Doom! It's Doomsday!

Anyone who has read my blog over the past three weeks or so will be aware that I had a personal crisis of self-faith recently. I'm mostly over it now (praise to God), but last night I read this passage from Isaiah 6:

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Master sitting on a throne—high, exalted!—and the train of his robes filled the Temple. Angel-seraphs hovered above him, each with six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two their feet, and with two they flew. And they called back and forth one to the other,

Holy, Holy, Holy is God-of-the-Angel-Armies.
His bright glory fills the whole earth.
The foundations trembled at the sound of the angel voices, and then the whole house filled with smoke. I said,

"Doom! It's Doomsday!
I'm as good as dead!
Every word I've ever spoken is tainted—
blasphemous even!
And the people I live with talk the same way,
using words that corrupt and desecrate.
And here I've looked God in the face!
The King! God-of-the-Angel-Armies!"

When I read the phrase "every word I've ever spoken is tainted", I empathized with the guy; that's how I felt during my crisis. And then he goes on to say that everyone around him is in the same boat.

As I ponder this, I wonder if we're all filthy rotten in our very cores, but we have such thick, pretty shells which we present to ourselves and the world around us that we believe our shells are "us", until that rare occasion when our shell gets broken and we get a good look at our insides.

I begin to believe that we truly are two people, our internal person which is corrupt and worthy of destruction, and our external person which is, for most people, wanting to be good and decent and holy. Praise be to Jesus the Christ who's salvation applies even to our internal rotten human. Glory to Jesus for saving us even when we're filthy.

What if Adam had not believed God, but had obeyed?

In recent months I had become convinced that the whole reason our Cosmos is spiraling toward death is because Adam believed the serpent's lie rather than the creator's statement.

The serpent had told Eve that eating the forbidden fruit would not cause them to die, but rather that it would allow her to have forbidden knowledge, making her like God. He implied that God didn't want this to happen because God didn't want to share the top spot.

Adam and Eve believed the lie, and ate of the fruit, and the rest is history (literally).

The problem, looking at it from this standpoint, is one of faith. Faith in God's word would have saved us; instead, faith in something other than his word destroyed us.

While reading a Jehovah's Witness[1] publication a while ago, another thought came into my head. What if Adam and Eve believed the Serpent (just like they did), but obeyed anyway, submitting to God's authority even though they believed he was lying to them?

It seems to me that Adam and Eve would still be living today in paradise if that had been the case. They were not told to believe God; they were told to obey Him.

So, in a sense, faith is the basis of our salvation. In a different sense, submission to God, regardless of faith, is the basis of our salvation. I think it's healthy to keep in mind, when reading the scriptures, that it's legitimate to claim that "faith saves us" and that "faith without works is dead". So often we make it an either-or situation, when I suspect the truth of the matter is more a question of nuance.


Footnote:
1. The term "Jehovah" is a man-made term, and has no business being used in reference to the God of the Bible. Google is your friend.

Isaiah Predicts the Kingdom of God

I started reading Isaiah the other night, and came across this passage in chapter two:

The Message Isaiah got regarding Judah and Jerusalem: There's a day coming when the mountain of God's House
Will be The Mountain—
solid, towering over all mountains.
All nations will river toward it,
people from all over set out for it.
They'll say, "Come,
let's climb God's Mountain,
go to the House of the God of Jacob.
He'll show us the way he works
so we can live the way we're made."
Zion's the source of the revelation.
God's Message comes from Jerusalem.
He'll settle things fairly between nations.
He'll make things right between many peoples.
They'll turn their swords into shovels,
their spears into hoes.
No more will nation fight nation;
they won't play war anymore.
Come, family of Jacob,
let's live in the light of God.

What struck me about this passage is the last few lines. Over the past few years I've been getting a vision that the Kingdom of God is not just a religious, "church" entity. It's a way of life, a mental state, that replaces political and national affiliations. This passage from Isaiah emphasizes the nature of that mental state. Once the Christian paradigm reigns over all the earth (by convincing, not by force, unlike some religious movements *cough Islam cough*), there will be no reason for American to quarrel with Iranian, or for North Korean to quarrel with South Korean. Things will be fair and right between people all over the world, not because we happen to get along because we're politically aligned, but because we have the same mindset of deferring one to another and living in peace with one another.

Notice that this paradigm is diametrically opposed to the "dog eat dog, only the fittest survive" mentality of evolution-based thinking. In such thinking, there's no reason to take care of the sick or to share my wages with a poor person.

It's all about mindset.

May God's Kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

So be it.

Just As I Am

Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidd's't me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come. I come.

Beautiful. Poetic. Majestic. How can anyone find fault with this first line of the beloved hymn "Just As I Am"?

Well, I can. Because I'm a male.

You may recall from my last blog that males become brain-damaged while in the womb. This brain damage shows itself in two ways:

1) a man has to think relatively slowly, step-by-step, compared to a woman who can think through an issue intuitively with a speed bordering on instantaneous, and

2) a man can only think of one thing at a time, whereas a woman can juggle dozens of thoughts in her head at once.

(Please be aware these are generalizations only; individual men and women may very well "cross over" to the other's "domain" without it meaning they're any less male or female than the others of their sex.)

So, what does this have to do with the song "Just As I Am"?

You may recall that the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:19 that "... in the church [he] would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." His whole theme in this passage is that the Corinthian Christians are just wasting time with their emphasis on "speaking in tongues". He doesn't discount that there's a time and a place for this practice, but that it's for the conversion of unbelievers, not for general use in church assemblies, where it actually gets in the way instead of being helpful. The principle that Paul is teaching is that the message needs to be easy to understand so that it can teach and build up other Christians.

I have been singing this verse of "Just As I Am" all of my life. However, as beautiful and majestic as it is, it's too complicated for my puny male brain to wrap around its meaning without some serious effort on my part, every time I sing it. (I don't retain the meaning from one singing to another.) Someone might argue that it's the Christian singer's duty to put serious effort into his worship, and I would not discount that argument, except to say, it is also the Christian song-writer's duty to teach in an easy-to-understand way rather than an elegant-but-convoluted way.

I can, with enough effort, wrap my brain around the meaning of this beautiful verse. However, because I can only think of one thing at a time, I can't think about the meaning of the passage and remember the words of the song and get the tune of the song correct and follow the song leader's lead and contemplate if I have any needs to compel me to "go forward" and maintain my balance while standing during the invitation song. Any simplification of this process is beneficial to me. (And this same line of thinking has caused me to consider if the monotonous, repetitive chants of former days and more recently of "Praise Worship" might not be the better model as opposed to the more complex teaching songs I grew up with in conservative churches of Christ.)

So in simple even-a-male-can-understand-it English, here's the first stanza of "Just As I Am":

Oh Lamb of God, I come to you, just as I am, without any claim except that the reason you died was for me, and that you have asked me to come to you.

Not as pretty, is it? But at least I understand it.

Elizabethan, Shakespearean, majestic Olde Englishe may have its value and worth, but in the 21st Century, it violates the inspired principle of making church communications easy to comprehend, at least for me, this male.

Men Are Dain-Bramaged

As I once heard it explained by a guest speaker on Dr. Dobson's radio program, "Focus on the Family":

During development in the womb, a male's brain is exposed to a chemical that causes the connections between the two halves of his brain to shrivel up, leaving him with relatively very little communication ability between the two lobes. A female's brain, on the other hand, retains the ability to have a high rate of data exchange between the two halves of her brain. In essence, boys become brain-damaged during gestation.

This results in a male's step-by-step, one-thing-at-a-time, logical ability to think through a problem and arrive at a solution. After he's thought it out, he can then explain to the rest of the world the step-by-step solution to this problem he has solved.

A female, on the other hand, can look at a problem and instantaneously, with her "greater firepower" in her brain, come to an immediate solution. However, if you were to ask her how she knows the solution, all she can do is shrug her shoulders and guess, "Intuition, maybe?"

So next time the female in your life offers a solution based on her "intuition", it might be well to recall that she came to her solution using more brain power than was used by the "logical" male thinker in the group.

Whereas Dr. Dobson's guest stopped at that point, I have concluded that this same brain difference also allows for another fundamental difference between men and women.

As a man, I can ponder the task of changing the oil in the car, or I can ponder the task of planning Junior's birthday party, but I can't do both at the same time.

As I understand it, a woman on the other hand, can ponder what to make for supper, how much cloth will be needed for the costume for Junior to wear in his school play and what it will take to make that costume, the route she needs to take to pick up all the kids riding in the car pool to school, what this month's budget looks like and what adjustments need to be made, the story line behind last night's movie and how it is a commentary on modern life, and a half-dozen other topics, all at the same time! Women are amazing!

