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!

Online Newspapers: Identify your Locale!

Some of the web sites I visit regularly (drudgereport.com, wind.com, fark.com, etc) often link me to pages on other sites. Sometimes these pages are on a local newspaper's site, and the story may or may not have a byline indentifying the city. But in many, many cases, there is no indication whatsoever of what state or country that city is in. What makes it worse is the ads along the side urging the readers to visit "Historic St. Augustine". Okay, okay, I'll come spend my money in your city, if you'll just tell me where it is!!

So lame. So lame.

Intersections, Part II

You may remember that in an earlier post I mentioned Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3 and how it would make a good prayer to pray at church some time when asked to lead a public prayer.

Last night was the night. We had singing instead of our normal class time, so the feel was slightly more informal than usual. When I went up to lead the closing prayer, I said that I didn't mean to disturb anyone, but instead of me leading the closing prayer, I was going to let the Apostle Paul lead it. I then grabbed the microphone and went down on one knee (I've never seen anyone kneel in prayer at this church before (but then, I've only been there two years)), and with one hand holding a New King James Version Bible and the other hand holding the microphone (which I couldn't get loose from the stand, so I just took the whole stand down with me) I prayed (changing the personal pronouns as needed):

I kneel before you, Oh Father, from whom your whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of your glorious riches you may strengthen us with power through your Spirit in our inner being, so that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith. And I pray that we, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that we may be filled to the measure of all your fullness.

Now to you who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to your power that is at work within us, to you be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

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, except for a friend who said, "No one could have said it better" (referring to Paul, not me, of course).

Of course, it may be that I'll hear some comments later. Or it may be that I won't ever be asked to lead prayer again. Or perhaps everyone had already closed their eyes by the time I knelt, and never focused back on me until after I was back up, so that there would only be two oddities to them rather than three.

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.

Drugs for Depression and Demon Possession

If you're on some sort of anti-depressant drug, or hear voices, or have anger issues, or just need something worth-while to read, I urge you to read this article:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57143

It's in God's Hands

I started to make a post of some of the highlights of the book of Ecclesiastes, but I wound up quoting so much of the book that instead I'll just encourage you to read this short book for yourself. You'll know in a chapter or two if it's going to speak to you in whatever stage of life you are in; if not now, save it for later, perhaps when you're wondering "What's the point?". I suggest you read it in The Message version; it'll kick at you harder in that version. Here it is online: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclessiastes%201;&version=65;

Plows to Swords to Plows

Joel 3:9ff --

Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.

Isaiah 2:4 --

He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.

Fascinating Yin for Yang. I've never noticed that before.

Wives the foundation of Civilization

I recently read an article on Islamic polygamy, and one of the commentators to the article had this to say, which I found interesting:

Car insurance companies hire statisticians. Those statisticians have found that indeed, young men are reckless. They have also found that once those young men are married, literally, "settled down" they become less reckless as now they must be providers. In general, wives keep their husbands in line and out of trouble.

What does polygamy do? Imagine a population of 50 men and 50 women. Where each man will take 2 wives if he can. Well, you will potentially have 25 men with 2 wives apiece, and 25 single men. And those 25 single men will be society's worst nightmare: reckless, criminal, irresponsible.

Monogamy is the foundation of modern civilization. A wife to control all men, a father to control all children. Children without fathers and men without wives, will be the downfall of any civilization.

Parallels: Genesis and John

In the first two chapters of Genesis we learn that in the beginning, God created the earth with his word.

The creation took six days.

At the end of that six days, there was a marriage.

Had Adam reached over and plucked a peach from a tree, the tree would have appeared years old, but it was only three days old.

===

In the first two chapters of John we learn that in the beginning, God created the earth with his word.

And then there was a marriage.

At the marriage were six jugs of water, which were turned to wine.

When the wine was drunk, it was a fine wine, as if it were the product of months, or perhaps years, of vine growth and tending, yet it was only minutes old.

---
Adapted from Session 2 of Dr. Jobe Martin's DVD set, "The Evolution of a Creationist"

Concerning the Right to Bear Arms

Remember this ...

