Crushed Leviathan

Can anything good come out of you?

2012-03-07T06:42:00.005-06:00

How do we answer the question, "Why are some atheists/secularists good and why are some believers not?"

I know that the Bible says that there are none good, no not one. I am not questioning if mankind is sinful. Of course we all are. I am just grappling with trying to figure out where morality comes from. Experience shows that those who believe in God are not more likely to "better people," than those who do not believe. I know atheists who are much more concerned about the poor and oppressed and downtrodden than their believing counterparts. Why? Shouldn't followers of Christ have more sensitivity to the needs around them than someone who believes very little about Jesus, much less trusted him for forgiveness?

I think we have made too little of human potential. And before I am accused of converting to a secular humanist, let me explain. Even though I am not a secular humanist I do think we've missed how much potential we have for good. And I don't think this contradicts Scripture. (However, I may have to edit this post after the responses)

I want to start by saying that even the best of our human potential will never be good enough to satisfy the holiness of God. We will always fall short of giving God glory. I want this to be understood from the outset. Faith in Jesus is the only way to be brought to the Father in forgiveness. Now that that is clear, let me proceed.

Humans have the potential for great good. But we will never be as good as possible. Humans also have the potential for great evil. And we can be as evil as possible. Mother Theresa was a good person but she could have been even better. Jeffrey Dahmer was an evil person, and while it can be argued he could have probably been worse, I think it is fair to say he went out of his way to do evil things. We could cite more examples, but hopefully this shows what I'm trying to say. The doctrine of the fall of man does not teach that man is as evil as he could be, but it did leave him the potential to delve deep into evil without some sort of constraint. On the other hand what the doctrine of the fall of man does teach is that man is prevented from ever being as good as he possible could.

We can still be and act "good," (just not good enough). We were created in the image of God. God is good. Therefore, we were created for good. Creation was very good. When man ate the fruit of the tree it was not the tree of the knowledge of evil, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When that fruit got into the human system, they could still do good, but now they also knew evil as well as good. This is why humans, whether believers or not, do have a lot of potential for good. But in the end, they will always fall short of perfection in good.

Relucant Warrior or King Disguised

2012-03-07T06:20:00.003-06:00

In trying to understand more about Islam, I am reading through Islam An Introduction. My comments are not directed at the author, Rosalyn Rushbrook. But I am using her information as my source of knowledge for my understanding of Islam.

In the chapter on the PM, one finds him to be a somewhat likable fellow and even peace loving. But what stood out for me was how he's like the rest of us. When we feel threatened we tend to strike back, whether verbally or physically. He seemingly allowed peaceful coexistence of Jews and Muslims unless their community came under attack. In this case he had asked they all come together to fight the common enemy. "...he would have preferred it if he had been left in peace in Madinah, but sadly, the opposition from the Quraysh tribes continued and he was obliged to take part in sporadic warfare...[even if] only a few months." (pg16) "Jihad was...primarily for defensive reasons..." (pg17)

So PM was a relucant warrior. Sounds pretty noble. But what would have happened if he had been led to the slaughter as a lamb, not opening his mouth? What would have happened if he had taken insult and turned the other cheek? What would have happened if he had commended his spirit into the hands of God? What if he would have defeated death by dying and rising again in victory?

I would say that anyone who could do that would be a King, but maybe one in disguise.

Quran burning

2012-03-07T05:12:00.005-06:00

I hate being behind in blogging. I miss opportunities like the Quran burning in Afghanistan and the desecration of graves of Christians and Jews in Libya.

So, I'll just add my two cents worth a bit late.

First, as I understand it there is a misconception about how non-Muslims view the Quran. From a Christian perspective one would tend to think the Bilbe is to Christianity as the Quran is to Islam. (Bible:Christianity, Quran:Islam).But actually the Quran is to Islam as Jesus is to Christianity (Quran:Islam, Jesus:Christianity). So, the burning of a Quran is a bit more inflammatory (pun intended) than someone burning a Bible. It would be similar, yet not to the degree, of the outrage felt by Christians when Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in his own urine and took a photo of it. The Quran is seen as literally the word of Allah (God). In the same way, Jesus is seen as the word of God too (John 1:1 etc). So, as Rosalyn Rushbrook, a convert from Christianity to Islam, has stated in her book Islam An Introduction, "Muslims react strongly when they feel that the Quran has been treated with insult or disrespect." (p43)

And I guess "strongly react" means to kill and pillage. This is quite a contrast from what Jesus taught his disciples, which was to turn the other cheek when someone does something bad to you. Besides, the Word of God, Jesus, himself, was cursed, spit upon, beat to a pulp, mocked, a crown of thorns jammed on his head, and nails thrust through his hands and feet until he was dead. I think that kind of death is a bit more extreme than burning God's word, which by the way can be reprinted as a wise Islamic scholar said in the aftermath of the insurgence in Afghanistan.

And it seems an apology is not even good enough. It's unforgivable. On the other hand Jesus said blasphemy of the Son would be forgiven. Even he prayed from the cross for forgiveness for those who had put him on the cross saying they didn't know what they were doing. Is there no mercy in Islam, not even to those who may not know what they were doing?

Is this incident really a true picture of Islam or just an excuse to kill Americans?

And lastly, why were there no reports of Libyan Muslims being killed after the cemetery desecration of Christians and Jews?

I'm not saying the followers of Jesus have always been stellar examples of actually following Jesus. Of course, they haven't. But I am highlighting the difference between the two religions. And it is a stark difference.

UK and USA differ over extradition

2012-02-26T11:35:00.004-06:00

A recent headline in the UK indirectly accuses the USA of being unfair in its extradition of a former shipping manager. It is allegeded that this manager sold batteries to undercover FBI agents that could have been used for Iranian missiles. He claims he is the victim of entrapement by the FBI.

One arguement is that a British citizen can be extradited to any country in the world without any trial or representation in the UK before being extradited. In this claim, it is said that the crime was allegedly comitted in Britain. So, if a crime has been done, he should face the judicial system in Britain, not extradited to a foreign country. Response: It is the UK who has to agree to any extradition charges brought against its citizens by a foreign government. One assumes evidence was presented to the governing body in charge of extradition that conviced them that this man ought to be tried in the US.

There is an underlying assumption that this "foreigner" will not get a fair trial in the US. No one is saying this, but reading between the lines I get this impression. The man himself has compared his case to the Islamic, so-called hate preacher, Abu Qatada, imprisioned and recently relesed from jail. The UK has not been able to extradite him to Jordan because the EU fears torture if returned. They have told the UK they are not allowed to extradite him because of possible human rights abuse. So, does this former salesman believe he will be treated less since he has been extradicted to the US? Response: In the US you are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. There will not be any human rights issues it this case. He could have been more concerned if he had been extradited to North Korea.

Now on the other hand, the man is 63. If convicted he will probably spend the rest of his life in jail in America away from any family and friends. So for one, you really do hope he's not convicted. Maybe the evidence is not sufficient enough to return a guilty verdict. But if it is, what should be done. Well, it's not for me to decide, but maybe some grace and mercy could be shown even when the public outcry in the UK thinks the US is a cowboy state similar to Somalia or Syria.

The Star of Bethlehem

2012-01-28T12:05:00.002-06:00

This is either a late Christmas post, a way early Christmas post, or just a post that happens to be about the Christmas story, mainly the star that led the wise men to Jesus.