Now, hold these two thoughts in your brain; I'll touch on them briefly in my next blog.

How Should Church Giving Be Earmarked?

Tom Snyder, at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52402, writes:

God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

I found this interesting. One-third to the needy, huh, and two-thirds to preachers, teachers, etc? Gotta chew on this a bit.

What do you folks think about this?

Can You Design Human Lips?

Sometimes I get fascinated by the intricacies of the human body, and am astounded that anyone could think they just developed by random mistakes over millions of years.

Things like:

- paper cuts that heal themselves. Can you imagine how valuable a car would be that could heal its body of a malevolent keying or of an accidental grocery-cart bumping?

- the waste-disposal process of the latter parts of the alimentary canal. Why would Evolution choose to develop a complicated system of muscles and portals to control the outflow, rather than doing something more simple like simply letting the waste fall out the open end of the tube? Ah yes, of course - [cue 'just-so story' now! - but where's the evidence?].

- human lips. I woke up this morning and at some point in the waking process pursed my lips. Then I focused on that and realized what an awesome portal the human mouth is. What would it take for human engineers to design something similar? The lips can form a water-tight, air-tight barrier, or reshape themselves with deftness to allow air to flow through in various ways in order to whistle a tune. They can wrap around and form air-tight seals around variously shaped objects, such as a round straw, or a host of other shapes. They can be stretched wide into a smile, still retaining their air-tightness, or scrunched into a tightly-wadded pucker. They also have sensors that detect touch, and temperature, and pressure, and moisture.

And the failures? Where in the fossil record, or better yet, where in our everyday experience, are the failures? Surely, if we're constantly evolving, trying out new mutations, why don't we see a world filled with monstrosities, covering the entire range of possibilities from no-lipped, one-eyed, winged dog-cats to four-eyed, eight-legged cat-spiders, to "normal" humans? Instead, we see a world full of variety, but variety that's limited around a relatively few sets of norms. We see all sorts of different types of cats varying around the cat norm, and all sorts of dog types varying around the dog norm, but we don't see that same sort of diversity between the two norms. "Oh well," goes the theory, "those forms became extinct." Okay, fine. But where are the fossils, and not just the piddly onesies-twosies generally dredged up? There should be vastly more intermediate "failures" than there are evolved successes, but I don't see these vast numbers of failures in the fossil record, or walking about the streets. The fossil record, everyday life, and lab research testifies to "limited variation on a theme", not to "infinite imperceptible diversity" as per theory.

Something's wrong with a theory that doesn't match observation, and can't explain the "undesigned" development of lips which brainy human engineers can't begin to duplicate.

Can you design human lips?

Who I Am.

Because of a stupid mistake I made a few weeks ago, I have had hammered home to me that I'm not the man I thought I was.

This mistake led to my realization that:

1. I am unwise.
2. I am selfish.
3. I do not seek Truth.
4. I am untrustworthy.

Having believed, for the most part, just the opposite about myself for years, these realizations came to me as a shock; it rattled me to my core.

1. Of course, I knew that I wasn't the wisest man to ever live, or even in the top 30%, probably, but still, I figured I had some wisdom within me. Realizing what a horribly unwise thing I did removed any confidence in this belief.

2. I had had brief hints that in my deepest parts I'm really a selfish man; I tried to talk to a friend or two about it, but they just blew me off and assured me that I'm really a great guy.

3. I thought I sought Truth. I thought I revered Truth. My cell phone even, when it powers up, has the question "But is it True" on the splash screen. This is also on one of my standard email signatures. But I found that I've been deceived by myself as to who I am, what I believe, what I feel.... I discovered that I don't know the Truth even about myself; how can I know other Truth?

4. I broke my word to a dear friend and hurt her considerably. I broke her trust. Further, I discovered that I can not even trust myself, because, as mentioned in 3 above, I deceive myself, and don't even know it most of the time. How can I trust myself if I lie to myself?

It's been a very hard week.

But the Lord has given me time to heal somewhat, and to make new revelations.

1. I am not a wise man. But I do have some wisdom. Failing to exercise wisdom in one area of my life does not mean I am completely devoid of wisdom. However, this certainly drives home the point of retaining humility. "Pride goeth before a fall," and all that. I need to remember to not trust my so-called wisdom. I can share what I discover, what I believe, but I need to never rely on my own understandings; I'm simply not that smart. In many ways this leaves me in intellectual limbo; I may forever be questioning my own judgments. For now, I'll trust Yhwh to hold me up while I don't have the legs to stand on my own two feet.

2. I am still a selfish man, way down deep, and I fear I will always be so. I have no real solution to this failure of mine at the moment. I'm going to set it aside for now, but resolve to remember it. Being aware is the first step....

3. Even though I lie to myself, that does not invalidate the pursuit of Truth; it does not invalidate the ideal of being a Truth-Seeker. I just need to remember that I'm a self-deceiver, and that no matter how much I believe I love the Truth, I may very well be lying to myself.

4. I broke a trust. I learned I can not trust myself. Still, again, the ideal of seeking to be trustworthy is a noble goal. I will aim to be trustworthy, but I now recognize that I am prone to failure more than I would have ever expected. Recognizing the potential to be untrustworthy is a good first-step toward relearning who I am.

Earth, from Saturn

Here's an amazing picture of Saturn from the backside; Earth is visible in this picture. The original is from http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=8053

There's a good short commentary at http://creationsafaris.com/crev200610.htm#20061012a

Who Am I?

Feelings are irrelevant. What matters is Who you are.

Who am I?

Confidence

It takes a certain amount of self-confidence to share with others one's discoveries, insights, thoughts.

Once that confidence has been swept away by the realization that one is a liar (to himself more than anyone else), untrustworthy, immature, and unwise, it's hard to justify trying to pass off one's thoughts as anything but prattle, whereas before he might have thought there was at least some wisdom or other value in those thoughts. It's easy in such times to be Empty.

I know of about six friends who are traumatized in one way or another this week. I also have confidence that all will survive, and heal.

Solomon's My Hero

So much wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes. His descriptions of a fool hit home.

10:1
Dead flies in perfume make it stink, And a little foolishness decomposes much wisdom.

10:12-13
The words of a wise person are gracious.
The talk of a fool self-destructs—
He starts out talking nonsense
And ends up spouting insanity and evil.

10:14
Fools talk way too much,
Chattering stuff they know nothing about.

Vanity

It's all vanity.

Wisdom

I've recently learned that I'm about as stupid as they come. For all my thinking, I'm an incredibly unwise man.

Yet, the writer of Ecclesiastes had great wisdom. I'm thankful he has shared some of that with us. From Chapter Five:

---

Watch your step when you enter God's house.
Enter to learn. That's far better than mindlessly offering
a sacrifice,
Doing more harm than good.

---

When you tell God you'll do something, do it—now.
God takes no pleasure in foolish gabble. Vow it, then do it.
Far better not to vow in the first place than to vow and not pay up.

Don't let your mouth make a total sinner of you.
When called to account, you won't get by with
"Sorry, I didn't mean it."
Why risk provoking God to angry retaliation?

("I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" didn't help me a bit. I know what Solomon speaks of.)

The following is from Chapter Seven (yes, I skipped Six; it's too deep; it needs to be read in the context of the whole book):

---

Don't always be asking, "Where are the good old days?"
Wise folks don't ask questions like that.

---

On a good day, enjoy yourself;
On a bad day, examine your conscience.
God arranges for both kinds of days
So that we won't take anything for granted.

---

It's best to stay in touch with both sides of an issue. A person who fears God deals responsibly with all of reality, not just a piece of it.


(Now-w-w he tells me....)

---

There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.

---

Don't eavesdrop on the conversation of others.
What if the gossip's about you and you'd rather not hear it?
You've done that a few times, haven't you—said things
Behind someone's back you wouldn't say to his face?

---

God made men and women true and upright; we're the ones who've made a mess of things.

---

Even though a person sins and gets by with it hundreds of times throughout a long life, I'm still convinced that the good life is reserved for the person who fears God, who lives reverently in his presence, and that the evil person will not experience a "good" life.

---

When I determined to load up on wisdom and examine everything taking place on earth, I realized that if you keep your eyes open day and night without even blinking, you'll still never figure out the meaning of what God is doing on this earth. Search as hard as you like, you're not going to make sense of it. No matter how smart you are, you won't get to the bottom of it.

---

Ecclesiastes is a good book when you're dejected; it's comforting somehow.

Hard Day

The saying of "Goodbye" to a chunk of my heart came a day early.