When in a life-threatening situation where seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

- Bud B. - Virginia Beach

Wisdom from Peter

Since Jesus went through everything you're going through and more, learn to think like him. Think of your sufferings as a weaning from that old sinful habit of always expecting to get your own way. Then you'll be able to live out your days free to pursue what God wants instead of being tyrannized by what you want.

1 Peter 4:1-3

Wow! Break the habit of expecting to get your own way, and stop being tyrannized by your wants. Just, wow!

Wisdom from James

A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything—or destroy it!

It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire. A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that. By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke and go up in smoke with it, smoke right from the pit of hell.

James 3:5ff

Intersections

While reading from The Message a few weeks ago I came across a prayer in Ephesians 3 which I thought would be a good prayer to pray sometime when asked to lead prayer publicly at church.

Then last night I was reading a site concerning Jewish holidays, and the page I was reading ended with that prayer. It struck me how that this prayer has intersected in my life from two different directions.

Also last night, I gave a letter to a young lady at church who was immersed last year. A week or two after her immersion, I wrote her a letter with the hopes that it would be an encouragement to her, and this one last night was a similarly-motivated letter, celebrating her first year birthday in the Lord. One of the points I had made was to encourage her to make her daily choices with the thought in her head of glorifying God with each choice. Another point was that she's a Princess-daughter of the King, married to the Prince, but although she's royalty, she's currently having to live among the peasants in mud shacks until the Prince returns, and while there, she needs to share her affections for her Prince with her peasant neighbors, who will then fall in love with him also, and be able to join in the celebration when he returns.

Then, after I had given her this letter, while I was doing my daily Bible reading last night, I came across two passages from 1 Peter that echoed the two points I had made to this young lady.

Concerning honoring God with daily choices:

Your life is a journey you must travel with a deep consciousness of God. -- 1 Peter 1:18

Concerning her life's example to her peasant neighbors:

Friends, this world is not your home, so don't make yourselves cozy in it. Don't indulge your ego at the expense of your soul. Live an exemplary life among the natives so that your actions will refute their prejudices. Then they'll be won over to God's side and be there to join in the celebration when he arrives. -- 1 Peter 2:11-12

Again, interesting intersections.

Mom --> Broadband

Yea! I just got Mom on broadband!

W00t!

Why Suicide Bombers are Usually Muslim

Psychology Today has an article that deals with Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature. I don't buy the evolutionary assumptions made in the article (the theory explains everything, and a theory that explains everything explains nothing), so I'm hesitant to recommend the article, but one of the "politically-incorrect truths" caught my attention. The author of the article writes:

Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

Being a single male wondering where the women are, and remembering the younger years especially, I can understand the motivation that 72 waiting virgins might provide to a hormone-addled young man to do whatever it takes to gain access to that prize.

“Human Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in Romans 8:26?

(Scripture quotations from the KJV unless otherwise noted.)

In Romans 8:26 we read:

26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

It has been argued that this “Spirit” is the human spirit rather than the holy spirit. The case is made that the context of this passage, starting at least in chapter 7 and perhaps earlier, is of the basic struggle between the fleshly part of a human and the spiritual part of a human. This can be seen by comparing 7:18 where Paul writes:

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing

and 7:22 where he writes:

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

The argument is made that the basic flesh-vs-spirit struggle is reiterated in verse 26: our flesh, being against God, has infirmities, but our spirit, being in favor of God, makes intercession for our faults.

It's a fairly strong argument, but I believe it fails on three points.

The first failure point is that Paul uses a phrase similar to verse 26 in Galatians 4:6:

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

As was noted in Part 1 of this essay, Paul often “recycles” his sermons as he writes to different church groups. This particular case appears to be an example of one of those recycled sermon points. In Romans, the spirit intercedes in prayer by making groanings that can not be uttered; in Galatians, the spirit, which has been sent into our hearts, prays to God as Abba (Aramaic for “Papa”).

The spirit in each passage performs a similar function of praying-crying/interceding-groaning. It seems likely that both passages are referring to the same spirit.

Since the spirit in Galatians is identified as the Spirit of God's Son, it seems likely that the spirit in Romans is also the Spirit of God's Son (aka, the Holy Spirit).

