when trouble arises, and the ability to turn a bad situation, even being stuck in a WWII German POW camp, to your favor.

James West and Batman showed the importance of having the right tools, and of being prepared. Sometimes that tool is a well-trained horse or a derringer hidden in your boot heel; sometimes it's a Utility Belt or a car customized with safety nets and oil sprays.

Robert Petrie showed that a man should be a good and loving husband and father.

The Rifleman taught determination and bravery.

David Banner/the Hulk taught that we're different people in different situations, but that our basic character still shows through.

The Robinson family and the rest of the crew of the Jupiter 2 taught the necessity of keeping hopeful.

Dr. Richard Kimble amplified on that by teaching the principle of never giving in to hopelessness.

I'm sure there were lots of others.

I'm struck that so much of who I am came from television and books.

Then, there's Homer Simpson. D'oh!

The Value of a Woman

Here are three short audio clips (the first one about 30 minutes) recording a devotional presentation over three days to the staff of Answers In Genesis. It's about marriage and divorce. I haven't yet listened to the second and third, but the first one was very encouraging. The speaker goes back to Genesis, and finds that men and women are equal in value. The same reason men have value is why women have value:

And yet there is true equality ... we are equal to each other because we are made in the image of the same God, because He is immutable and does not change ...

A Godly man ... will treat women with great high respect because as a female she is made in the image of God; she is not an afterthought.

Now I'm going to go listen to parts two and three.

Just a Reminder

If you claim to be a Christian ...

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12, NIV)

A Blessing Toward You

YHWH said to Moses, "Tell Aaron and his sons, 'This is how you are to bless the Israelites. Say to them:

YHWH bless you
and keep you;

YHWH make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;

YHWH turn his face toward you
and give you peace.'

So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them."

[Numbers 6:22-27]

I'm not of Aaron's descendants, and you're probably not an Israelite, but I'm appropriating this blessing and bestowing it upon you, my reader.

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he

Behavior is the outward expression of our root worldview.

"The Evolution of a Creationist", pg 23. Job Martin, D.M.D, TH.M. Biblical Discipleship Publishers, Rockwall, TX, 2004.

The older I get, the more I realize that what you believe matters. This world will not know peace at the point of a gun, but rather as the result of a mindset. I submit that the only mindset that will bring peace to the world is Christianity.

Top-Name Evolutionist Sounds Like Creationist

For the last couple of hundred years, Evolutionists have been insisting that Evolution is supported by vast amounts of evidence, particularly from the fossil record.

In contrast, Creationists have been claiming that the fossil record (and real life) does not show this slow, gradual change from simple life-forms to complex life-forms, but rather that it shows groupings of different types of animals (cat types and dog types and horse types and dinosaur types, etc) without any linkage between these different types of groupings (which is also the Biblical claim).

In other words, you can see variation-on-a-theme within a type -- in the horse group you can find big horses, little horses, horses with three toes, horses with one toe, zebras, donkeys, etc -- but you never see this variation stretched on out beyond the horse-type connecting it to some other type such as a cow.

Now a big name in evolutionist circles, ...

Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has written a devastating critique of traditional Darwinism in an open-source journal, Biology Direct[reference footnote provided in original]. Koonin, an evolutionist himself, basically said that all major life forms, with all their complexity, appear suddenly in the record without intermediate forms, and this fact can no longer be denied.

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

(from http://creationsafaris.com/crev200710.htm#20071008a, emphases have been removed)

In other words, this evolutionist says the exact same thing that Creationists have been saying all along -- "No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable".

The web-boards are lit up with conversation about this, but the evolutionists have to tread softly because, as mentioned, Koonin is a big name. As Robert Crowther writes over at EvolutionNews,

Koonin is widely regarded and is certainly at the center of the scientific establishment. So it is no surprise that the orthodox Darwinian priesthood were careful in denouncing his heresy.

Evolution may be popular; it may be career-killing to question it (and it is); it may be what society regards as "Science"; but according to the paleontologist (fossil scientist) experts (the late Stephen J. Gould, essentially said the same thing 20 years ago, as did Niles Eldridge), it's not supported by the fossil record.

The Ten Commandments

In Exodus 20, YHWH says to the young nation of Israel ...

1. I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. Do not have other gods besides Me.


2. Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commands.


3. Do not misuse the name of YHWH your God, because YHWH will punish anyone who misuses His name.


4. Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day: You are to labor six days and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. For YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore YHWH blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.


5. Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that YHWH your God is giving you.


6. Do not murder.


7. Do not commit adultery.


8. Do not steal.


9. Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.


10. Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The Original Languages of the Bible

I've always been taught, and have always accepted, that the original languages in which the Bible was written was Hebrew and Aramaic for the Tanahk (the "Old Testament") and Koine Greek for the New Testament.

But I just read a blurb that is a new thought for me:

1. We don't have the original manuscripts of the Bible writings; we have copies of copies for the most part, and

2. Even if we had the originals, how would we know they were the originals? (Perhaps if it was in a box with a note inside that said "This is the original letter that Paul sent to the Ephesians" we'd have confidence that we had an original.)

What this means is that we don't know what language the original Bible documents were written in.

Moses was probably brought up as a bi-lingual baby, speaking both Egyptian and Hebrew. However, by the time he reached school-age, he was probably speaking Egyptian almost exclusively, making that his native tongue. So it might have been natural for him to write the Pentateuch in his native Egyptian. On the other hand, writing for his fellow Hebrews, he might have written in their native language (assuming it was Hebrew and not Egyptian). This latter case might also be bolstered by the idea that he spent forty years with his wife's family outside of Egypt, so whatever language they spoke might have become his native language by the time of the Exodus.

The conversations in the New Testament were probably not conducted in Greek for the most part, but rather in Aramaic, at least the ones in and around Israel. So when telling the story of Jesus, especially to fellow Israelites, it might make sense to write it in Aramaic originally.

But the short version is simply that we don't know.

Having thought about the issue for maybe a grand total of 30 minutes, I still tend to think that the best case can be made for the original documents to have been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, as I've been taught all my life. But the fact is ...

... we just don't know.

Another New Word

As an informal meeting in a co-worker's office was breaking up this morning, one of us guys noticed that someone had scrawled the phrase "[co-worker's name] is a callipygian" on the white board in his office. Upon being asked what the word means, the single young man sheepishly replied, "It means having shapely buttocks". (Sure enough, dict.org agrees on the definition.)

I don't know which was more entertaining, learning a new word, or knowing that someone actually wrote this on my co-worker's board. But at any rate, it was indeed entertaining.

Take 50 Seconds to Watch This Video

Born Again

Some years ago a friend of mine recommended to me the C.S. Lewis "Space Trilogy". Being the great guy that he is, he loaned me his copies. That was like three years or so ago. Being the lousy guy I am, I'm just now finishing up the third book in the series (and so should be getting them back to him fairly soon).

I think perhaps I'm not as enamored of Lewis' fictional writing as is my friend. Still, I just read a passage that resonated with me.

In "That Hideous Strength", one of the main characters, Mark, has lived his life with no regard for religion or real morality or love, but rather by chasing after the shallow baubles and trinkets of Life that many people never realize are nothing but empty promises.

Upon facing what he thinks is the premature end of his life at the end of a hangman's noose, he begins to reflect on his life and begins to realize how empty his life's pursuits have been.

He himself did not understand why all this, which was now so clear, had never previously crossed his mind. He was unaware that such thoughts had often knocked for entrance, but had always been excluded for the very good reason that if they were once entertained it involved ripping up the whole web of his life, cancelling almost every decision his will had ever made, and really beginning over again as though he were an infant. The indistinct mass of problems which would have to be faced if he admitted such thoughts, the innumerable "somethings" about which "something" would have to be done, had deterred him from ever raising these questions. What had now taken the blinkers off was the fact that nothing could be done. They were going to hang him. His story was at an end. There was no harm in ripping up the web now for he was not going to use it any more; there was no bill to be paid (in the shape of arduous decisions and reconstruction) for truth. It was a result of the approach of death which the [bad guys] had possibly not foreseen.

There were no moral considerations at this moment in Mark's mind. He looked back on his life not with shame, but with a kind of disgust at its dreariness.

It seems to me that this passage speaks more fully of being "born again" than do most Christian sermons on the topic. Most sermons I've heard have tended to focus on the aspect of immersion in water (which Biblically seems to be the "official" "signing of the contract" point of the re-birth process -- Rom 6:3-4 and others) than they have on a spiritual change. This passage in Lewis' book, however, drives home the reality of the internal change which is likened unto being born again.