There are many theories about what the star actually was. Was it the conjunction of two planets, three planets, a comet, a supernova, or something else? What if it wasn't a natural phenomena? Would that really matter? In other words, if all the "natural" explanations failed to provide a satisfactory reconciliation with Babylonian sky charts and the story in the Bible would that mean the event recorded in the Bible was made-up?

Not necessarily.

We could, as some would, say that the entire story is pure imagination. No Jesus, no Mary, No Wise Men, and of course no Star. But to make that conclusion one would also have to ignore Bethlehem as a real place. If the story was pure imagination the author would had to have known about the place, Bethlehem. To know about Bethlehem it makes sense he would had to have live relatively close to there. (Unless the Wise Men from Babylonia wrote the story. haha). So, if the story is made-up, it is based at least in some reality. Otherwise, Jesus would have been born in Huierty and had three eyes.

The Star of Bethlehem is connected exclusively with the guidance of the Wise Men. They were star gazers. God wanted them to come see Jesus, so he spoke to them in their language, stars. Whatever they saw or however they interpreted what they saw, it prompted them to travel to Jerusalem and then onto Bethlehem seeking out the king of the Jews. God speaks to us in our language. We can explain the voice away by attributing the sound to natural events or we can accept that when we read the Bible, a book about God, we will find supernatural events beyond and outside the scope of our small natural "world."

Bloggin through TV

2011-09-15T14:34:00.010-05:00

We are amazed at the same sights, but attribute it to something different.

I've just finished watching the last episode of the series Wonders of the Universe by Brian Cox. I hate I missed the other three. Dr. Cox and I are both filled with wonder as we look at the same universe. He finds his wonder in evolution and I from the God of creation.

I have no intentions of even coming close to testing his observations and ultimate conclusions. He's a far more intellectual man than I can even imagine to be. But I would like to challenge the idea that the same kind of wonder can only come from evolution and not the Creator God.

Dr. Cox gives lots of facts. I have no idea if they are true or not, but since he's the expert I'm going to assume the facts are true. Again, the only thing I'm disputing with Dr. Cox is the origin of our (his and mine) wonder. Scripture is from the NASB in green. My comments are in blue. Hopefully, I've quoted Cox (correctly).

"The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it"

Dr. Cox asks, "Why are we here and where do we come from?" It seems we all ask this question and how we answer determines how we interpret the world around us.

Facts quoted by Cox:

Our origin begins with the beginning of the universe over 13.7 billion years ago.

The story of the beginning of the universe is our story.

"Light is what connects us to the cosmos." Amazingly true.

"Light is a messenger from a long forgotten era...through light we stare back at the history of the universe and discover how it all began and ultimately see how light breathed life into us." Yes, indeed. Light is what brought about life. It's our illumination of the Light that we see our darkness and thus find Life.

"The light from the sun has traveled 150 million kilometers. There are on a clear night about 2.5 thousand stars visible to the naked eye and billions more only seen through telescopes..." He counts the number of stars and gives names to all of them.

Lagoon nebula. 5000 light years away and can be seen by naked eye from Earth because it is 100 light years across. Hershel 36 star is 20x more massive than our Sun. There are even bigger stars in our galaxy. The Milky Way is home to 200 billion stars.

The discovery of speed light (less than 300,000 kilometers per second) was measured by the orbit of Jupiter's moon IO. Thus, a light year is the distance light can travel in one year (10 million million million kilometres)

When we see the light from the Sun (it being 150 million kms away) we see it as it was 8 minutes in the past.

When we see light from the Andromeda galaxy, the light started it's journey to Earth at the dawn of human evolution (2.5 million years ago).

In 2004 with the Hubble telescope showed us red light from around 13 billion light years away.

The properties of light mean that red light has the longest visible wave length of light. As the light reaches our eyes the light has stretched. This means the universe is expanding. I don't know that it matters if the universe is expanding or not in terms of consequences. But what if light is not traveling in a straight line to our telescopes? What if the light is traveling around space or something completely different before it gets to our telescopes, and thus it appears that the light is taking billion of years to travel? But again, assuming it is doing all this traveling, if you go further back than 13.7 billion light year, you still have not reached Infinity.

Therefore, "...if you rewind time they [galaxies] must have been closer together in the past...and if you go back far enough all the galaxies we know were on top of each other...The universe thus had a beginning which is the Big bang theory... And the Big bang theory does not state that every thing was (is) being flung out...Space is stretching and has been since the big bang." ...Let there be Light and there was Light. I am not trying to harmonize science with the Bible (albeit all truth is God's truth). If we detect signs of the beginning of the universe, it only means there was a beginning to it all.

This next part is tricky and over my head. Light is only visible for humans at red. There is invisible light in the form of radio and microwaves that come to us as the first light of the universe. The light has been stretched so much that it comes to us in this form. These are messengers carrying information about the origin of our universe.

"...Darkness vanished and the cosmos begin to fill with light..." How true!!

"The reason any of this even exists is due to tiny density fluctuations that appeared when the observable universe was smaller than a grain of sand." But wasn't there something to begin? Why is there something rather than nothing? Or did something produced something? Why is it not plausible that something came from nothing (ex nihilo)

Dr. Cox believes we may have come from a Chordate worm. They started producing cells sensitive to light that eventually led human life. Because this worm developed cells for sight, we can see light and thus understand the origin of the universe. But why us? Why didn't dolphins or chipmunks develop the ability to see into outer space and explain the origin of life? We have eyes to see the Light, but why don't most of us see it?

Uninspired

2011-09-15T13:50:00.002-05:00

I have been pretty absent in blogging for quite some time. I've just not been inspired to write nor have I taken the time to keep the blog interesting for readers. Maybe sooner or later I will start writing again. Hope to get back soon.

Heaven by Rob Bell

2011-05-28T14:16:00.003-05:00

The first question Bell proposes is in relation to the staggering number of people who won't "make" (my emphasis) it to heaven.

I would say that is what we don't know. We don't know how God has been speaking to people and how they have responded. Whatever light he has given them can either be accepted or rejected. we don't know how many or how few will be in heaven. All we know is that the only way to the Father is through Christ, which Bell affirms. Like Bell I don't have a clue about where Ghandi is (or Martin Luther King Jr.).

He goes on to raise a multitude of questions in the first chapter. And some of those questions I do wonder about myself. Like the "personal relationship" one. What does that even mean? But I'm not going to dive into all the Christanese he exposes. I, too, think we should explain things better rather with the insider jargon.

Heaven. "It's somewhere else, or is it right here and now?" asks Bell. Bell begins with the story about the rich man who comes to Jesus asking about eternal life. Bell explains that Jesus' answers the man's concerns which is not "with how to go to heaven," but "how to have more responsibility in the age to come." I would agree with Bell in that the man is not asking how to go to heaven. I think the man is asking about eternal life and how to get it. I don't see the man asking for how to be a good citizen in the world to come. Bell suggest that this is what Jesus is getting at. Live to be a better person now earns you more responsibility later. "Jesus takes the man's questions about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he's living now" (p41). If anything Bell is at fault of being a postmillennialist. He equates the prophets' sayings with literally heaven on earth (p33). A premillennialist does not disregard the new heaven and the new earth imagery. I think most would agree how we live now is important.

Bell says that the man went away because he had not yet understood that greed could not enter into the age to come. But even still, the man went away. We don't know if he ever turned back to God. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I think Jesus left open the possibility that he didn't.