The second failure point of the argument that the spirit in Romans is the human spirit comes from the grammar of verse 26. Note that the subject of the clause, “the spirit”, as well as the verb, “maketh intercession” are in the singular form, whereas the direct object, “us”, is plural (at least in this English translation; if the underlying Greek does not support this point, it may be dispensed with without injury to the other two points). The passage thus says “the one spirit makes intercession for the many of us”. If “the spirit” in this passage were the human spirit, it would make more sense for Paul to have written something like “our spirits make intercession for us” or “a person's spirit makes intercession for that person”.

The third failure point is the structure of the immediate context. Note that Paul uses the word “likewise” in verse 26. What does he mean? Like what?

Outlining the passage makes it more clear:

1. The whole creation has been groaning – verse 22
2. Not only the creation, but we ourselves groan inwardly – verse 23
3. Likewise, the spirit groans, helping us by interceding for us – verse 26
   

Paul already covers the case of our human spirit groaning in verse 23 (we groan “inwardly”). If the spirit in verse 26 is the human spirit, Paul would essentially be saying “we groan; likewise we groan”, which doesn't make much sense.

Conclusion: The spirit referred to in Romans 8:26 is probably the “Holy Spirit” rather than the “Human Spirit”.

“Human Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 5:5?

(Scripture quotations from the KJV unless otherwise noted.)

In 2 Corinthians 5:4-5 we read:

4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

It has been argued that this “Spirit” is the human spirit, that the existence of our eternal human spirit serves as a “down-payment” (“earnest”) of immortality.

The Apostle Paul, as any preacher might do, often “recycles” his sermons as he presents them to different churches (perhaps “tweaking” the lesson over time, as any preacher might do); he even mentions this habit in 1 Corinthians 4:17:

For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

The idea of the “spirit being a guarantee” seems to be one of those topics that Paul presents to different church groups. He writes of it to the Corinthian church (as quoted above), and he writes of it to the Ephesian church, as here from Ephesians 1:12-14:

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In the Ephesian passage however, Paul “tweaks” his sermon by adding the word “holy”.

In both passages the spirit performs the same function, serving as a down-payment (“earnest”) of “our inheritance until the redemption” (“mortality swallowed up in life”). This indicates that both passages are referring to the same spirit.

Since Paul identifies the spirit in the Ephesians passage as the “holy spirit”, it seems reasonable to conclude that the spirit in the Corinthians passage is also the “holy spirit”.

Conclusion: The spirit referred to in 2 Corinthians 5:5 is probably the “Holy Spirit” rather than the “Human Spirit”.

Why Radical Islam Breeds Murder

Here is an interesting article by a former Islamist radical.

The author, a former member of the British Jihadi Network, writes that he left the organization in February 2006 because he realized "that its members had simply become mindless killers".

In the article, he claims that the cause of Islamic violence is not poverty, or political oppression, etc, but rather because of a radical offshoot of the basic Islamic paradigm. He says the basic paradigm has been developed over the years that there are two types of nations in the world: The Land of Islam, and The Land of Unbelief.

However, Islamic radicals have gone two steps beyond that:
1) They claim there is no pure Land of Islam, and therefore the whole world must be the Land of Unbelief, and
2) since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they've declared war on the whole world.

The author goes on to write:

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

He charges that this state of affairs, at least in Britain, is because no one is willing to discuss theology, and thus a vacuum has been created in which radicalism has flourished.

He argues that the solution is for both Muslims and non-Muslims to open up discussions about theology.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

I am in agreement with this Muslim that open discussion can lead to solutions. Life is filled with examples of damage done because someone is unwilling to deal with the issues and get the issues out in the open, whether it's a secret addiction to sleeping pills, or a teenager's angst over not being accepted by the popular kids, or an entire culture's angst at discussing religious issues. As the Creator of the universe once said, "The Truth shall set you Free".

It Falls Into Place

Every once in a while it just feels like everything falls into place.

Last Saturday I was able to be productive in getting a door re-hung at Nesa's house, and installing a doorknob, and hanging a ceiling fan, and plunging her bathtub drain sufficiently for it to start slowly draining. (I've been dreading crawling under the house to solve this drainage problem.)

Then about Tuesday I was able to help put some new mower blades on Dad's tractor; it went quick and easy. What's up with that?