Point of Interest

I was reading Exodus 1:15-16 the other night, where Pharoah is telling the midwives to kill any boy babies born to the Hebrew women. The literal wording rendered by the footnote in my Bible was interesting to me:

Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, "When you help the Hebrew women give birth, look at the stones. If the child is a son, kill him, but if it's a daughter, she may live."

"Look at the stones". What a hoot!

Proposal for a New Federal Tax Plan

-- The Basic Plan --
Flat Tax Rate of 20% on all income. An individual doing nothing more than the Basic Plan would see 20% taken out of his gross pay.

-- Modifications to the Basic Plan --

- Retirement Deduction -
For every 2% of income put into a qualified retirement plan (401K, etc), up to a maximum of 10%, 1% will be removed from the Basic Plan's Flat Tax Rate.

So, an individual can save up to 10% of his income for retirement, and pay 15% to the Federal Income Tax, thus seeing 25% taken out of his gross pay.

- Charity Deduction -
For every 2% of income put into a qualified charity (churches, Goodwill, etc – 61% of the charity organization's income must be earmarked specifically for charity work, not for salaries, office needs, overhead, etc), up to a maximum of 10%, 1% will be removed from the Basic Plan's Flat Tax Rate.

So, an individual can give up to 10% of his income to charity, and pay 15% to the Federal Income Tax, thus seeing 25% taken out of his gross pay.

- Combined Reduction/Charity Deduction -
Combining the two deductions, an individual can save up to 10% of his income for retirement, give up to 10% of his income to charity, and pay 10% to the Federal Income Tax, thus seeing 30% taken out of his gross pay.

Advantages:

• Many Americans are already paying 28% or so to the Federal Tax, along with another 10% to their church, along with 5% or so to retirement, for a rough total of 43%, so these Americans get the immediate benefit of more take-home, and they see more personal benefit (more retirement, less tax), and they have more control of their money.
• Those Americans who don't care to give to charity or save up for their retirement get the immediate benefit of more take-home.
• Much of the role of charity work is shifted from the Federal Government to private local control, which generally provides more bang for the buck, and reduces the expenses of the Federal Government.
• The tax laws are vastly simplified, reducing costs to both the government and to individuals, benefiting every one.

To Tithe or Not To Tithe

I've always felt guilty that I don't give ten percent of my income at church. (We've never called it a "tithe" in my church culture, as tithing was part of the "Old Law", and in the new covenant we just freely give, "although, ahem, ten percent is a good number to shoot for".)

But in the past couple of years or so I've realized a few things:

1) the Mosaic tithe was both a religious contribution and a federal government "tax" (since in ancient Israel church and state were the same thing). Today, our federal government already takes out 28% (or more) of our income, almost three times that of the Mosaic tithe. And then there's all the other taxes and fees in our modern world. I'm not sure that the Mosaic tithe is appropriate in our modern economy.

2) giving consistently is important. It's better to give $5 a week consistently than it is to plan on giving $100 a week and only meet that commitment seven times a year. (Yes, the church gets more with the occasional $100, but it does more good to the giver to be consistent.) God has strong words to say about not keeping a commitment, like Eccl. 5:4 - " When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow." Better to give less than a tithe and be honest in your giving than to vow more than you'll fulfill.

3) Although funding for preachers and missionaries and staff, etc, is Biblical (1 Tim 5:17-18, Luke 10:7), most of the emphasis on giving in the New Testament is for the feeding and care of the poor, elderly, orphans, displaced, etc. Currently most church budgets are more about paying off the building debt and paying the ministers' salaries. (This is not a blanket condemnation of all churches, especially since these are needful things.)

4) Being in debt is, more or less, anti-Biblical ("owe no man anything, but to love one another" - Rom. 13:8, etc), and I've been in debt for all my adult life. In the past couple of years I've been working to rectify that. But in the meanwhile, it seems that the New Testament indicates that taking care of your family's needs comes first when it comes to finances, then comes taking care of your debts (your vows), then taking care of others. In other words, you should not give money to the church if that means your kids go hungry or your grandmum doesn't get her prescription filled or you default on a bank loan, cheating the bank of their money. (But you also should avoid that bank loan to begin with (or credit card, more likely); I now see that living beyond your means is a sin (in most cases in America, (because of big-screen TV purchases, etc), but not all, and especially not for many in third-world countries, where you do what's needed to survive) -- we've failed, both as a church and as a nation, to teach these principles to our kids (or more accurately, our parents failed to teach them to us, and we learned the lesson (or not, in many cases) the hard way).