In defining "heaven," Bell goes on to say that it is just simply a substitute for "God." (p42) I will say that I'm still undecided on this. Kingdom of heaven = kingdom of God. This will need some more thought. He adds, "Heaven is that realm where things are as God intends them to be." (p42). The last one is easier for me than the first definition. The story of the Bible is when God's will will be done on earth as it currently is in heaven. Heaven then is "partnering with God to make a new and better world..." (p47) Well, as subversive as this image is of heaven, it certainly is not a new image. Therefore, many people who have held and are holding to this view, are considered orthodox. Why not Bell?

In reference to judgment, Bell states that heaven confronts us with our incompleteness and that we must have that "burned" off. I would agree. Some will be left with a lot, others a little. We have to be fitted for heaven. I would call this the judgment seat of Christ.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about how Bell defines "aion". He gives us two definitions. 1) an era of time with beginning and an end. 2) an intensity experienced that transcends time. I'll admit I've not looked at the word/concept in depth. But a quick glance at BDAG of "aion" states that the word means, "long period of time without reference to a beginning nor an end." Secondly, it means "eternal." Bell wants us to believe that eternal and forever are not the same thing. In my opinion this is the closest he comes to being a universalist. If eternity is just a period of intensity (in judgment, perhaps) then one goes through it and is then relieved from it. I don't think Bell ever goes quite that far. But I would say he comes close to advocating purgatory indirectly rather than universalism directly. And for that (i.e. advocating purgatory) we can blame him. If, in fact, he does advocate an intense judgment then release.

And I tried to ignore the Rob Bell hype

2011-05-28T13:35:00.004-05:00

Rob Bell. A name associated with controversy. So, when people started the firestorm of blogging against him, i was curious what the fuss was all about.

Personally, I was turned off when I saw my first NOOMA video. It was the one where he is with his son and they get caught in a rain storm. I thought it was creative but just not for me. So, when I heard of Velvet Elvis I paid no attention to it.

But I did start to warm up to Bell when in Portugal. He had made more NOOMA videos, and I was invited to attend the launch of a Bible study among some pretty tough and rough athletes there. Through cursing and beer drinking, it was one of the liveliest Bible studies I've ever been apart of. These videos were excellent spiritual conversation starters. I still didn't like the videos themselves. But what I saw come from them surprised me. So from that point forward, I decided to let Rob Bell be. He was advancing the kingdom more than I was, and who was I to say anything against what God was doing. God was (is) using Bell.

He's had several other books come out of which none I've read. But when all the Reformers began denouncing him as a heretic for his latest views in Love Wins, I had to see what the fuss was about. If the Reformers didn't like him, he may be my new best friend. Well, I couldn't afford to buy the book. So, I thought I would just ignore all the fan fare. But just the other day it showed up at the local library.

It was an easy read although written like Bell was talking. When I finished I was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Bell never does explicitly say what he believes exactly about heaven and hell and judgment. He comes close but never actually admits to being a universalist.

So, as I blog about the book I will try to keep in mind that he's just trying to get dialogue started about the issue. I could try to comb out Bell's personal view of universalism, but I don't think that would be beneficial. Instead I just want to talk about what he actually says.

Book blogging is for me the hardest. You have to assume the person has not read the book, and even if they have you have to put your comments in some sort of context. And this does not make for brevity.

This book is about "...some of the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story...[A lot of people] have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better...This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy..." So, now we know what we are about to read. He wants an open discussion on the topic.

Since this is already a long post. I will stop and continue as I work my way through the major stuff of the next 200 or so pages.

The true elder brother Jesus

2011-05-28T12:09:00.004-05:00

Besides disagreeing over the emphasis shift from the younger brother to the older brother, I disagree with the interpretation of Jesus being the true elder brother. In chapter 5 Tim Keller put forth his argument as to why Jesus is the true elder brother.

Keller does admit that the father is the one who goes out to each brother. He goes out to the wayward son coming home, and he goes out to persuade the elder brother to come into the party. I do like this quote, "It shows that even the most religious and moral people need the initiating grace of God, that they are just as lost..."

Keller also shows us his cards in how he interprets the entire parable (as if we did not already know implicitly). Keller is interpreting the parable as a sinner finding repentance. As stated before, I believe this is a valid interpretation. But Keller adds, "This, however, only brings us to the brink of Jesus's message, not to its heart." It's what follows that I am not sure I accept.

Here is the argument. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who have accused him of eating with sinners (Lk 15:2). Thus, he told the 3 parables. Keller points out that in all three something is lost and then gotten again. But a big difference between the first two and the last one is that in the first two someone "goes out" to find what was lost. In the third one, no one goes out. This is the shock Keller attributes to the last parable. We are expecting someone to go out and no one does.

But wait. I thought the point was the elder brother. Didn't we say that the father went out to him to try to convince him to come into the party?

Next, Keller appeals to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is assumed that Cain was supposed to be his brother's keeper and therefore every other elder brother has the responsibility of looking after his wild younger brother. The elder brother is to spend his money to bring back the younger brother. Keller's lesson is that it costs someone to bring about restoration. But sadly this younger brother doesn't get a responsible older brother.

"But we do..." Keller says.

Keller is forced to put Jesus in this speculative role. Since the main thrust of the parable is the wayward elder brother, we need the means of his salvation. His means of salvation is no different than anyone else; Jesus. Otherwise, we already have the salvation part, that of the younger brother being accepted back into the family by the father.

We don't need to make up an application from the Prodigal Son parable. The elder brother is angry because of how kind the father has treated his brother. As stated above, Jesus is telling the parable in defense of why he is eating with sinners. He's eating with sinners because they need saving. Salvation from the Heavenly Father comes to sinners who accept the grace of the Father. The reaction of the elder brother is exactly the same as the Pharisee's reaction. They can't believe lost people can be saved. Jesus is not the so called true elder brother. He's the father (not the Father, although they work together for salvation's sake). Just like he's the shepherd and the woman. This makes more sense since now we have harmony among the three parables. Something dear is lost and something dear is found.

I disagree with him

2011-05-17T03:50:00.005-05:00

It seems I am always critical of the newest and latest trends of Christian writers. Just getting started with Prodigal God by Tim Keller. It's his interpretation of the what has been previously known as the Prodigal Son.

I don't want to give too much away, but unfortunately my comments here may. Nevertheless, he puts the emphasis of the story on the older brother, the one who stayed home rather than the one who went away and was welcomed back by the father. Keller is making the point that Jesus was preaching against the righteousness of the Pharisees.

For what it is worth, Keller does have some good points. I do think we often forget to compare the two brothers as they were meant to be compared. But I am not convinced that the point of the story is the older brother.

This parable can be taught in two ways. It could be either about the "lost" being "saved," or it could be about the "saved" loosing their way. The parable can't be interpreted in isolation though. Two others preceded it. The first was about the one lost sheep that the shepard goes to find leaving the 99 behind. The second was about the lost coin the woman finds and rejoices over finding it. The last parable is the one about the younger brother who leaves and comes back to the chagrin of the older brother.

In the first the one the lost sheep was still a sheep and a part of the shephard's flock. In the second the lost coin was still owned by the woman even though lost. And in the last one, the younger brother was still the father's son before and after his run away. So, in all three the wandering lost items were still a part of the unit. Therefore, I would lean more to say that these parables are about righteous people going away and God's grace accepting them back. if we were to take these parables to mean "soul salvation," then we would have to say one can "lose their salvation."

But this distinction of how to interpret this parable is not about splitting hairs. I've heard great sermons preached from this passage calling lost sinners to trust Christ as their Savior.