And it was much harder than I expected.

And it was of an unexpected flavor.

And I know now that I'm not the man I thought I was yesterday. My world was rocked, you might say.

I wonder who I will be over the next few days, weeks, years.

Thank you, C. Goodbye, C. But not forever.

Thank you, God.

A Sad Day Coming

Sunday I say "Goodbye" to a chunk of my heart.

The parting is necessary, but it is still painful. It helps to know that God is pulling the strings, rather than me just being bandied about by "Fate". For I know that since He's behind things, I'll find later that it was better this way. I don't intuitively understand Delayed Gratification, but I do sort of understand it on an academic level, and I'm copacetic with this. Praise be to Yhwh! Yhwh be praised!

Proverbs 19 is Good, Too

Better to be poor and honest than a rich person no one can trust.

Young people, listen to that one.

Ignorant zeal is worthless;
haste makes waste.

This brings to mind some religious types who have plenty of zeal it seems, but also without much knowledge, it seems. ("Balance" keeps coming to mind when I think of "spirit vs truth", as in "spirit AND truth".) (Of course, I think "my side" could use a little more zeal....)

People ruin their lives by their own stupidity,
so why does Yhwh always get blamed?

Ag! That rings a bell. (I'm just recently learning to "credit" God rather than "blame" him, because even when I mess up because of my own stupidity, vs 21 kicks in:)

We humans keep brainstorming options and plans,
but Yhwh's purpose prevails.

Where I am right now, is because that's where God has purposed me to be. Which means I can rejoice even in tragedy, or poverty, or disease, because I'm fulfilling the purpose of the Creator of the Universe.

When you're down on your luck, even your family avoids you—
yes, even your best friends wish you'd get lost.
If they see you coming, they look the other way—
out of sight, out of mind.

I am so guilty of this. How many technical details about Christianity must I get right to make up for an unhelping attitude? Oh, getting all the details right doesn't quite do the job? Bummer.

House and land are handed down from parents,
but a congenial spouse comes straight from God.

Being single, I just found that one interesting. I've always thought a good spouse was a gift of God. I want to conclude, that by not granting me that spouse, God must be using me in some other way to fulfill his purposes, but when I'm honest with myself, I find I really wonder if God just doesn't care enough about me to grant me that gift of completion. So I try to walk by faith and not by sight, yet find I'm pretty lousy at this, being so incredibly self-focused. Wow, I need the grace of God to cover my faults.

Keep the rules and keep your life;
careless living kills.

This is one that needs to be taught to young people.

Mercy to the needy is a loan to Yhwh,
and Yhwh pays back those loans in full.

I'm continually amazed at how much of God's concern is toward helping the needy. Yet that's very little of the focus of Christian teaching (at least in my experience). And most of the church budget is spent on "Other" than the needy. I can't help but suspect we're doing things wrong.

It's only human to want to make a buck,
but it's better to be poor than a liar.

No comment.

If you quit listening, dear child, and strike off on your own,
you'll soon be out of your depth.

No comment.

Tasty Morsels from Proverbs 18

The other night I read Proverbs 18. Here are some morsels from that chapter:

Listening to gossip is like eating cheap candy;
do you really want junk like that in your belly?

I've always thought it wrong to spread gossip, but this challenges me on even listening to it in the first place.

Slack habits and sloppy work
are as bad as vandalism.

Oh, wow. That cuts me. Although I don't believe my work is sloppy, I am rather lazy. The older I get, the more I become aware of how much I need God's grace.

Answering before listening
is both stupid and rude.

Yep.

A healthy spirit conquers adversity,
but what can you do when the spirit is crushed?

Who of us hasn't had a crushed spirit at one time or another?

You may have to draw straws
when faced with a tough decision.

And the Apostles did just that when looking for a replacement for Judas. This strikes me as deeply interesting, in a sort of mysterious deeper-than-the-surface-reading would justify, but trying to explain it would probably nullify it, so I'll not try.

Do a favor and win a friend forever;
nothing can untie that bond.

I'm reminded that these are proverbs, general rules-of-thumb, and not hard-and-fast rules. I suspect I've broken a friendship recently with my stupidity. Still waiting to find out for sure. [Update, five and a half years later: Nope, that friendship is stronger than it was before. Praise Yah!]

Words satisfy the mind as much as fruit does the stomach;
good talk is as gratifying as a good harvest.

I remember years ago my Dad chiding me for wanting to have a good library nearby, saying something to the effect of life not consisting of reading. (He was not denigrating reading at all; he was just implying that there's more to life than books, which he was correct about.) This passage recalls that memory. It also reminds me of Jesus saying that we don't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Of course, I think the context of this verse is referring more to human interaction rather than to words in a book, but still....

Words kill, words give life;
they're either poison or fruit—you choose.

Wow.

I have great responsibility. How often have I poisoned others with my carelessness or meanness? How needful I am of God's grace!

Find a good spouse, you find a good life—
and even more: the favor of Yhwh!

HA HAA HA HA ha ha - huh? Oh, wait, that wasn't supposed to be funny?

Friends come and friends go,
but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Even when he screws up royally.

Three-Years Worth of Growth

I've recently had an emotional blow that was three years in the making. But amazingly, I have a different attitude toward it than I would have three years ago. As I wrote to a friend:

It's also rather interesting to me that I am "giving credit" to God for this whole three years. The person I was three years ago probably would have blamed God for the way these three years have turned out. Now, I want to praise him for the exact same events I would formerly have blamed him for. I want to shout it from the housetops that God was active in my life, pulling strings, leading gently, slapping me upside the head. I can't however point to any objective evidence and say "See what a great thing God has done", and yet, there's a nebulous sensation in my spirit telling me that's exactly what has happened. It doesn't cut the hurt of the "loss" any ... but it makes the hurt worth it.

God is alive and well on Planet Earth.

BankOfAmerica is Anti-God

The title might be a bit inflammatory, but over the past few months I've really come to believe that God is very concerned with issues of fairness, especially as this relates to how the Have's treat the Have Not's.

I was driving back from Houston (Hi Christa! :-) bye christa.. :'( ) earlier this week and tuned into the Clark Howard radio talk show. Here I learned the story of Matthew Shinnick. I'll let Clark tell the story (http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2006/09/21/#boastory):

How the Bank of America blunder went down

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of the San Francisco man who was arrested and jailed when he tried to verify the validity of a check at Bank of America branch. Clark found out about this story and talked with the man, Matthew Shinnick, who has spent about $14,000 in legal fees to clear his name. It all started when Shinnick posted two bicycles for sale on Cragislist and received a check from a man for more than the cost of the bicycles. He went into his bank to see if the check was legitimate and verify that there was money in the person’s account. He was told it was a valid account and so he cashed the check. At that point, BOA employees called the police and Shinnick was arrested on fraud charges because the check was actually a phony. He had no idea that the real criminal had used the name of a legitimate company to fake a check. So, Matthew sat in the bank branch for hours while police figured out what to do and then spent the night in jail. Once he got out, he wanted to clear his name legally so the arrest would not come back to haunt him. He had to hire attorneys to do this and it cost him nearly $14,000. He then went to Bank of America and asked that the bank cover his fees because it was the bank’s error. But so far BOA has refused. This kind of treatment sends the message that banks only care about their bottom line and nothing about their customers. It's unacceptable and it's time to fight back.

Apparently some of Clark's listeners took up the challenge. According to http://clarkhoward.com/, $14 million has been pulled out of the bank by former BoA customers. If I were a customer, I myself would close my account.

Creation Corner

I found some of my old floppy disks of the 5.25" variety (which should indicate the age of these things). Apparently even way back then I was interested in informing others of creation-oriented information. Although I'd modify the following somewhat now, it is interesting to me to see what I was writing then.

---

Creation Corner
Almost everyone has heard at one time or another that "Evolution is a fact." What may be surprising is that creationists agree with that statement, provided that a clear definition of "evolution" has been made.

There are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is what is generally meant when someone mentions evolution. It is the idea that a single cell evolved over millions of years into the many different forms of complex life we see today, including humans. This is also known as vertical evolution, for it involves an upward change from the simple to the complex.

Microevolution is the variation that we see within a basic kind. For example, some basic dog kind, a mutt if you will, has evolved over the years into the wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the huge St. Bernard, and the tiny Chihuahua. Another example is the basic human kind which was personified in Adam and which has evolved into Blacks, Whites, Reds, Yellows, Shorts, Talls, etc. This is also known as horizontal evolution, for it involves great variation all around the basic kind without any upward change from the simple to the complex.