5) That oft-quoted passage in Malachi 9, which I've heard all my life, to test God by bringing in the tithe and see if he doesn't in return "pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it", is a promise to the nation; it's not a promise to individuals, which is the way it's usually presented from the pulpit. I believe that what God is saying through Malachi is that if a nation does right by providing the tithe to God, "A rising tide raises all boats", and everybody benefits from the healthy economy. He is not saying that if Joe Schmoe tithes, he'll have plenty of money for his family's expenses. (So next time Brother Delbert on TV-For-The-Lord says that God has promised to bless you if you'll just send $50 to his ministry, be skeptical.)

So I don't give 10%, and I'm not feeling guilty about it. But I am, for the first time in my life, giving consistently, even if it's a very piddly amount.

A Pity Party

To my friend:

The things you wrote so long ago
Assure me that you love me.
They say I am a closest friend
And that you think I'm of great worth.

But since I dirtied up our love
There's nothing I can do
To repair the damage or the trust.
From here, it's up to you.

But it's been a year since I've heard your voice.
It's been almost that since you've written.
I tried to keep up my end of the conversation
But the silence was deafening.

I eventually gave up, for the most part.
I try a random attempt now and again.
But my inner psyche knows, or fears,
That I'm just not on your mind.

I wonder if you think ill of me.
I wonder if you think of me with fondness.
I wonder if your thoughts of me fill you with repulsion.
I wonder if you think of me at all.

I wish I could hear your voice.

To God:

The things you wrote so long ago
Assure me that you love me.
They say you count the hairs I have.
And that you think I'm of great worth.

But since I dirtied up our love
There's nothing I can do
To repair the damage or the trust.
From here, it's up to you.

But it's been a very long time since I've heard your voice.
It's been 2000 years since you've written.
I've tried to keep up my end of the conversation.
But the silence is deafening.

I often feel like giving up.
But I try, often without hope, again and again.
But my inner spirit fears
That I'm just not on your mind.

I wonder if you think ill of me.
I wonder if you think of me with fondness.
I wonder if your thoughts of me fill you with repulsion.
I wonder if you think of me at all.

I wish I could hear your voice.

To Ding-Dong

Well, I had a Ding-Dong yesterday. It wasn't that good (although it wasn't bad). It's not that I loved Ding-Dongs in the past so much as it was that they were a very quick and easy sate-the-munchies snack.

As I contemplated sating my breakfast-munchies yesterday morning with a Ding-Dong (see previous blog entry for the background on this Ding-Dong issue), I prayed and asked God if I should or shouldn't. Perhaps as a response, perhaps as my own internal logic fell into place (which also is a gift of God - Praise Yah!), the thought coalesced that "All foods are created by God" (kind of a mish-mash of Mark 7:19 and I Tim 4:3). (Then came the thought, "Even junk like Ding-Dongs?") Then came the thought that whatever significance is attached to eating Ding-Dongs is placed there by myself, so ultimately the decision is mine. I then thought that a year was a sufficient "honor" to the person for whom I stopped eating Ding-Dongs, and decided that although I would not become a one-or-two-Ding-Dong-a-day person again, neither was I going to turn my avoidance of Ding-Dongs into a rule. (I have one such rule, and that is to avoid alcohol. Alcohol is stupidity in a bottle, just itching to make a fool out of you.)

So I had a Ding-Dong. It was anti-climatic, and the flavor was just slightly unappealing (wouldn't a ripe black plum have been good?).

Just one more step in "letting it go" (thanks for the song, Treecee!).

To Ding-Dong, or Not to Ding-Dong

More than a year ago I gave up the elevator in favor of stairs for fewer than three floors. I don't know that I completely thought through all my reasons, but at least one motivation that has cycled consistently through my brain was that it was somehow tied into making a very small improvement in myself for someone I cared for a great deal.

About one year ago, along the same vein, I stopped eating Ding-Dongs and cupcakes. It was a small thing -- I haven't made any kind of all-out effort to lose weight or to eat right or to exercise. But seeing as I was pretty much a one-or-two-Ding-Dong-a-day guy for years, it seemed significant to me, in a middle-aged desperate stalking loser sort of way --the entire motivation for this revolved around this woman for whom I cared.

Alas, within days of making that decision, there was no longer any reason for me to keep this motivation. And yet, I've honored the commitment for a year.