Again, the main problem I have is switching the emphasis from the younger brother to the older brother. I don't see it. While I agree the church-goer needs the salvation of Christ as much as the drunkard, I can't see that Jesus focused exclusively on that here. It's possible that he did elsewhere though. If we say that this parable is about the older brother, then we must also conclude the first parable is about the 99 sheep left behind, and the second parable is about the all the coins tucked away safely in the woman's purse. We would then have to conclude also that the main point of the Good Samaritan is the two men who passed by the man on the road. And every other parable spoken by Jesus would be flipped on it's head especially those that refer to the religious leaders of the day.

In conclusion, I like some of the points brought out by Keller. But I can't buy his main thesis. Jesus is not the "true" elder brother who has the responsibility to find the wayward sinful brother. This parable is still about a God who goes out of his way to bring back his backslidden children.

Japan: Is it the end?

2011-03-12T10:35:00.002-06:00

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Japanese people.

We pray for all the families who have lost loved ones and friends.

I agree with Gov. Robert Bentley

2011-01-29T13:45:00.003-06:00

In case you missed it, the newly elected governor of Alabama has set off a firestorm with comments about his exclusive belief in the Christian religion.

He later "apologized" for his remarks.

What I have not read is how the Christians are mad and upset and spitting fire. Why? Because of his apology!!!

Shouldn't the Christians have been upset for "their brother," going back on his word?

First, he was talking to a church audience. Aren't church-going people mainly "Christian?" And aren't most "Christians," exclusive in their belief that the only way to have sin forgiven is exclusively through the sacrifice of Jesus? I think he was simply trying to connect to his audience. He would not have said such things at the Intercontinental Forum on Religious Pluralism.

Second, I think he got into hot water only because he's governor. As a deacon in his Southern Baptist church, he was free to express his belief in the exclusiveness of Jesus. He screwed up by mixing a religious speech with political position. And as a Baptist, he should have known better.

Finally, no one is going to be upset with me if I say the same thing as Governor Bentley. So, I'm going to do it. I agree with him. No one can come to the Father but by [Jesus]! But since I'm not governor of the great state of Alabama, I doubt I'll have many comments, which fine by me.

Non-Christians are scared they are going to be marginalized. A legitimate concern, I guess. I would say to the non-Christians, don't worry. As you scrutinize him looking to "prove" he is favoring "Christians," go about life as usual. Calm down, stop playing the bigot card, and practice your tolerant, pluralist/relativist religion.

Christians can't really be for or against the comments. If they are for what he said, they will also be labeled as bigots. If they disagree, well for most, they are actually going back on what they believe. For Christians who are politicians, sadly your preaching days are over. Keep believing just stay out of pulpits for awhile.

Governor Bentley, if you want some advice on talking about religion as a politician take a lesson from former Interior Minister and now president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who wrote, La Republic, les religions, l'esperance. Good luck and God bless!

Christmas sermon after the fact

2010-12-27T12:30:00.004-06:00

I didn't get to give a Christmas sermon this year. But if I had it would have been on sin.

The background for the sermon would have come from a recent conversation I had with a former Hindu who is now a follower of Christ. After I found out he was a believer and that his background was Hindu, I asked him, "How do you talk about Jesus to Hindus, knowing that He is accepted among the many gods as just another god?" His answer was profound and simply. He said that Hindus are somewhat confused by Jesus. First, you build a relationship with Hindus, let the Holy Spirit convict them of their sin and THEN introduce Jesus as the Saviour. I think that approach would work with anyone, Hindu or not. So many times we are eager to "introduce" people to Jesus before the Holy Spirit has convicted them of sin.

I doubt I would have incorporated this next part, but it was my focus this Christmas. The Wise Men (trying to break myself from saying a number, since that is unknown). This year an Iranian told me the story of the Wise Men from Persia. This person was so excited and proud that Persian people were a part of our Christmas story. I, too, was glad to have a Persian know about Persian influence on the birth of Jesus. Have a Muslim tell you (accurately even) the story of the birth of the son of Mary and see if it won't bless you.

Lastly, the sermon I did hear for Christmas focused on Simeon. It was a great illustration for me because I was holding Ida Claire as the pastor spoke of Simeon holding little Jesus. I could just imagine how this man felt. He had been promised to see the coming Messiah. And when he went to the temple, he saw the baby and took him up in his arms.

Salvation has come. That's what makes Christmas special. Sin has put us in a need to be rescued. Thankfully, God with us in the flesh has made that rescue possible.

What the Green got wrong

2010-11-09T13:04:00.002-06:00

Just watched a great Tv show on the green movement and some of the mistakes it made along the way.

Things like Chernobyl stats overblown. Global cooling never happened. Nuclear power reduces coal power uses. Genetically modified food not as bad as predicted.

Learned a lot. I saw that being humble gets you a voice. Arrogance builds walls. Lesson from the Greens: Be honest about mistakes and humbly revise your position every now and again.

I keep hearing themes such as slaves, servants, and humbleness. Maybe God wants me to work on these attributes. =)

Devotional Time

2010-10-27T15:57:00.004-05:00

It's been 6 years since my last visit to the Holy Land. I just got back on Monday, and I'm still very excited about having gone. I used to have this pastor who would mention that sometimes he found himself daydreaming about the Holy Land. I never did quite understand that, but I think I do now.

This trip was more relaxed and laid back. We were with friends so no huge tour groups, and Lady and little Ida Claire accompanied me. So, even though I "saw" more the first time. I think I may have enjoyed this one better. But I also think having gone the first time made this trip better. The two are certainly complementary.

I hope to have some time to post my thoughts before they leave me. For now I want to give my top ten places I liked the most on this visit.

10. Temple Mount - The Davidson Center was not open last time. So, I got the raw form then. However, I did like seeing the southern part of the Temple Mount and meeting the elderly lady from Czechoslovakia who told us briefly about her time in 1948 when she was brought to Israel as a child. This time I actually got to pray at the Western Wall (Wailing Wall). I could have skipped the Temple Institute, but it was good for Lady R to see. One day maybe we can go on the tour under the Temple Mount.

9. Masada - Nothing Biblical happened here, but it is an incredible story and a magnanimous building project.

8. Tower of David - Great views of the city. Nice place to explore around.

7. Dead Sea - It was just fun floating in the Salt Sea.

6. Jerusalem (the Old City) - It is always a blessing to be in the Old City and to think of all the things that occurred there. There was one point, on Friday, the Muslims were off to mosque while Christians were coming down the Via Dolorosa all being monitored by Israeli soldiers. At that point in time and place all three monotheistic religions met. But they all sort of ignored each other. It portrayed segregation at its best (or worst, depending on your vantage point).

5. Garden Tomb - I have doubts as to whether this is the actual place of Jesus' death and burial, but regardless I really love the atmosphere. It seems like a great place to reflect on this crucial event in our spiritual heritage.

4. Mount of Beatitudes - Very devotional for me. We are studying the Beatitudes at church so I got a better picture of what Jesus was teaching.

3. Garden of Gethsemane - Stopping and taking the time to read the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane at the Garden of Gethsemane was amazing. It really brought the story to life with the sleepy followers, ears being cut off, and Jesus' arrest.

2. Caeserea (by the Sea) - This place is so huge and absolutely beautiful. If I were king, I would have made it a place for me too. Again, really loved reading the story of Paul's imprisonment and to see where Herod was struck with worms.

1. Capernaum - Both times I love hearing the stories associated with the town and especially the synagogue. Realized the man lowered down the roof happened here, maybe at Peter's house. Cool thought.