Microevolution is a fact. It is demonstrated again and again in both the field and the science lab. Creationists have no problem accepting microevolution as fact. They do however object to the idea that macroevolution is fact. Many high school textbooks proclaim that (macro) evolution is fact and then trot out examples of microevolution to prove it. Most students are familiar with the textbook examples of the evolution of the black and white moths, or of the horse. But both of these are examples of microevolution. It is bad science to make a leap of faith from factual microevolution to theoretical macroevolution.

For thousands of years animal breeders have been trying to produce stronger, healthier, better animals, whether that means fatter cows or faster horses, and what has been demonstrated time and time again is that there are limits to how much change an animal type can undergo. Over the past 50 years or so, scientists in the lab have been breeding fruitflies to see how far evolution can go, and again, although they get all sorts of variations on the basic fruitfly, they all remain fruitflies. There are definite limits to biological change.

The textbooks may claim that there are no limits to variation, so that new species can evolve from current ones, but the actual scientific data indicates otherwise.

Grab for it All! (Not)

When you grab all you can get, that's what happens:
the more you get, the less you are.

-- Proverbs 1:19

The Side You've Never Heard

In the Creation-Intelligent Design-Evolution controversy, all you ever hear from the mass media is a pro-evo slant or a strawman caricature of the creation/design view. In order to balance the view (and thereby make you more educated than the average Joe on the street about these issues), take a look-see at these sites:

crev.info
Telic Thoughts
ID: The Future
Evolution News

You Are Who You Are

Ken Archer summarizes an insight of Pope John Paul II:

You are who you are, not what you would be if the system was different.

"[Archer's mentor] Willard says the intersection between his philosophical and devotional work can be found in the simple question: Who are you going to become?"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/009/27.45.html



"If I were richer, I'd be more giving...".
"If I had more time, I'd exercise...".
"I'd always be in a better mood if my job wasn't so terrible...".

Governance by Sex

I was reading an article the other day about the city of London "disciplining" some London firemen who refused to hand out flyers at a Gay parade. Someone commenting on the story, a Stewart Cowan of Stranraer, made a comment that struck me as a sharp observation. He wrote:

When a man’s conscience can be overruled by the sexual whims of another man, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1290442006

Buttered Bread

I was just in a conversation in which the old joke came up about strapping a piece of buttered bread to the back of your cat so that you can create a perpetual motion machine.

Then I got to wondering how anybody ever thought of the idea of buttered bread always landing on the buttered side when it falls. I mean, once the bread falls to a dirty floor, does it really matter which side of the bread lands? Were you planning on eating the bread anyway?

I suppose you might, if you're an adherent of the 5-second rule. But I also suppose that whoever thought up the idea of the bread landing buttered-side down must believe that the butter somehow decreases the 5-second rule to a short enough time span that you can't recover the bread in time for eating it.

Which I guess is why, for insurance sake, you should always strap your bread to the back of a cat before buttering it.

Bible Literacy

As I think about the lack of Bible knowledge in this country, I realize that even the education children do get, perhaps at Sunday School, etc, tends to be choppy and disjointed. The big picture is seldom presented.

So here's the big picture in a nutshell.

God (named "Yhwh", which seems to be related to the verb "being" and might be thought of as "essence", or as Yhwh and Y'shua put it, "I AM [THAT I AM]"), created the cosmos, in six literal days, about 6000 years ago (as per clocks on the surface of the Earth; as per a clock on the outer reaches of the universe, perhaps billions of years ago, even though those edges are younger than the 6000-year old earth - gravity-time-dilation effects can be fun!).

The original creation was perfect; no death, no disease, no killing. Lions played with lambs. Dinosaurs frolicked with humans. Mosquitoes didn't suck blood. Weeds didn't produce painful grass-burrs.

But God allowed humans the choice to believe Him, or not to believe him. The first human pair, Adam and Eve, chose not to believe Yhwh, and acted against his one and only commandment, not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. (It's highly unlikely that fruit was an apple; it was probably a type of fruit that is now extinct.)

When they chose to not have faith in what God had said, and ate that fruit, the cosmos was thrown into a death spiral, and ever since then things have been broken and heading for ruin. This is why Grandma has cancer, and your baby brother has Multiple Sclerosis, and your dog just died of old age, and a stingray stabbed Steve Erwin in the chest and killed him.

God was essentially driven out of close contact with this cosmos because it had become poisonous to him. But he wasn't totally absent; he made appearances here and there. After about 16 and a half centuries of the world getting uglier and uglier, he "rebooted" the Earth with a global flood, which essentially turned the Earth inside out, burying billions and billions of plants and animals and turning many of them into fossils (largely buried in order according to their ecological zone: sea-bottom dwellers first, then fish, then edge-of-the-water critters, then slower moving land-dwellers, then faster and larger land-dwellers, followed by the most agile and/or smartest and/or flying beings). (Evolutionists interpret this fossil record as billions of years of "change" from sea-bottom dwellers to smart beings, because they refuse to consider the possibility of this Great Flood.)

But God warned Noah of the coming flood, and Noah, along with his wife, his three sons, and their wives, built a floating box, big enough to take on representatives of the air-breathing land-dwelling animals. He didn't take a sabre-toothed tiger and a puma and a tiger and a lion and a house cat; he just took a couple of "cats" (or perhaps seven cats or seven pairs of cats, depending on if cats are "clean" animals or not). After the flood, these cats had enough genetic variety in them to breed small cats and big cats and medium cats and mountain-loving cats and long-toothed cats and etc. (Evolutionists today see this variation-on-a-theme and assume that the variation does not have any limits, so they figure that a cat could eventually vary into a totally different, non-cat, type of creature. Of course, thousands of years of animal breeding have not demonstrated this; decades of lab research have not been able to accomplish this; the fossil record does not support this; the Bible teaches limited variation, but only within a "kind"; genetic studies indicate that variation is limited; but these evolutionists don't let the data stop them from insisting that their view is true and that any other view is unscientific and anyone who even questions evolution must be some sort of stupid, flat-earth-believing rube from back-woods Hicksville.)

So the population of Earth, both human and animal, survived the Flood. But conditions were vastly different. Before the flood, the environment was such that rain and rainbows did not occur. People (and other organisms) lived to long ages. Dragonflies grew to have meter-wide wingspans. Etc. Now, after the flood, lifespans of people gradually dropped to about a tenth of what it was before. The hydrologic cycle changed. Seasons changed. Dinosaurs no longer could thrive in the environment, and basically became extinct (except for the occasional Komodo "dragon" today or mythical dragons reported from all cultures).

After the flood, Noah's descendents failed to spread out like God had told them to do, and started maturing their technology at a faster pace than their culture could absorb. So God broke up their tech-fest by suddenly confusing their language in the city of Babel. All of a sudden, different people could no longer talk to each other, so people started grouping together with others they could understand, and moved off into their own little niche. In this way, the human population spread out from Babel, and different people-groups started to form. And just like the cats who had long-toothed children and short-toothed children, the humans had tall children and short children. Some of the short children got together and married (yes, in those earliest days after the creation and again after the Flood, brother married sister, cousin married cousin; the genetic damage had not gotten bad enough yet in our DNA to cause problems from close-kin marriages). Some of the darker-skinned kids got together and married. Some of the more book-learning-minded kids got together and married. Some of the more sports-minded kids got together and married. And some of their kids wandered to other family groups, and learned their language, and married into those groups, thereby spreading the short/dark/sports-minded/whatever genes around some, but mostly over time the short group lost the genetic information for tallness, and the blue-eyed group lost the genetic information for brown eyes, etc. (Evolutionists point to this variation among humans as "evolution", but notice that new genetic information has not arisen out of nothing; instead existing genetic information has been lost out of the group's gene pool. This is just the opposite of what evolution needs.)

Yhwh then picked a man named Abram, and promised to bless the Earth through his descendents. Later Abram's name was changed to Abraham, and he was the father of the Israelite nation. (Israel was the name of Abraham's grandson. Jacob was originally the grandson's name, but later in life his name was changed, just as his grandfather's name had been changed years earlier.)

Israel had twelve sons, each of whom became the ancestor of an Israeli "tribe".

Generations later, a man named David, of the Israeli tribe of Judah (Judah was one of the sons of Israel), became King. He's the King David you hear about so much from the Bible.