It's now been a year, and I find myself facing the question of how I'm going to treat Ding-Dongs and cupcakes now. For the past couple of weeks I've thought about it. I haven't particularly wanted a cupcake or Ding-Dong, but I also have no reason any more to avoid them (well, unless you count "eating healthy" a reason to avoid junk food -- bah!). But today, visiting at my parents, there's an unopened box of Ding-Dongs, and Mom announces that she's bought them for me. (She was unaware of my decision a year ago.) I'm unsure what to make of this "coincidence".

I've had a friend suggest that I grab a box of Ding-Dongs and some Big Red (I haven't given those up - what, are you crazy?) and go have a celebratory feast with them while riding an elevator all day.

It's a stupid little meaningless conundrum instigated by a stupid infatuation a long time ago. But it's my conundrum, and I'll ride if I want to.

Evolution Requires New Genetic Information

I often point out how evolution requires the creation of new genetic information, from the non-existence of information in a rock to the minimal information in an amoeba to the very complex genetic information in a human. For example, I said this just recently in the second half of my last blog entry.

Just now I came across a blog entry over at Evolution News and Views which has a YouTube video clip of the most popular living atheist, Richard Dawkins, stumbling and failing to answer this issue of where new genetic information comes from. Here's a portion of a quote from the article, which in turn quotes what Phillip Johnson had to say about this clip:

Phillip Johnson described this interview as follows: "In response to the question, Dawkins hesitated for at least eleven seconds, an agonizingly long time in the context of a video interview, before he finally gave a completely irrelevant reply about the transition between fish and amphibians. The creationists were ecstatic. As they saw it, Richard Dawkins--the world's most prominent Darwinist--was so completely flummoxed by their most important question that he had to duck it." (Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pgs. 39-40)

The short three-paragraph article is worth reading; go do so now. You can watch the 2-minute video clip there, or here:

Different Strokes, Part II

As I was reading last night, I found Genesis 25:27 to strike me as fascinating:

When the boys grew up, Esau became an expert hunter, an outdoorsman, but Jacob was a quiet man who stayed at home.

As you may recall, these brothers were twins, born from the same womb at the same time, sired by the same father.

Yet they had totally different natures.

I'm sometimes discouraged that I'm not the outdoorsy, hard-working, energetic man my father is, so that I could be of more help to him around his house. I'm pretty confident that I disappoint him in this regard.

Reading this passage from Genesis helps to soothe my ruffled feathers about this issue though, as it's clear that God has given each of us our own nature.

I remember hearing someone once explain that the famous passage in Proverbs 22:6 actually means "train up a child according to his bent", and I see that the Amplified Version thus renders it:

Train up a child in the way he should go [and in keeping with his individual gift or bent], and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Again, the implication here is that we each have our own nature; some of us are born to be athletes; some are born to be musicians; some are born to be thinkers.

I would love to be more helpful to my dad around the house, but it's just not my nature, any more than it was Jacob's nature. (But unlike Jacob, I don't cook, nor do I swindle my siblings out of their birthright.)

One more point before leaving this passage: here's another Biblical example of "variation on a theme". Very often in discussions with evolutionists I find that they don't get the difference between "Evolution" and "variation on a theme".

"Variation on a theme" is Biblical; you can see it in this passage, and in the whole story of the earth's population in all its colors and sizes descending from Noah and his three sons, and in the passage just a bit farther in Genesis when Jacob does selective breeding.

Variation on a theme is the idea that a pair of ancestral dogs got off the ark and then "evolved" into jackals and dingoes and wolves and foxes and Chihuahas and St. Bernards, but this variation comes about by loss or rearrangement of existing genetic information.

"Evolution", as in "microbe-to-Man", requires new genetic information to come into existence.

Yet when evolutionists are asked for evidence of Evolution, they inevitably trot out examples of "variation on a theme", such as microbes becoming resistant to antibiotics (caused by a loss of the ability to process a certain protein) or light moths "evolving" into dark moths (a mere rearranging in the "popularity" of one set of genetic information over another), or fruit-flies irradiated in the lab developing a second set of wings (a mere duplication of already-existing genetic information).

What evolutionists need to demonstrate is the development of new, never-before-existing genetic information (and lots of it!); otherwise their inadequate examples of Evolution makes Evolutionists of even the staunchest Creationists, for Creationists believe in this type of "micro-evolution", or more aptly, "variation on a theme".

The Bible vs My Comfort-Zone, aka Intersections, Part IV

In previous posts I've mentioned how I prayed a prayer recently at church that turned out to be beyond the comfort-zone of some in that church, and expressed that we should welcome those things that are Biblical, even if they challenge our comfort zones.