Friday Nesa bought some drain-clearing chemicals and poured them down her tub drain. We had tried this before, but without success. But this time, thank Jesus (no vanity intended), it worked. So unless the chemicals burned a hole in the pipes and the water is just pouring out onto the ground, that job is fixed (at least for now) Yea!!

I've been without a lawn mower this season and have been at the mercy of the neighborhood kids to mow the lawn. They've been unreliable, and with the uncommonly wet season we've had, the weeds have climbed up into the three-to-six foot range. Yikes!

I have a couple of mowers, but neither works. But last night I found a mower mechanic down the street who charges a mere $10 plus parts to repair them. W00t! So soon I'll have a mower. In the meanwhile, one of the neighborhood kids finally got around to mowing my lawn. Yea!!

And I finally got the part I needed to repair my ceiling fan in my bedroom; it's been hard doing without a fan with the summer heat. So I got that repaired, and the fan is now working. Yea!!

My truck which has been overheating severely when I drive just part way across town, suddenly stopped overheating, like a blockage cleared up or something. I know it's probably not a permanent cure, but for a 17-year old truck that's ready to be retired, it should give me a little more use without putting a lot of money into it. Yea!!

My unexplained discomfort in my gut, for which the doctors couldn't find a cause, seems to have suddenly cleared up. Yea!!

A fraudulent charge on my credit card (which I haven't used in 2 years, as I've learned to never use credit cards again and am just paying them off) was finally resolved this week. Yea!!

In about one week, I'm paying off one of my two remaining credit cards (and will be able to start applying those payments to the last remaining card). Yea!!

My checking account looks like it's going to end up in more black than usual this month. Yea!!

There's nothing major in all of this; it's just that it seems that many things are falling into place. Praise God that we sometimes get some good happenings in this fallen world!

Two Lessons Learned Today

1.
"THE AMERICAN INDIANS FOUND OUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T CONTROL IMMIGRATION." -- anonymous

2.
"[A]n extra dollar earned, because of federal, state, and Social Security taxes, is typically $0.55 to $0.65 more in your pocket. A dollar reduction in spending, however is $1 towards solving your budget problem." -- http://www.claytoncramer.com/rich/BecomeWealthy.html

The Muse is Mute

I tried to write a song last night about my co-worker Chris going fishing. Gettin' up before first light, scramblin' an egg and washin' it down with Dr. Pepper, collectin' his gear and tossin' it in the back of his old Ford truck, etc etc etc.

But the song just wouldn't come.

I've had the notion -- but don't know how seriously I believe it -- that my unrequited love came upon my heart at the same time I got a guitar for the explicit purpose that I'd turn to my guitar as comfort, and it's there and then that my song-writing ability "flourished" (anyone who has heard me sing my songs would understand why I put "flourished" in quotes).

Now that I no longer need the comfort of song-writing, that ability seems to have left me. A fair trade-off I reckon.

The Tail-End of Romans 7

The tail-end of Romans 7, from The Message:

What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can't be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God's command is necessary.

But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time.

It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. I truly delight in God's commands, but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.

I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?

The answer, thank God, is that Jesus Christ can and does. He acted to set things right in this life of contradictions where I want to serve God with all my heart and mind, but am pulled by the influence of sin to do something totally different.

A Personal Note

I loved, and still do love, Andrea. But she's out of my life, and I've moved on.

I loved, and still do love, Christina. But she's out of my life, and I've moved on.

I loved, and still do love, Christa. But she's mostly out of my life, and I've mostly moved on. I realized this morning that I've mostly moved on. (Of course, I've thought that several times over the past few years, but this time I think it's really true. (Of course, I've thought it was really true before, but this time I think it's really, really true.)) I've known for some time it would eventually happen.

And things are copacetic.

The Folded Napkin

I don't know who originally wrote this.

WHY DID JESUS FOLD THE LINEN CLOTH AFTER HIS RESURRECTION?

The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin. Is that important? You'd better believe it! Is that significant? Absolutely! Is it really significant? Yes!

In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The folded napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished.

Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the table.

For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, "I'm done". But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because the servant knew that the folded napkin meant, "I'm not finished yet."

The folded napkin meant, "I'm coming back!" He is Coming Back!