Generations later still, in the town of Bethlehem, a descendant of David was born named Yeshua. (In our culture we would normally pronounce this name as "Joshua", but we tend to pronounce it as "Jesus", as our culture adopted the Greek pronunciation which is more like "Yaysoos".) This baby was unique, in that he inherited the biological cell of humanity from his mother, along with her half of the DNA programming that runs that cell, but he got the other half of his DNA from Ywhw himself. Thus, Baby Jesus was human, yet also God. Somehow, in this way, he did not inherit the damage, the "sin" if you will, that the rest of us inherit from Adam. Jesus was free from the Curse. (Note that "sin" is used in two ways in the Bible; one way means "imperfection" or "broken-ness"; the other means "action or inaction that leads to guilt". Babies are born with the first type of "sin" and thus need saving from death, but not the second, and thus do not need "saving from sin". Thus they don't need to be baptized until they reach the mental stage where they can actually choose to "sin".)

At approximately the age of 33, Jesus stirred the pot sufficiently among the religious leaders that they deemed it necessary to put him to death. Not having the political ability to do so themselves, they pressured the Romans into doing it for them, and the Romans dealt out death in a very cruel way; crucifixion on a cross.

Jesus could have sidestepped this death, as he, as mentioned, is God, and had the power to do so. But the whole reason he came to Earth was to die. In some way, his death undoes the curse that Adam brought into the cosmos. When Jesus allowed himself to die on that cross, he purchased back the cosmos from certain death. (And by choosing to do so in a cruel way, he demonstrated that we are valuable enough to him to go through the worst kind of torture for us. Many people would take a bullet for someone they loved; but would they take extreme torture, especially if they had the ability to end the torture with just a thought, at the cost of that loved one?)

Then three days later, Jesus rose up from Death. He had conquered Death completely, and promises to all of us who believe in him to free us from the death-grip that is currently on this cosmos. In the meanwhile he has returned to his heaven, away from the poison of this fallen world. He's not quite ready to redeem it and us just yet.

We still live in the broken world. It has been purchased, but it has not yet been redeemed. We, and the cosmos around us, are groaning in anticipation of the redemption promised by Jesus. Even though our bodies wither and grow old and diseased and die (at which time our spirits go to live with Jesus), one day Jesus will return, bringing us in our spirit form with him. Then our spirits will be reunited with a raised, renewed, like-new-before-the-Curse body, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Those believers still alive will have their bodies changed instantly, so that they also will be like-new-before-the-Curse bodies.

The Earth will be consumed in fire, just as it had earlier been consumed by the Flood. After that, the details get hazy, but there seems to be some sort of new Cosmos to replace this broken one, probably similar to how we get new bodies to replace our broken ones.

And I don't know what life will be like there and then, except to say it'll be awesome. Beyond imagination (and I'm sure you can imagine a lot; I know I can).

And that's the gist of the Bible.

While we're waiting on the return of Jesus, we need to be transforming our culture into one that gets along with each other, and looks out for each others' benefit rather than just looking out for "Number One". This is what God wants; he wants peace on Earth; good will toward humanity; love, one for another, helping each other with our burdens, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, eradicating poverty. God wants his house-rules to be in effect here on Earth; he wants his reign to extend over all nations; he wants the Kingdom of God to absorb all humans, but not in a political way, but rather in a heart-mind philosophy-led way. He wants his will to be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

If you want to be part of the eternity-long paradise, and want to be free eventually of disease and blindness and baldness and stinky armpits, and want to make the world into a peaceful community of one-another-ness, you can join the movement.

You've heard the basic story; if you believe it (and are willing to stand up for this belief publically), and are willing to steer your life away from selfish pursuits that hurt others (such as alcoholism or cheating on your spouse or stealing or even the more innocuous playing of the lottery (which has as its basic, underlying goal the making of many small losers out of your fellow humans in order for you to gain)), then you can admit to this belief and decide to make this life change, and begin your new life by being immersed in water ("baptized"), which is essentially the "official signing of the contract" to become a Christian. (Many Christians would downplay this contractual event, but the conversions and teachings in the Biblical book of Acts demonstrate its integral role in conversion).

That's the story; I'd love to have you consider it seriously, and act on it to become a fellow believer.

Stunned

I'm certainly no great scholar of the Bible, but as I read comments on the web on various stories, I'm continually stunned by the ignorance of the basics of the Bible and Christianity in this United States of America.

I would not expect non-Western nations to have basic Bible knowledge, but when Westerners don't know the basics, I'm just stunned to realize how far our country has drifted from its more Biblical roots, just in the past half century or so.

This spurs in me the desire to teach basic Bible literacy to this nation. I believe our country would be better off with that kind of education.

Have I mentioned....

that I really like my guitar?

Just Ribbin' Ya

This is from one of those email lists that float around the 'Net:

At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings.

Little Johnny seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs.

Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and she said, "Johnny, what is the matter?"

Little Johnny responded, "I have pain in my side. I think I'm going to have a wife."

Sin Damages the Earth

Yhwh turned rivers into wasteland,
springs of water into sunbaked mud;
Luscious orchards became alkali flats
because of the evil of the people who lived there.

Psalm 107:33-34

Circumcision: It's not just for Jewish men anymore

I'm pretty sure I was raised to avoid thinking of baptism as being the "Christian circumcision"; at least that's what my brain tells me I "should" remember, although I can't actually remember learning that.

Nonetheless, the other day I read this passage:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism....

Col. 2:11-12

Seems to me that makes it pretty clear that baptism is the "Christian circumcision".

Maybe I'm just wrong about what I think I was probably taught.

====

In trying to find this passage just now using BibleGateway.com, I came across another interesting passage:

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

Rom. 4:9-10


Putting these two passages together, it would seem that righteousness by faith is credited prior to baptism.

However, I'm of the mind that the New Testament makes it clear that it is at the point of immersion that one gains a new life, has his sins washed away, dies to the old life, etc. So I think perhaps my leaning now is to believe that God may very well credit righteousness at the point of faith/decision, but that it's not "official" until immersion, and we have no business teaching otherwise.

But, what do I know?

SPIRIT and Truth, or Spirit and TRUTH, or Spirit AND Truth?

When talking to the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus declared,

Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

In my church-upbringing and culture, the focus when reading this passage was always on the "in truth" aspect.

Just now, re-reading it, I discover that I think Jesus' focus was on the "in spirit" aspect. He and the woman were discussing where the proper place for worship is: Jerusalem or Samaria. They were discussing issues of "truth". Then Jesus points out that the Jews had the "truth". Then he contrasts the focus on truth with what is to come: a time of worshipping in spirit and truth, pointing out specifically that God is spirit.

I think perhaps my church culture has neglected the spirit in favor of the truth.

The Early Church and the Synagogue

Never knew this.... Take it as you will.

Here, assembly is a translation of the word "synagogue," which is used to denote the meeting or meeting place of believers. This fits the Jewish background of the readers (cf. 1:1). Later James also uses the word "church" (5:14).

http://www.biblebb.com/files/GR763.HTM

This sure fits in with the idea that the early church was synagogue-based.

And why don't Bible translators stick to the text instead of substituting words ("ekklesia" for "synagogue"; "the LORD" for "Yhwh", etc)?!

Christians - A Third Race

My cousin has been writing a series of lessons for Bible class, and one of them deals with "The Development of the Christian Assembly".

In the historical background he provides, an interesting nugget made itself apparent.

After the Romans conquered the Jewish nation, they soon learned that the Jews were stubborn in several ways, such as by keeping themselves separate from non-Jewish culture, and refusing to worship any god but Yhwh, and not eating and partying with non-Jews, etc. The Romans learned that the Jews had a long history to which they were loyal (at least in principle), and the Romans found that unless there was a reason to do otherwise, it was generally just easier to leave the Jews alone as much as possible.

In the early years of Christianity, the Romans did not make any distinction between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews; as far as the Romans were concerned, they were all just Jews. Accordingly, the Romans tended to treat the early Christians like they'd treat Jews, leaving them pretty much to themselves (as in Gallio refusing to bother with trying Paul over "Jewish issues" in Acts 18:12-17).

However, after Gentiles started becoming Christians, it became apparent to the Romans that these converts did not have the long history of being a Jew to account for their refusal to participate in Roman society (worship of the Roman gods, wild parties, etc). The Romans began to see these Gentile Christians as a developing "third race"; not Gentile like themselves, nor Jewish like the Jews.

It just struck my fancy (as it did those Christians, apparently, as per my cousin's writings), that we are a "Third Race", a "new People".

Fascinating.

Life is about One Another

The bulk of the following was lifted from http://www.acts5.com/scripture/oneanother.html

So much of church time is spent on "acts of worship", particularly preaching. But the New Testament spends a lot more time on "one another" than on "church activities":

... you also should wash one another's feet.
John 13:14

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
John 13:34

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.
Romans 12:10

Honor one another above yourselves.
Romans 12:10

Live in harmony with one another.
Romans 12:16

...stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
Romans 14:13

...make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
Romans 14:19

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
Romans 15:7

(Notice how bringing praise to God is not via song-leading or preaching, etc, but rather via acceptance of one another?)