Ever since the issue was raised by some who were not comfortable with my prayer, I've been praying that those folks would have their eyes opened to this notion that we should give preference to Biblical activities over those which are merely traditional. I've also prayed, alongside that request, that I would have my eyes opened if my blindnesses are causing me to be in error. I didn't think I was in error; didn't even see how I could possibly be in error - after all, my prayer was taken straight out of the New Testament, having been written by Paul, and having been recorded at God's direction. What could be wrong with it?

However, it seems that God has indeed, just this morning, opened my eyes to at least one aspect in which I'm in error.

One of the people I talked to earlier, who was bothered by my prayer, mentioned the possibility of someone laying prostrate in church during a prayer. Not much emphasis was put on the comment, and it didn't really register in my consciousness at the time.

However, this morning, I realized that if someone came in and was asked to lead a prayer, and commenced doing so by first lying prostrate on the ground, my gut reaction would be to think, "Wow, this guy is weird. Is he just doing that for show?"

In other words, I would react toward this guy exactly the way these other brethren of mine reacted toward me. If they have any "guilt" in their reaction, I am just as guilty as they.

Is it wrong for this guy to pray while laying prostrate because it's too weird, while I'm in the right because I'm only a little weird? Or is it wrong for this guy, but right for me, because "I'm right and he's not"? What a hypocrite I turned out to be.

So what is the solution? Should we stick to our traditions and shun those things that challenge our comfort zones, even if they are Biblical? Or should we endeavor to challenge our comfort zones on a regular basis as "exercise" in preparation for when the challenges come, as suggested in my last post? Or what?

At this point, I'm leaning toward accepting those things which are Biblical, even if they challenge our comfort zones. But I definitely need to look to my own eye-located planks before trying to clean out the speck of sawdust in the eyes of my brothers.

The Bible vs Your Comfort-Zone

We're all guilty of it; we grow up with certain traditions, and never question the Biblicality of those traditions, and we assume that traditions with which we're unfamiliar are unBiblical.

For example, in my church background, the collection (or contribution) has always been taken up after the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper was served. Sometimes it's mentioned that the collection is not part of the Lord's Supper, but since all the "servers" are in place, it's just a convenient time to pass the plate. No problem with that. But I suspect that if, at such a church, the collection was taken just before the passing of the bread and cup, quite a few folks would have a cow. (And we know beef is not authorized as part of the Lord's Supper....)

Another example, again from my church background. The singing has always been led by a man standing at the front of the auditorium (usually in front of a microphone), and there's basically been a pattern of 2 songs, a prayer, another song, the Lord's Supper, a song, the sermon, an invitation song, final announcements, and a closing song followed by a closing prayer. (There are minor variations on this pattern, but most in the churches of Christ would recognize this pattern.) What would happen if instead of following this pattern, the preacher gave his sermon first thing, and then came the singing uninterrupted by other activities, led not by a man standing at a microphone in the front of the crowd but by a man sitting with a microphone, essentially invisible to the congregrants, followed by the remainder of normal procedures to close out? I think again, people would take offense, and try to maneuver this change as unBiblical, or perhaps just disruptive and therefore wrong, or perhaps just as change for the sake of change and therefore wrong on that count.

Heaven forbid that the preacher sit while preaching his sermon, as Jesus did on at least one occasion (Luke 4:20).

My point is that it's human nature to allow our traditions to become doctrines, even to the point of shunning what would otherwise be a Biblical practice (sitting while teaching - Luke 4:20, lifting of hands in prayer - 1 Tim 2:8, women covering their heads when praying - 1 Cor 11:5ff, fasting as a church - Acts 13:2,3, etc).

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating these things; I'm just saying they're Biblical, and should therefore be acceptable in any church belonging to Christ, even if they're beyond our normal comfort zone. I also am suggesting that our failure to regularly challenge our comfort zones has made us weak, resulting in a tenacious clinging to our traditions, in essence making them commandments of men.

Would love to hear your comments.

Different Strokes ...

Over the past few months I've come to a realization: People are different.

I don't care much for art, or classical music, or sports. Other people live for those things.

I tend to enjoy relatively quiet spaces, with friends and good conversations. Other people thrive on flashing lights and deafening music and throngs of people moving and jostling.

Different strokes for different folks.