Part 2: Why SH is my second favorite atheist/agnostic

2010-09-15T14:47:00.004-05:00

I decided to split these two posts because I felt they may be too long as one post. Also, if you read the first and had no desire to continue, then you could skip this one. =) How nice!

As a way of transition I thought I'd give a brief summary of the previous post. Stephen Hawking, the eminent British physicist, has come out with a new book stating that physics does not need a God to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I, on the other hand, found the newspaper article from The Times written by Hannah Devlin, and excerpts from the accompanying free magazine, Eureka, to be an exhilarating testimony to God as Creator.

When I saw how the magazine had headlined the Hawking book (i.e. "The End of the Universe by Stephen Hawking."), I knew this was going to have something to do with multiverse vs. universe. Now from the beginning I do not claim to understand even most of this stuff. Maybe that discredits my opinion. And maybe that accounts for my perceived "naive" continued faith in God as Creator. If so, I hope to always remain a simpleton.

The idea that there are possible innumerable universes out there is a profound and awesome idea. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it shows me how incredible the creative power of my God is. I mean, he created this universe and then some?!!! WOW. We do not even know all there is to know about this universe, much less what is going on way out there somewhere in space. How then can we know the mind of God? We can't even know what we know exists in our own universe, let alone know things outside our reality. If there is anything I like about postmodern philosophy, it's this. The idea of multiverse instead of a universe. At first I thought this was where Hawking was going with his support of the M-theory. I thought he was going to be the poster child of postmodern science. However, I can't decide if he is or not.

"Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology,... [SH] renders redundant the role of a creator for the Universe." ("Hawking"...Devlin, here on referred to as HD) So how does he do it?

Hawking postulates that "the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics." (HD). Gravity can cause spontaneous creation. Therefore, if gravity can cause spontaneous creation, then our universe could be the product of that event. This would also explain the rise of numerous other universes out there. "...M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing...Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation...Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist."(Eureka excerpt of Grand Design, afterward referred to as EGD)

Isn't that incredible!! There are possibly tons of things God has created that we have yet to even discover. Of course, SH did not say this, I did. This proves what I have long thought about God as Creator. He was creating worlds before ours and possible has been creating worlds after ours. He IS Creator, not he WAS Creator. God is creative, and it's his nature to create. He has not stopped on day 7. He may have begun something else on day 8. How marvelous!!

SH goes on to say, "Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not 'arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.' Instead, he maintained, the order in the Universe was 'created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition.'" All Newton was doing was showing the grandeur of God as Creator. For those faith filled scientists, like Newton, God will be behind everything explainable and non-explainable. They will see breakthroughs in understanding the natural and physical world as gifts of enlightenment from God to mankind. Maybe even grace. But God is not demoted when he allows the scientist to understand the world He created. In fact as we find out more about the world, universe, multiverse that we are a small part of, God becomes even more glorious.

But if you are predisposed to non-belief, as Hawking now is, God gets smaller at every discovery until He disappears or as Nietzsche put it "dies." He gets smaller because he is no longer needed. What was a mystery is now formulated. By concluding that spontaneous creation due to the laws of gravity is the reason we are here, the one with no faith convinces himself/herself that they have less of a need to continue to look for something (as a God) as the first cause of the world. They have something, in their minds, more real than a spiritual being. This being acts almost like an excuse for mankind's ignorance. (and BTW I'm not necessarily arguing for the First Cause Theory either). So, as humans begin to understand more and more they become more and more enlightened and think they can afford to "kill off" God. They believe they are emerging ever so slowly from the dark into the light. In other words, it's just the next step in proper evolutionary development of the human.

But it isn't just the non-believers. We all put ourselves on the throne as King instead of submitting to God as King.

So, why does Hawking not see spontaneous creationism as simply a means used by God to eventually create us here, as the defenders of the Intelligent Design Theory would conclude as they have in the theistic evolution debate? Hawking says that the discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the one in our Milky Way, "...makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions--the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass--far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." (EGD) First, I was unaware that God creates for our pleasure. I figured he created because he's king and wants to. Do not we exist because of his pleasure not ours? No kid ever born was asked if they wanted to exist. They exist because God wanted them to. Secondly, I'm too dull to understand how discovering other planets orbiting around other stars diminishes the idea of God as Creator. To me it only enhances it.

One great thing Hawking does for me is give credence to the idea that we are in fact situated at the perfect distance from the Sun to exist and that if nature were off by just a smidge we'd all cease to exist. "But in the case of the events resulting in the evolution of the Universe, such developments were governed by the balance of the fundamental forces of nature, and it is those whose interplay had to be just right in order for us to exist."(EDG emphasis mine)

Hawking continues, "Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the Universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago right up to the present...[This] could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer...God." (EDG)

Or I guess it could lead some us further away from God. But how? Frank Close, who does not believe Hawking's endorsement of the M-theory adds one thing pro or con to the God debate, does think that "it may raise questions about God's efficiency...[in that] God's efficiency may be called into question: if the sole aim was to create you, me, Stephen Hawking, would not one solar system have been enough?" And Hawking sees that, "if God's intention was to create mankind, then these many untouchable worlds would surely be redundant." (HD)

Again, I won't even pretend to understand this argument. But in my attempt to understand, they both seem to say that the reality of other planets orbiting other stars suggests that God wasted "space and time" (for I can't think of what else to call it). If he was so good at creating, then why are there other systems? He could have "gotten it right" with Earth. Well, I would say that maybe he got it right with Earth and got it right with every multiverse out there! I mean He is eternal and spiritual so he has a lot of time and space on his hands. Do we think God has so much to worry about here on Earth, and that he's too small to keep creating and deal with stuff on other planes too?

What would happen if one went outside and counted the stars of sky or even tried the same feat with the most powerful instrument we have? Well, God counts the number of the stars; he names all of them. (NET Psalm 147:4) To say that the discovery of planets orbiting suns somehow makes the idea of God as Creator "redundant," or "inefficient," does not seem to be a real argument. In fact, I would hope we WOULD find more stars (and what difference does it make if planets are floating around them). There is compatibility with believing in a Creator God and the science of physics, biology, and astronomy.

Since Hawking does not simply attribute the laws of physics and all that may result from their "interplay," to God, I will. His research and work makes him my second favorite atheist (agnostic) out there. And I am so thankful to God for letting Hawking discover our multiverse.

Do you expect anything less from an agnostic?

2010-09-15T13:50:00.003-05:00

It has taken awhile for me to get to this.

And it all started with a coupon at Tescos. Lady R gets these coupons in the mail on various things at the store. She had gotten one that gives you a certain number of points on the Tesco card if you buy a magazine or newspaper. So, I was given the choice. It was September 2, 2010.

I decided on a newspaper that came with a free magazine. I figured I was getting the most for my money. The Times front cover article with the headline, "Hawking: God did not create Universe," was about the new book by the renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking. The article summarized his theories, his agreement with the M-theory, and his conclusion that it is unnecessary for "God," to be Creator.

Was this it? Had science actually proven the non-existence of God? I mean this is Stephen Hawking, who previously had suggested that religion and science were compatible in the sense of God as Creator ("Hawking: God did not create Universe" by Hannah Devlin). And now he has changed his mind and is convinced that "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing." (Hawking, Grand Design, as quoted in Eureka magazine)

I read the newspaper article and the magazine excerpts from the book. When I got through, I actually felt I had just read about God. Have you ever read Phillip Yancey's Finding God in Unexpected Places? For me it was just that. And what was really good and serendipitous was that morning before I started in on the Hawking reading I had read Psalm 95 and Isaiah 40. So for me, no, SH had not discredited my belief in God. He enhanced it.