...wait for each other.
1 Corinthians 11:33

...have equal concern for each other.
1 Corinthians 12:25

Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 13:12

(Oh, wow. I am so bad at greeting others .... (Not that I'm good at the other items on this list, but this one I know I'm bad at.))

...serve one another in love.
Galatians 5:13

Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:2

(Note how the law of Christ is fulfilled? Not by going to church three times a week, or worshiping in a certain prescribed way, or teaching some specific doctrine, but by bearing the burdens of each other.)

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
Ephesians 4:2

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Ephesians 4:32

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21

(Notice how we show reverence for Christ?)

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Philippians 2:3

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Philippians 2:4

Do not lie to each other ....
Colossians 3:9

Bear with each other.
Colossians 3:13

Forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.
Colossians 3:13

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

Live in peace with each other.
1 Thessalonians 5:13

But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.
Hebrews 3:13

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Hebrews 10:24

Offer hospitality to one another....
1 Peter 4:9

...do not slander one another.
James 4:11

Confess your sins to each other.
James 5:16

Pray for each other....
James 5:16

These things build up the Kingdom.

The Purpose of Christian Assemblies

For most of us, all our lives, we've thought the "purpose" of going to church was to "worship".

However, I can't find any support for this idea in the New Testament.

I find our purpose for Life to be "worship" (Rom 12:1), but our purpose for assembling is twofold:

1) to participate in the Lord's Supper, and

2) to build up one another.

Granted, worship is included in our assemblies, but worship is not the purpose of our assemblies. Here's a representative passage from Hebrews 10:24-25:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Accordingly, I propose (only tongue-in-cheek) that we change the marquee' out in front of the assembly building so that it reads:

Provocation Assembly
Where Our Goal is to Provoke You!
(Unto love and good works...)

How Often to Worship?

In the oldest Mosaic culture, "regular" worship was to be conducted three times a year, in Jerusalem.

Later, after the Exile, "regular" worship was to be conducted every Sabbath, in the Synagogue.

With the New Covenant, we are to "regularly" worship at all times, in all places. "Church" is not our worship time; "Life" is our worship time.

"...present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom.12:1).

From three times a year, to once a week, to all the time.

Wow. We're called to a higher standard.

Purpose of Prayer is also for Each Other

Wow. I always thought prayer was to be directed to God, but according to Paul, it is also to be directed to your fellow Christian, for his up-building:

If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

1 Corinthians 14:16-17

So one of the purposes of public prayer is to edify those hearing you.

Interesting.

How Can You Women Stand Us Filthy Men?

Last year I got to pondering about men and women (like, when don't I ponder about men and women?). It was easy for me to understand why men like women; you women are soft, and silky, and smell pretty, and look great, and sound like angels when you speak, and are, as someone once said, the closest to heaven we men will ever experience in this life.

Men on the other hand are dirty, always needing a shave, stinky, selfish, uncaring, oblivious, rude, sloppy, lazy. In short, I just don't see what you women could possibly find attractive about men.

And then it hit me. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, each was given a punishment. Part of Eve's punishment was that her desire would be for her man.

Ah-h-h. That explains it.

Psalm 15

Psalm 15, as rendered (mostly) by "The Message":


1 Yhwh, who gets invited to dinner at your place?
How do we get on your guest list?

2 "Walk straight,
act right,
tell the truth.

3-4 "Don't hurt your friend,
don't blame your neighbor;
despise the despicable.

5 "Keep your word even when it costs you,
make an honest living,
never take a bribe.
"You'll never get
blacklisted
if you live like this."

Camels and Gnats

Something I wrote to a friend some time ago, which I find interesting:

Jesus set the example that humour has great power to shine light on dark areas in one's life. His teachings are rather full of puns and sliders (some of which are obvious in the Aramaic language but which do not translate well into English, like the straining of a gnat ("galma") while swallowing a camel ("gamla")).

An Interesting Turn of Phrase

"The Message" renders Job 31:12 thusly:

Adultery is a fire that burns the house down; I wouldn't expect anything I count dear to survive it.

Earlier, as rendered by the NIV, Job states:

I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.

and

If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door, then may my wife grind another man's grain, and may other men sleep with her.

These statements mean something. I think men everywhere should take them to heart.

---

Now, leaving a more spiritual and pure mindset, and dropping briefly into the gutter, I gotta admit that my brain at first glance rendered this last quote as "may my wife grind another man's groin". Which, I suppose, means the same thing, just not in such symbolic language.

It's the Cell, Not the DNA

Back in Darwin's day, the basic unit of biological life, the cell, was considered to just be a blob of jelly-like protoplasm. As biologist Michael Behe puts it, it was "Darwin's Black Box" (a book I'd recommend if you have interest in such things).

Just in the past twenty or thirty years has it become clear that the cell is an incredibly complicated factory, having all sorts of machines on the factory floor, with pipes running to and fro, and communication conduits, and little factory-floor robots shuttling materials around, and loading docks, and emergency repair teams and warning alarms and monitoring sensors and on and on and on.

However, it struck me this morning that the average person on the street still believes that DNA is the stuff that makes us who we are.

I wanted to take a quick minute to help update the populace.

DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) provides the programming that runs the factory equipment. It does not actually build that equipment.

So where does the equipment come from?

It comes from your mother.

Your mother provides a copy of her cells; this is the egg. She also provides half of the programming library (DNA) to run that copy of her cells. Your father provides the other half of the programming library.

You are essentially a cellular clone of of your mother, but the instructions (DNA) contained in the central library (nucleus) determine if your factory machines produce green widgets or red widgets, if they produce long eyelashes or short eyelashes, if they produce a dark-skinned person's dosage of skin-coloring melanin or a light-skinned person's dosage of melanin.

Kinda helps to emphasize what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:12:

For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

This also explains how that an animal "kind" can reproduce after its kind, but still allow all sorts of "variation on a theme". (In reality, evolutionists find this "variation on a theme" all over nature, in the lab, and in the fossil record, while they only imagine "cross from one kind to another" change; yet they insist we are a product of this imaginary latter kind of change. Check out their "best examples" of evolution - "variation on a theme" is what you'll find.)

More From Job

In the last entry I mentioned that Job seems to believe death to be final, but then again, maybe not.

Here's what he says in Job 19:25ff (NIV):

25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.

"The Message" puts it thusly:

Still, I know that God lives—the One who gives me back my life—
and eventually he'll take his stand on earth.
And I'll see him—even though I get skinned alive!—
see God myself, with my very own eyes.

Two things about this passage:

1) What's this business of the Redeemer standing on the earth in the end? Is that symbolic? Is it during the First Coming of Jesus to the earth? Or is it indicative that in the Second Coming, Jesus will actually step foot on the earth again? (I only ask this question because in my church background, we've been taught that the New Testament indicates that "we'll meet him in the air, and so shall we ever be", without Jesus ever setting foot on Earth again, whereas many other groups teach that not only will Jesus return to the earth, he'll do so for 1000 years or some variation thereof, depending on who you're talking to.)


2) This sure seems like a clear-cut indication that Job believed in a bodily resurrection; not just some ghostly spiritual body. That's my take on things also -- well, actually, I tend to think that the distinction between physical and spiritual may not exist then as it does now.

Tidbits from Job

"The Message" is an interesting version of the Bible. I would not use it as a "study Bible" by any means, as it's way too "loose", but it sure inspires thoughts that normally wouldn't be prompted in my mind by a standard version of Bible.

Here's an interesting passage from chapter nine of Job. In the midst of his suffering, Job says:

God and I are not equals; I can't bring a case against him.
We'll never enter a courtroom as peers.
How I wish we had an arbitrator
to step in and let me get on with life—
To break God's death grip on me,
to free me from this terror so I could breathe again.

This may or not have any messianic relevance, but it struck me as sounding decidedly messianic.

Then, just a few chapters later Job says:

O Earth, don't cover up the wrong done to me!
Don't muffle my cry!
There must be Someone in heaven who knows the truth about me,
in highest heaven, some Attorney who can clear my name—
My Champion, my Friend,
while I'm weeping my eyes out before God.
I appeal to the One who represents mortals before God
as a neighbor stands up for a neighbor.

Definitely sounds messianic to me. But then, what do I know?

Another tidbit I found was in chapter 12:

Strength and success belong to God;
both deceived and deceiver must answer to him.

That second half just resonated with me.