The same is true of church personalities. One church might have a "liberal" feel, while another has a "strict" feel, while another is somewhere in between.

I tend to need something in between, and have thought this is the healthy condition of a church, and therefore is the condition we should aim for. By extension, I thought that a church too liberal or too strict is unhealthy.

But people are different. The church I attend is exactly what some people need. If that church were to change its personality, those people would no longer have a place to attend.

Wanting to spur growth in a church is good. But sometimes such growth might change the personality of the church, eliminating it as a refuge for those people who needed it to have its original personality. Has the change then done more good, or more damage?

Intersections, Part III

A few entries ago I mentioned praying a prayer at church that I was afraid might disturb some folks, and was surprised that no one questioned me about it.

I have since learned that some people thought I looked like Elvis, going down on one knee, mic stand in hand, and it seems that some folks got the idea I was trying to be showy.

As mentioned in my previous blog entry:

It was definitely difficult to do, but as soon as I read that passage weeks ago, I felt compelled to do this. I'm thankful that God gave me the opportunity and the guts to carry through.

If this were a showy "Look at me" thing", I don't think it would be difficult, nor would I be needing guts to do it.

I remember being in junior high or high school years ago and an old man kneeled once while leading a public prayer. That made a big impression on me. And it's never crossed my mind that he was doing it as a "Look at me" thing. Rather, I learned that day to question my normal way of doing things (I've never been an expert at applying this lesson, but I hold it dear to my heart). Whatever educational "shock value" I may have intended was more of a "Hey. This is Biblical. Open your eyes" (figuratively about the eye opening, although a literal opening of the eyes in prayer is Biblical also).

It's regrettable that I appeared Elvis-like in my action and left the impression with some that I was trying to be showy.

Quite a few folks were bothered that I left off from my prayer the phrase "In Jesus' name". This I did because Paul left it out of his prayer. That's all it was.

Nevertheless, some got the impression that I was intentionally trying to cause a disturbance when they read this blurb from my earlier blog entry:

So I read a prayer instead of coming up with my own; I kneeled; and I did not use the formulaic "In Jesus' name, Amen".

I really expected that it might disturb some folks, but no one said anything....

That was bad wording on my part. What I intended was, "I was nervous that one or more of these 'oddities' might disturb some folks...", not that it was my intention to disturb them.

My intention was to pray a Biblical prayer and in the process to show my brethren that the New Testament allows more freedom than our traditions sometimes allow. It was not my intention to disturb people, but neither was I averse to poking them in the ribs and saying, "Pay attention; this is Biblical".

It has since been pointed out to me that although eating of meats is okay, it's not okay when it offends a brother. The implication is that I should not be poking brethren in the ribs for educational purposes. I'm not entirely sure I agree that applies here, but I'm not sure it doesn't apply either. So in deference to these brethren, I'll be using the phrase "In Jesus' name" in future public prayers at church.

Some hours later after the discussion, I think the main thought in my head is this:

A prayer written by the Apostle Paul, and recorded by God for the benefit of his church, is unacceptable to some brethren if prayed as written.

I have to admit, that bothers me a great deal.

We all parted on friendly and brotherly terms. I'm sure I'll be looked at with some suspicion, and that's okay. As long as I can be true to God and my understanding of the scriptures, even if I have to be somewhat quiet about those things (which is Biblical - Rom 14:22), being "suspect" is acceptable.

I pray that God is made to look good through all of this, and that we all grow as a result. And whatever growth and praise to God results, it's by the power of Jesus Christ.

The comment lines are open.

My New Bible

I finished reading "The Message" about a month ago, and had the hardest time finding a new Bible version to start reading. I finally settled on the Holman Illustrated Study Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Holman-Illustrated-Study-Bible-Christian/dp/1586402757).

Here's what I wrote about it to a friend:

The new Bible draws me; I haven't had as much time to read it as I'd like; I've only gotten through Gen. 11 so far. But I pretty much like it so far. I've been irritated to find three typos in the accompanying material (Introduction, captions on pictures, etc), but I haven't seen any in the Bible text itself. But those typos create in my deep psyche the idea that the workmanship on this Bible is shoddy. Another part of me thinks the workmanship on this Bible is very good. But very many more typos and that deeper psyche part may get stronger; it's a definite negative for me.