(As a parenthesis as I was reading my mind kept going back to the two above mentioned passages. "In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care." Awe inspiring. And then, "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?" From the deepest depths to the highest peaks, it all is in his anthropomorphic hands. He made it all!! And consulted no one and was taught by no one. He is the Creator of all that is or ever will be. This is my God. Let us worship him and him alone!)

However, if you are already predisposed to non-belief, Hawking brings an electron microscopic peace (oops piece) to you. You can bank on his intelligence to satisfy your soul and mind that there is no God and no consequence for such "belief." Nothing I can say from this point forward will convince you otherwise. And frankly, if it is left to me to convince you, you will never be convinced. But even though I'll never be as intelligent as SH, I know that God will say something to you one day, if he has not already, and if you have ears to hear, you will hear his voice. What harm would it do to listen?

I didn't burn my Qu'ran

2010-09-12T16:19:00.004-05:00

I know some pastor in Florida was asking people to burn a Qu'ran on September 11. I decided not to, and I think he decided not to as well. Besides, what good would it have done?

Funny, I knew about this way before it made international headlines. (The same thing is true with the HUGE revelation from Stephen Hawking that God is not necessary for the Big Bang to have occurred, another blog post later.) I think I had decided then no to participate. I just could not be bothered.

And even though the press portrayed this guy as some lunatic; and maybe he was (is), I have no idea what the guy believes or teaches at his church; I think he has touched on something in reference to Islamic sentiment. Putting Christianity aside, i.e. praying for our enemies rather than burning their holy books, and focusing on the political side of this, this pastor has acted on a feeling many Americans have. Why is the American government doing so little to stop radical Islam's spread of hatred?

Sure all Muslims are not terrorist, just as all Christians are not Crusaders. But where is the sensitivity of Islam when it comes to the building of the cultural center blocks from the 9/11 memorial? The media presented that controversy as, "Why are people so upset that the Muslims want a place of worship blocks down the road from the events of 9/11? Those insensitive venge mongers!!" But when someone who claims to be a Christian does something just as insensitive, the media presents him as a nut case. I'm just asking for fair treatment to both Muslims and Christians.

In case you are wondering, I don't think book burnings are worth the time and effort to expend. But if any American on American soil wants to burn any book, he should be given the right to do so. If some Muslim imman wants to burn Bibles, let him go at it. But I doubt you will ever hear a word about it. And if you do, it will be portrayed as a positive thing, like oh look at the peaceful Muslims expressing their freedom of speech right to burn the HOLY BIBLE.

And on the cultural center. They should have the right to build a mosque wherever they want. Should they build it blocks from where the Twin Towers stood? It should be their choice, but I don't think it is very sensitive to do so.

The American government has been and continues to whittle away basic constitutional rights of its citizens. Why was Obama involved at all in the Muslim center and in this pastor's book burning? Get your nose out of citizens' business! Stop the war and create jobs or something.

When is Jesus getting back here?

2010-08-19T16:06:00.003-05:00

You know sometimes you just want to ask the question, "When is all this madness in the world going to end?" You come up against the falleness of our human kind in so many situations and in so many people. It just makes you wonder when enough will be enough.

You see crookedness in the government, both on a local level and national level and even multinational level. You meet people in your church who would rather follow man made rules than actually obeying God. You notice the faults in others so quickly yet they themselves seem oblivious or apathetic.

This is not too mention the multifaceted faults in our own self. Pride, greed, covetousness, envy, hatred, unkindness, blasphemy, self-seeking, complaining, and all out self absorption. Getting out all the logs in our own eyes could help us see better, for sure. But who wants to do that? And if we do decide to who wants to go first?

All this rebellion individually and cooperatively prompts me to ask, "When is Jesus getting back here?" Maranatha!!

Who do you think you are?

2010-07-22T15:15:00.004-05:00

The BBC has a program that investigates famous people's heritage. I've only seen the show once, but it seems that there are some fascinating twists and turns in these people's backgrounds.

I've been doing some genealogy work too, just for fun. I signed up for the free 14-day trial of Ancestry.com so I could have access to what is normal reserved for subscribers. Two weeks is not near long enough, but it gave me a basic overview of my family's heritage.

I've learned that great grandma Pecheur may have been a full blooded Chickasaw Native American. I've learned the names of other great (etc.) grandparents. I've learned some of the movements of the forefathers, and for some even when and where they came to, what would be, the United States.

But a couple of things have struck me. The oral story is often complimentary to the written story and at the same time contradictory to the written story. People's memory of past events often change and morph. Here are some examples.

A person may have been asked on a certain census where their father was born. They may have answered in Virginia. Then, ten years later, when asked the same question, they may have said in South Carolina. And possible ten years later, the father has been reported to have been born in Georgia. Now, the person is not lying. But I imagine as people get older they forget. The father may have actually been born in Virginia, but moved to South Carolina before the descendant was born. He grew up in South Carolina and inadvertently would state his father was born in South Carolina. Or, it could be that he was told his father was born in Virginia, but ten years he had found it, it was his father's father that was born there and in fact his father had been born in South Carolina.

The same is true with birth dates and death dates. These can be off my as much as five years (maybe even more). And it's hard to find out what the true day of birth or death or marriage.

This is not to mention the family stories that can be integrated or separated or whatever. People are not lying. They are stating the truth as they know it and as it has been passed down to them. And to me, it is not that disturbing to find out a birth date is off from one census report to another. Even myself, when verbalizing what I've learned will often mix a story from the paternal side with the maternal side or something similar.

With technology and sometimes the expertise of the experts, we can find out a good deal about our ancestors. We can find out a story, one certain angle, of a relative. This is what the BBC show is trying to do; tell a story from researching historical documents. Sometimes the oral story needs altering to make it more precise after reviewing the research.

This all got me thinking about the oral vs written transmission of Scripture. I would imagine most of the Bible was simply written oral tradition. And somehow writing down oral history solidifies it, makes it true. Then, somebody in some discipline comes along and sees a problem with their research and what is written. Next, the conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, made-up of a bunch of fanciful and moral stories and thereby holds no authority or relevance for today. Check. On to the next undermine of truth structures.

Hold on. This type of conclusion and how one gets to this conclusion may have more problems than at first appears. As I said when I was doing genealogical work, I had a certain tolerance for differences in the oral story and the" documented" story. Birth dates were off, death dates were off. There is a bit of imprecision. And it really does not bother me. I don't conclude from imprecision that my forefather was possibly a historical reality, but I'm not really sure because I don't have a month/date/year for his/her birth. And even the documented (the "written version") version may not be as reliable as I like to think.

So, why should I worry and fret when someone thinks they have displaced the entire Bible because they believe their evidence proves one thing and the Bible may state another? There is a certain tolerance for imprecision when it comes to transmitting history down through the ages. It doesn't indicate fraud or deception or even untruth. It just means we need to look deeper at the story, and also it means we may just have to deal with not knowing every precise detail about the event. We know one angle or two of the event. But until we gain all knowledge, we don't know everything. And that's OK by me.

Naked God

2010-07-11T13:35:00.009-05:00

I did something even I can't believe I did.

I gave a book away.