And the final tidbit that has struck me, so far, in this book, is that Job seems to not believe in an afterlife. All his talk of death seems so final, like this passage from chapter 14:

But men and women? They die and stay dead.
They breathe their last, and that's it.
Like lakes and rivers that have dried up,
parched reminders of what once was,
So mortals lie down and never get up,
never wake up again—never.

But then again, he at least seems to hope for a resurrection, for right after that passage he continues:

Why don't you just bury me alive,
get me out of the way until your anger cools?
But don't leave me there!
Set a date when you'll see me again.
If we humans die, will we live again? That's my question.
All through these difficult days I keep hoping,
waiting for the final change—for resurrection!
Homesick with longing for the creature you made,
you'll call—and I'll answer!

So much stuff to glean from the word of God; so little brainpower with which to do it.

Creation-oriented take on news

Fascinating website for those who have an interest in science news from a Creationist perspective: http://crev.info/

Why Evil?

I just started reading the book of Job, and I got to thinking about how we humans would be if God directly rewarded good behaviour and punished bad.

I daresay that most of us would mostly behave very well. After all, if treating people with respect and doing good and never lying and never cheating on our spouses resulted in having riches and fame and fortune and the best looking and most pleasing spouse, we'd probably all do those good things.

But we'd do them for our benefit, not because we love God.

On the other hand, if we live a life of poverty, and have a horrible disease, and are treated like scum, and we still love God, then we really do love God, and are not simply faking it.

That's one of the main points in the book of Job. Satan accused Job of loving God because it had a high return on investment for Job. God proved Satan wrong; Job loved God because he loved God, not because he loved the rewards of "loving" God.

We often hear the phrase "he has the patience of Job"; I think the more desirable trait would be to have the love of God that Job had.

Esther: What an Interesting Book

So many interesting tidbits in the Biblical book of Esther.

• The king of Persia, Xerxes, threw lavish parties, in which the "guests could drink as much as they liked—king's orders!—with waiters at their elbows to refill the drinks."
• Ten or 14 eunuchs are mentioned by name in this book. The palace must've been crawling with emasculated men. I can't imagine a much worse (psychological) fate than to be taken prisoner and made into an eunuch.
  
• Queen Vashti was a babe.
• The Medo-Persian Empire was quite male-dominated.
• Apparently when the King decided to put away his wife, he had the right to bring in all the young virgin girls he could find and "test" their suitability as a new queen. This test seems to me to be a night of sex.
• Esther was one of these virgins, and apparently spending the night with the King was an honor, even if it meant having only one night of sex in her life and then living in a harem with other women the rest of her life, as Esther and her cousin Mordecai conspired to avoid saying anything that might spoil her chances at the opportunity to become queen.
• Esther was raised by Mordecai after the death of her parents, but even when she was no longer under his roof, she did as he said.
• Mordecai stuck to his principles, rather than doing the "In" thing.
• "An order written in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring is irrevocable". An edict was sent out in the King's name, calling for the destruction of all Jews. Because of Esther's actions, a second edict went out allowing the Jews to take up arms and defend themselves. This second edict could not revoke the first, so it provided the means for the Jews to defend themselves, which turned to the advantage of the Jews.
• The date set for the destruction of the Jews was determined by lot, or the pur. This same date is when the Jews were allowed to defend themselves, and became a great day for the Jews, worthy of celebration as an established holiday. Thus was born the Purim Festival.
• The king allowed just the Jews living in the city of Susa a second day of "defense" against their enemies, and thus the Purim Festival became a two-day affair rather than a one-day affair, celebrated the day after the anniversary of the day chosen by lot, and the day after the extra day of "defense".
• The Purim Festival became a national holiday for the Jews. Notice that it, like Hannakuh, were not instituted by God, but by humans. Notice also that Jesus celebrated Hannakuh (and can be presumed to have celebrated Purim). Thus, even though Christmas is not a Bible-ordained holiday, I personally have little issue with Christians celebrating it and attaching some religious significance to it.
  
• Apparently the average person in the Empire was literate, being able to read the King's edict postings.
• When Esther balked at risking her life to approach the king in an attempt to save the Jews from slaughter, Mordecai made this fascinating statement:

If you persist in staying silent at a time like this, help and deliverance will arrive for the Jews from someplace else; but you and your family will be wiped out. Who knows? Maybe you were made queen for just such a time as this.

• The book of Esther does not directly mention God. (Neither does Song of Songs.)
• Fasting appears to have been a significant activity in ancient times, particularly in conjunction with facing a difficult decision or trial.
• Again, at the end of this book, we see the author of Biblical material referring to extra-Biblical sources. This to me has some significance in our understanding of inspiration. I remember reading once a saying that has stuck with me for years: "If it's true, it doesn't need to be inspired." I'm less interested in arguing what is inspired and what inspiration means, than in simply determining if the text is accurate and reliable, which I conclude the Bible to be. With this view, I'm no longer bothered by the differences in detail from one Gospel account to the other; these differences attest to the reality of the event. It's similar to how a police detective might view accounts of a crime given by two different witnesses; if the accounts are exactly identical, they become highly suspect, whereas if the accounts differ slightly in various details, they corroborate each other as being seen and remembered from two slightly different viewpoints. This leads me to highly respect the accuracy of the Bible, while allowing for minor perceptual "issues".

All in all, I found the book of Esther to be an enlightening read.

Gouging with Interest

Nehemiah 5 provides an interesting slant on loan interest. Nehemiah scolded the lenders in Israel, saying,

A great protest was mounted by the people, [saying] ...

"We're having to mortgage our fields and vineyards and homes to get enough grain to keep from starving."

And others said, "We're having to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields and vineyards.

I got really angry when I heard their protest and complaints. After thinking it over, I called the nobles and officials on the carpet. I said, "Each one of you is gouging his brother."

"We did everything we could to buy back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves as slaves to foreigners. And now you're selling these same brothers back into debt slavery!"

"What you're doing is wrong. Is there no fear of God left in you?"

"I and my brothers and the people working for me have also loaned them money. But this gouging them with interest has to stop. Give them back their foreclosed fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes right now. And forgive your claims on their money, grain, new wine, and olive oil."

I think of this sort of thing when I think about what happened at the bank this past week. Due to an arithmetic error in the checkbook, and then being away from the Internet on vacation for a week, I'm all of a sudden $180 poorer because of nine overdraft fees. I can understand the bank needing to cover some expense in such a situation, and wanting to discourage overdrafts, but this seems, well, evil, to me.

Divorce, Returning-Exile Style

I'm not sure what to do with the passage in Ezra 9-10. After all the preaching I've heard at church about the evils of divorce, I find that the Jews under Ezra determined "purity of race" to be more important than the sanctity of marriage vows.

The passage basically says that they realized that the people of Israel have not kept themselves separate from the nations around them, having intermarried with those people. Accordingly, they decided to divorce non-Israelite spouses and separate from them and from any offspring of those unions.

I'm not sure what to do with this.

I put my trust in Yhwh! Sort of ..., Mostly.

I found it interesting that after Ezra petitioned the King of Babylon for permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city, he had this to say:

I proclaimed a fast there beside the Ahava Canal, a fast to humble ourselves before our God and pray for wise guidance for our journey—all our people and possessions. I was embarrassed to ask the king for a cavalry bodyguard to protect us from bandits on the road. We had just told the king, "Our God lovingly looks after all those who seek him, but turns away in disgust from those who leave him."

So we fasted and prayed about these concerns. And he listened.

Ezra 8:21-22

Instruments in Old Testament Worship, and in the New

I had a friend write to me fairly recently,

I am not so sure about "instruments" (I guess you refer to musical instruments) and hand-clapping being present in the temple. According to my information these were more present in the idol temples of the gentiles.

This came to mind as I recently read from the Books of Chronicles such passages as the following (around chapters 29-31):

The king ordered the Levites to take their places in The Temple of Yhwh with their musical instruments -- cymbals, harps, zithers -- following the original instructions of David, Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet; this was Yhwh's command conveyed by his prophets. The Levites formed the orchestra of David, while the priests took up the trumpets.

Then Hezekiah gave the signal to begin: The Whole-Burnt-Offering was offered on the Altar; at the same time the sacred choir began singing, backed up by the trumpets and the David orchestra while the entire congregation worshiped. The singers sang and the trumpeters played all during the sacrifice of the Whole-Burnt-Offering. When the offering of the sacrifice was completed, the king and everyone there knelt to the ground and worshiped. Then Hezekiah the king and the leaders told the Levites to finish things off with anthems of praise to Yhwh using lyrics by David and Asaph the seer. They sang their praises with joy and reverence, kneeling in worship.

and

All the Israelites present in Jerusalem celebrated the Passover (Feast of Unraised Bread) for seven days, celebrated exuberantly. The Levites and priests praised Yhwh day after day, filling the air with praise sounds of percussion and brass. Hezekiah commended the Levites for the superb way in which they had led the people in the worship of Yhwh.