I also didn't like their "How to be saved" page, which was very, for lack of another term, "Baptist-y". I know the majority of Christians in America believe one is saved by praying the "Sinner's Prayer" (perhaps you do also), but I just don't find the "Sinner's Prayer" in the New Testament, anywhere. I believe the New Testament teaches that one is saved by God's grace through the process of a person turning to and committing to Jesus as The Way, but that it's "made official" by the "signing on the dotted line" at immersion (traditionally (and wrongly, in my estimation) rendered "baptism"). It's at that point that one is buried to the old dead life, and then raised into a newness of life, according to Romans 6:3ff. It is after immersion that the Ethiopian eunuch "went on his way rejoicing", not before (Acts 8:39). It is at the point of immersion that one's sins are forgiven, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given (Acts 2:38). It is at the point of immersion that one is added to the church (Acts 2:41,47). As Peter puts it, "baptism ... now saves you", but it's not the physical act of getting dunked that saves; Peter continues: "[it's] not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" (1 Peter 3:21). So as I understand it, immersion is the "signing of the contract", the pledge made official. That's not to say that God can't make exceptions as he sees fit; I think he's more interested in the heart of a person than in the technical legalities (and besides, Jesus was immersed, not because he needed it, but so that he could fulfill the technical legalities for us -- "to fulfill all right-ness" (Matt. 3:15), which right-ness he gives to us as a free gift). But I think it's a dangerous thing for humans to preach a method of salvation that can't even be found in the New Testament. I think perhaps the people who preach this doctrine have never paid attention to the conversions recorded in the book of Acts, all of which include immersion as an integral part of salvation. If the Apostles were to attend a modern day "Gospel Meeting", I think they'd be stunned that no one was getting immersed; the Apostles always immersed their converts at their "Gospel Meetings". I tend to think we should tend to do things Biblically rather than inventing our own methods.

(I realize that the differences in culture necessitate some invention on our part, and prevent the exact duplication of Biblical methods, but I think that adhering to Biblical methods should be our general course of action.)

I also realize that other people place more emphasis on "being led by the Spirit" (perhaps such as the "Charismatics"), and other people place more emphasis on tradition (perhaps such as Catholics, relying on church tradition), but I believe the black-and-white of the text indicates that we should stick with the black-and-white of the text, as indicated by Paul when he wrote, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8)

Again, let me make it clear that I'm not saying anyone who has failed to be immersed in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is unsaved -- I believe God can save who he wants when he wants based on his criteria, and that he seems to place greater emphasis on the heart than on the outward technicalities. But what I am saying is that we humans have no business ignoring the first century examples of conversion in favor of something that's not even found in the New Testament.

Some people claim that the thief on the cross gave us an example of the "Sinner's Prayer", but there's at least three flaws in this thinking: 1) This was before Jesus' command to make disciples, immersing them. 2) Jesus has the right to make exceptions to his rules anyway; we don't. 3) There's a good chance that the thief was immersed (Matt 3:5-6), which would invalidate the claim that he was saved before/without immersion.

All that to say, I don't like my new Bible's page on "How to be saved"; I believe it's unBiblical.

But I think this Bible as a whole has a lot of great potential. I was surprised last night to find that when it's talking about the people in Babel all having one language in Gen 11:1, the literal phrase is "one lip and the same words". Not that this is important; I just found it interesting. And as I was reading the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, it really helped to have a map on the same page that was color-coded to the three sons' families, along with many of the city names mentioned. I have a better grip on the dispersal of the human race across EuroAsia than I've ever had. There have been several little things like that.

As mentioned, I haven't really gotten into it far enough to really know for sure how well I like it, or if I'd recommend it. But so far, yeah, I think I like it pretty well.

W00t! I'm Famous!

The preacher at a local church asked the congregants to list their favorite song-writers. Someone in the group thought more highly of a family member than she did of the "professionals", and the result is that my name is now listed in the middle of some big names in the music biz at the preacher's blog: http://blog.heartlight.org/phil/2007/08/such_diversity.html

It's rather meaningless, really, but wow; it sure is an ego boost.

I Am Too a Grouch!

A friend and I were talking about our "Signature Personality Strengths" we learned several years ago from taking an online test. He stated that he couldn't remember his, and I stated, in jest, that the only ones I could remember were that I was Grouchy and Lazy.

He responded that he's never associated "grouchy" with me.

So I suggested "whiny". (I have been accused of this - see last post as an example of my whinyness.) He thought for a second, shook his head, and said, "No-o-o, not whiny either."

Wow. Cool.

But notice, he didn't dispute my "lazy" characteristic. D'oh!