I came across this book, Naked God by Martin Ayers, from a friend. He had received a leaflet about it being distributed for free in their area by a local church plant within the next few weeks. As he waited to receive his copy, I decided to visit the church and get my own copy. I didn't read it right off. I figured if it was free, it probably was not going to be that great. haha My friend got his copy in the mail and had it read before I even started. He loved it and had good things to say about it and was hoping his son would pick up the book and read it too.

Fast forward a little. Since we had visited the church on and off we knew the author attended there. But we had never met him. Then, he spoke one Sunday on the parable of the wedding feast. It was one of the best sermons I had ever heard on heaven. (I think it would be worth it to listen to the mp3 file. Scroll down to the sermon by Martin Ayers). That Sunday I met a church member who asked me if I had read his book, since we had been talking about how much we enjoyed the sermon. She said he talked about the parable in the book and thought it was so good that she was hoping her daughter would read the book. She then introduced me to him.

Then, Lady R read the book and recommended it to me. So, with three people who had read the book, and all had spoken highly of it, I thought I'd pick it up.

All the hype was legit. I read it and felt refreshed and was reminded of the general mentality of atheistic or naturalistic thinking in this country. A lot of food for thought to help those who are still undecided about the existence of God. A breathe of fresh air for the believer who has been affected by the smog of the culture of relativism and pluralism and postmodernism.

With a title like Naked God I was expecting a reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel scene of God's backside on the cover. But I guess a burning match head will be OK. =) Especially since the book is not about God being naked but "...strip[ping] away any false ideas we've developed...to reveal the truth." Ayers asks a basic question, "Is there a God?" Nothing new there, but he follows up with, "If there is NOT a God then what is the consequence, if there is a God what is the consequence, and what are you going to do about it?"

Ayers tackles head on the philosophy of naturalism, which he defines as existence without God. The consequence is a life without much purpose and machine like. For me though it brought me back to 11th grade and my own experience with naturalism in Ms. Kelly's class. We talked about the philosophy behind Jack London's works and how it was realism, an American form of European naturalism (see also here to confirm my teacher's teaching). I tried to read Emile Zola's work but it was too philosophical and above my intelligence. Nonetheless, I considered myself a naturalist who believed in God. Little did I know I was actually a Calvinist, another French deterministic philosophy with similar consequences as naturalism save only with a hope of and in God. I believed that every minutiae was planned and ordered by God. If someone fell down the steps, they were ordained to or at best there was nothing they could have ever done to have prevented it. I didn't really do much with this information. In other words I didn't develop any theology from this. I just had it in the back of my head. But my freshman year in college I saw the huge error of being a "naturalist." It really did mean denying the existence of God and accepting that all that exists is the natural world. And since I didn't know about Calvinism, I rejected naturalism and through C.S. Lewis' Miracles, I re-considered myself a super-naturalist.

I digress a bit. Ayers states it like this "...every decision we will ever make has been caused...We can't influence the world by our choices, because we're just part of the world ourselves. The naked truth is that we're not free in the way we think we are." (pg 26-7) This is the outcome of a naturalistic viewpoint.

The next section, Ayers deals with Jesus and relativism. This was encouraging to me. In a day when many have an all-roads-lead-to-Rome attitude, it is a balm to hear the exclusiveness of Jesus still being talked about. In this section Ayers also references Lewis' Miracles, but in a different way than I had. Ayers uses a quote from Lewis to show how people in Jesus' day were no more gullible to the supernatural miracles than we are in the "modern" world. (see pg 102)

And it's in chapter 14 where Ayers talks about the parable of the wedding feast. But I think the sermon is better.

When I finished the book, I was in the central part of the city on the underground transportation system. I felt like it was a book worth passing on. So, I laid the book in the seat next beside me. I prayed that it wouldn't simply be put in the trash but that someone who needed to read it would pick it up and read it. It was hard for me to give away a book. I really wanted to bring it home and put it on my bookshelf. But I kept thinking, "Freely you have received freely give."

Also, Ayers has given me permission to include a link to the first part of the book. Take a look and let me know what you think.

I'll keep this in mind

2010-06-29T14:46:00.004-05:00

I saw these ads. I must say I'm skeptical. I'll keep this information in mind as I continue looking at Islam.
My favorite was Muhammad the defender of women's right. Really? Women seem to be oppressed in Islam to me. But I am willing to be wrong and keep an open mind as the investigation continues.

The building doesn't make the Church

2010-06-06T14:09:00.001-05:00

"Qu'une église soit transformée en une salle communale, une salle de concert, où est le problème?...Mais ce n'est pas le bâtiment qui fait la présence spirituelle." p151

Sarkozy is right. It doesn't matter if the church building is also a concert hall or a community center as well as a church. What difference does it make? "It's not the building that makes the spiritual presence."

I figure many of the mega churches of today will be community centers and multi purpose buildings of tomorrow. Building a single purpose church building today is a poor means of spending money. When churches begin to grow, starting a building program could be the worst thing for the health of the congregation. The focus becomes raising money for the building. Everything centers around the building. The building. The building. The building.

Then, you have churches with decline in attendees. You have a big building with few people to maintain the upkeep of THE BUILDING. I'm not against buildings as some are today. I'm against church revolving around a building.

"Islam is a French religion"

2010-06-05T13:41:00.001-05:00

"...le creuset républicain n'est pas que chrétien ou juif. L'islam est une religion française,..."p131.

Finally finished up Sarkozy's book on religion and the republic. Here are some thoughts I found as I finished up.

This statement caught my attention. And I think it may be why he said it. Islam is a French religion. What Islam could not do at Poitiers, it now does freely throughout the Republic. It has a presence.

What are the implications of Islam being a French religion? I think it's an acknowledgment of the decline of Christianity through apathy and the spiritual void left by the such rejection. As I understand it, Islam is not growing mainly through converts. It's growing mainly through immigration. The French are still non religious. They just have another faith in their "melting pot."

But if Islam can adapt itself to France, crossing over from a Middle Eastern religion to a European religion, it can conquer the world.

So, why not interact with Muslims as true followers of Christ as they move in next door? What better way to bring the Gospel to the Muslim world than by interacting with them as they settle in our communities in Europe and North and South America.

French Game Show

2010-06-01T12:01:00.001-05:00

When we got back from France I had an email in my inbox inviting me to a French speaking game show. It is a pilot program in both the UK and France.

So, I decided that there was no better way to spend a bank holiday than being an audience participant of Le Money Drop. It was advertised as a "secured" location. And I did get lost trying to find it, but made it in line before the doors were opened. It was mainly because they were about an hour or so behind schedule in opening the doors.

Well, while in line I met some English speakers and we commiserated together about the long wait. But finally we were allowed on to the set of the show. No wonder there was so much security. Five hundred euros (€500.000) were sitting below us where the contestants were.

I was happy that I knew the presenter, Laurence. Lady R and I know her from her days at the Le Mur. I was also happy that my British friends from the line introduced me to her new French speaking friends beside her. It was a nice time to practice French in a relaxed environment.

No spoliers though because the show has not aired at the time of this posting.

The British lady and our new French speaking friends rode the Tube back into our perspective abodes. It was interesting. One girl said she wished that English speakers were more open to talking to them so they could learn better English. I mean her English was already superb, but I know what she was feeling. You want to practice the language among friends who will help you but not condemn you at every grammar point.

So, I gave her my business card and told her to contact me and Lady R if she ever wanted to practice. Who knows? One day there may be an email in my inbox inviting me to get together with some French speakers.

Bonne chance à tous.