It seems pretty clear to me from these passages, at least in Hezekiah's day, that instruments (and choirs) were part of Temple worship. (Other passages lend themselves to this conclusion also, but I'm not really on a proof-texting expedition; I just found that Chronicles addressed the issue somewhat.)

Concerning clapping, when a Psalm (47:1) encourages it, it seems likely that clapping was not unknown in Temple worship:

Clap your hands, all you nations;
shout to God with cries of joy.

But that smacks of proof-texting, so I'll say no more about that.

Note that I'm not arguing that Christian worship should (or should not, for that matter) contain instrumental worship or choirs or clapping or burnt offerings; I'm only saying these things were part of the Jewish worship in the Temple in the olden days.

Even though the more solemn worship assembly of the synagogue arose during the Babylonian Captivity, after the return there are indications that choirs and instruments were still used in non-synagogal, Temple worship (e.g. Ezra 3:10-11, Neh. 12:27ff, 46).

If instrumental music was still a part of Temple worship in the first century (I won't try to make the case, but I believe it to be true), and if the earliest disciples, still being Jew through-and-through, were worshipping in the Temple (and I again believe that to be the case), then the indication is that instrumental music as part of worship is not un-Christian per se; it's just that in the non-Temple worship of Christians (as opposed to Temple worship, which would have ceased entirely after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.), instrumental music was not acceptable.

Accordingly, it seems to me that instrumental music has no place in the "formal" Christian assemblies (as that appears to violate the pattern established in early non-Temple Christian assemblies), but outside of those assemblies, instrumental music, as part of worship, seems perfectly acceptable to me. It took me many years to come to this conclusion, as it goes against what I was raised to believe, and it is likely to offend greatly many in the church I now attend, but I'm just trying to go where the evidence leads rather than just accepting my parents' beliefs as my own.

(By the way, my Dad seems to have a sense of guilt when he catches himself whistling church tunes when out working on his ranch, as non-singing "church music" is not acceptable in his belief system. Were he to adopt my belief system, as outlined above, he'd find his guilt issues to dissipate (which, by the way, is not an acceptable reason for adopting a belief system; a belief system should be adopted because it's True, not because it provides some emotional value such as dismissal of feelings of guilt).)

Worship as You're Able, Even if it "breaks the rules"

Some time ago a friend of mine and I had a short discussion. I held to the idea that if Christians were stranded on a deserted island due to a plane crash, and only had access to coffee and donuts for use in the Lord's Supper, it might be acceptable to use these non-Biblical items in that memorial event. I said,

In such a case, I would concede that perhaps the spirit of the worship takes precedence over the "truth".

My friend objected strongly, saying,

We cannot substitute what we have because that is all we have. Truth is that Jesus used unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. If that is not available, AND it is physically impossible to make it available the way to do it (as far as I can see) would be to worship 'in spirit' only. Since we must worship both in spirit and in truth and it is physically impossible to obey the truth, then we should only worship in spirit. We cannot start worshipping in spirit and untruth!! That would be disobeying what God said.

In reading the books of Chronicles, I came across a passage that seems to support my viewpoint. (I wasn't reading to "prove a point"; I was just reading, and came across this passage which seemed apropos.)

It's in 2 Chronicles, chapter 30. Hezekiah, a "good" king over Judah, cleaned up the nation, getting rid of idols and worship-houses for false gods, etc. He had the Temple restored, which had been neglected and had fallen into disrepair. He did what he could to get the nation back on track with Yhwh as their God.

He then invited all of Judah, and their sister nation, Israel (which was even more prone to idolatry than was Judah) to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Passover, which had been, like the Temple, neglected for years.

However, because of practical reasons, they were not able to celebrate this feast in the prescribed, "Biblical" fashion. They could not celebrate it at the proper time (at least until the next year, if they wanted to wait); the people weren't properly consecrated; the priests weren't ready; they doubled the time for the feast, carrying it on for a second week beyond the prescribed one week.

Hezekiah, realizing that not everything was "kosher", prayed. Here's the basic passage, starting in verse 18:

Hezekiah prayed for these as follows: "May Yhwh who is all good, pardon and forgive everyone who sincerely desires Yhwh, the God of our ancestors. Even—especially!—these who do not meet the literal conditions stated for access to The Temple."
Yhwh responded to Hezekiah's prayer and healed the people.

Later, 31:21 says,

Hezekiah carried out this work and kept it up everywhere in Judah. He was the very best—good, right, and true before his God, Yhwh. Everything he took up, whether it had to do with worship in God's Temple or the carrying out of God's Law and Commandments, he did well in a spirit of prayerful worship. He was a great success.

I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it, but it seems to me that God is more interested in the "spirit of the law" rather than in the "letter of the law", at least in some cases.

Read the Bible!

Some time ago I wrote:

The Living Word

We've all read it a hundred times:

For the word of God is living and active....
Heb 4:12

Recently, when I read this, it hit me.

It's not passive black text on a crisp white background.

It does something.

Put it in your head. It won't just sit there like a coffee cup on a side table. It'll do something. It's active. It's alive.

Just recently as I was reading the books of Chronicles, it struck me that the Kings listed in these books serve as examples to us; some were good Kings, striving to elevate Yhwh to the prime position over their nation, and some were evil Kings, turning to the so-called gods of the nations around them, along with the evil practices of those gods.

It's one thing to read the stories in the Chronicles, and learn lessons from each story; it's an entirely different thing to get an over-arching lesson of choosing to serve Yhwh or of choosing to serve other gods. If I had been reading the Bible in the "a little here, a little there" style, I still probably would have gotten the individual lessons from the individual stories, but I would have missed out on the thread that runs throughout the books - who ya gonna serve? Yhwh, or someone/thing else?

It struck me once again, that the only way to learn these subtle lessons is to read the Bible. Read it. Then read it again. Then read it again, in a different version, with a different mindset. Then read it again.

I'm afraid that we as a people have failed to read the Bible any more. Is it any wonder the church is so weak in the 21st century?

Acts of Worship

In the past few weeks I've had occasion to see the dichotomy between two different paradigms concerning worship.

One paradigm holds that worship is any outpouring of a reverential, value-assigning attitude toward God, and can be conducted at any time in any place in essentially any form. This paradigm holds that one may worship God when learning of a raise at his job, or when enjoying the intimacies of the marriage bed, or when reveling at the sudden release of a migraine into pure comfort, or when awestruck at the body's ability to heal paper cuts, or when thrilled about knocking a homerun in a game of baseball.

The other paradigm holds that worship is a formal act or set of acts that takes place at a specified time, and which has a formal starting and stopping point. This leads to the non-Scriptural term "Worship Service" which is applied to the regular (typically thrice-a-week) Christian assemblies. In my upbringing (traditional "Church of Christ"), there are "Five Acts of Worship" found in the New Testament and which are to be incorporated into the "Worship Services". These acts are singing, praying, giving, Lord's Supper, and preaching/teaching.

Whereas I believe that Christian assemblies should incorporate worship, and should conform to the general pattern of the first century assemblies, I do not believe that worship is limited to those occasions. I hold more to the first paradigm.

Fifth and Grape (the church I'm currently attending) appears to hold to the second paradigm.

As I sat in a "worship service" (cough) there recently, it struck me that these folks are inconsistent in their application of their paradigm. They believe the "worship service" should consist only of these five "New Testament example" acts. Thus their "services" don't include non-approved acts, such as singing "Happy Birthday" to members, or clapping (yes, I may touch on that issue some other time), or drinking coffee and having donuts while listening to the preacher, etc.

Yet they do include the non-approved act of having announcements in their "services". I think most of them grew up with announcements occurring prior to or after the "worship service" time proper, but as they've aged, they haven't realized that they've allowed announcements to drift into, instead of staying before or after, the "services".

I just found that interesting.

Pure Religion

James 1:27 says:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

I've spent much of my first forty years of life working on the part about not being polluted by the world (not that I've been exceptionally good at it). Just recently it's been weighing on my spirit that perhaps I need to spend the next forty years honing the other skill of looking after orphans and widows in their distress.

Colorado Trip

I just got back from a week in Colorado. Had lots of fun. Here are the pix: http://faculty.acu.edu/~westk/2006/COLORADO/index.html