Francophile or francomisia

2010-05-31T11:13:00.000-05:00

It was back to France for a little while. And as soon as we landed things felt "French," again. Something familiar yet unnerving. In all honesty there was little "foreign," feeling at all. I wouldn't say it felt like home. I will only say it felt very familiar.

But it became obvious quickly that the franco-american differences still fly around my psyche like a pesky gnat on a summer's day. Things like not being able to get a real hamburger cooked past raw. Well, "raw," may be an exaggeration, but bien cuit truly does not mean "well-done." Things like having dogs come into public places and be treated, maybe even, better than the humans. Small things. Culturally different things. All the while maintaining a sense of know-how but not wanting to "how." (NOTE: Before the English police comment, I know I have fragment phrases scattered here and there)

In between taking care of some business matters, we decided to see some old friends. It surprised us at the number of people who were on the list to visit. That is, how few people were on the list. It was a reminder just how hard it is to break into a community and be an integral part of one. We actually know people in 4 of the 5 departments of the region. And even in the small village where we lived, we were familiar with a handful of inhabitants. But we only had strong enough connections with two or three households to warrant a visit. Most of our contacts were in the context of a specific activity (like learning a minority language or cleaning a river here and there). The relationships never went to the next level. Now in our defense, several people had moved or were away on vacation and we were only in town for a couple of days. But whatever the reasons, it seems to take (for us and our experince in France) an incredibly long time to establish friendships that go beyond the surface; to have shared experiences beyond the "activity," that forms these bonds.

Some people, in light of the above statements, will want to quickly judge our decision to move as simply, "not giving it enough time." And no matter what you say or don't say, these same people will never understand unless they too have lived in France. Which brings me to the point of this post. There are francophiles and francomisians. I doubt this later word is even a word at all, but I needed some parallelism, and so I made it up. In other words, there are 4 categories of people. Those who 1) live(d) in France and love France 2) live(d) in France and hate France 3) never lived in France and love France and 4) never lived in France and hate France. Now people in categories 1 and 2 can, and often do, flip flop in and out of the two. Sometimes, they are even in camp 1 and 2 at the same time. That's just how France is. This dynamic is rare among those in 3 and 4. They, for whatever reasons, love or hate France. point final. Never do they go from one to the other or love/hate France at the same time.

It's these people that when we talk about France that I find myself almost always defending the opposite viewpoint of theirs of France. It's quite humorous actually. Their gripes and complaints against the French may be so true, but I feel like I have an inside view and a need to defend the offensive act. Then, on the other hand, there are those who have this romantic view of France and describe it as if it were heaven or paradise. Then, I just feel the need to remind them of how filthy Paris is and how public restrooms are just that, public in the sense for all to see (because normally if you are a guy and have to go in public you'll need only to find a wall and volià, you have your toilet).

It's like having special knowledge. And the only foreigners who can really appreciate your inside viewpoint are others who have themselves lived and experienced the true French experience!

Bon appetite!!

The Rules

2010-05-16T22:05:00.001-05:00

Spurgeon's Church

2010-05-16T21:24:00.009-05:00

After a horrible Friday night and Saturday morning worrying about our friends, upon their return on Saturday afternoon, we decided to stick with the schedule. We would go to Metropolitan Tabernacle, the church where the late Charles H. Spurgeon pastored.

What an opportunity!! I have read multitudes of Spurgeon's works and even in my early preaching days tried to use some of his illustrations. He was truly a great preacher of his day and God used him to reach London and still uses his works to reach the nations today. In fact, I was surprised to learn that his funeral went on for days and hundreds of thousands came by MT to pay their respects. What an influence!!

As we walked up the steps to the church I couldn't help but notice two signs. One read Metropolitan Taberncale Baptist Church (Spurgeon's). The other one stated that the 11am service was a Teaching Ministry and a 6:30 PM was an Evangelistic service. Funny. I thought the Church was God's not Spurgeon's. And why was there an Evangelistic service in the evening for visitors and a Teaching service for the non-visitors? Traditionally thinking is completely opposite. You try to preach to the heathen on Sunday mornings not Sunday nights. Sunday nights are reserved for teaching those who actually put forth an effort to return to church at night.

I didn't let those little signs detour me though. I was looking forward to a good church service and some good preaching. Somehow, I felt like the pastor would be Spurgeon himself reincarnated up there telling us how to live the Christian life. Exciting.

As we entered the church I knew I was in trouble though. Most of the men were in suits and ties. Now I'm all for someone dressing in a suit if they want. But usually when you see that many men dressed in suits you better hold on. My experience has shown me that the clothes people wear to church do indicate the level of formality one will find in the service.

An usher greeted us and saw we had three young kids under three among us two couples and stated forthright that they would HAVE to go to a separate room. He led us along a corridor beside the main sanctuary to a little room with a video monitor and nice neat chairs all lined up in rows. The audience would hear the songs but only when the sermon was given would they have video relay of the service.

My buddy and I found our way back to the sanctuary. We checked out the books for sell. You would think it would have be Spurgeon's works. And there were a few titles of his but most we from others. The latest was The Dark Side of Christian Counselling. And then, my favorite, a booklet entitled, "Are we Fundamentalists?" I started putting two and two together. I knew this was an Independent Baptist Church. I also was pretty certain of the answer to the question the booklet asked. What I had come to was a hard core true to type, Independent Baptist service. The kind you try to avoid.

We started to take our seats and was handed a KJV Bible and a Psalter. Other people began to file in, and I read the introduction to the Psalter. What the link above failed to reprint on the website but is clearly in the book itself was that the songs in the Psalter did not contain any non- trinitarian, sacramentist, modernistic, nor animistic hymns. I have an idea what a non-trinitarian hymn might be and maybe what a sacrementist hymn might be (anything that sounds Catholic), but what is a modern hymn or even better yet an animistic hymn? Weren't the hymns of Isaac Watts "modern" at some point in history?

The one man show begins. The pastor approaches the podium and prays for...how long? I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said at least 10 minutes. My immediate thought was Jesus and his condemnation of lengthy public prayers. Then, I was ashamed of myself for "judging". I told myself to focus on getting the log from my eye before getting the sliver out of my brother's eye. We sang from the Psalter and the music didn't seem to match well the words. All we had were the words anyway. But I figured this is how they sang in the 1600's and 1700's in London. Go with the flow. Then came the sermon...

You can watch it or hear it, if you like. You'll have to scroll down to the sermon entitled "The New Nationality." But beware it goes on for a solid 45 minutes, or at least it felt it did. And in all fairness some points were not so bad. But I thought I was going to have to burst out loud with laughter when he actually starting pointing out "true" doctrine in the infamous TULIP. He actually brought that up. Honestly, I thought my Reformed/Calvinist friends were past that silly thing. Did he actually say that Jesus only suffered for the saved ones? If you decide to listen to it, let me know what he actually said. I myself can't be bothered to find out.

I didn't take Communion, not that I really wanted to or would have, because you had to see a deacon for a Communion Card to be allowed entrance. Now I believe in closed communion, but I don't think we need to be printing Communion Cards. If you want to practice closed communion and not have any non-Christians there, have a separate service. Guaranteed few non-believers will show up.

My buddy and I returned to retrieve our wives and children. When I heard their experience of the service I lost it. I stated this was in fact a legalistic, Pharisee like, separatist, fundamental, Independent group. I wonder if Jesus would have a few words with them if he'd been there.

The room was for those children and their parents who were not able to worship. They had been given a full page front and back of rules to follow while in the holding cell. Things like no food. Children must be quiet. Children must be in the lap at all times. No moving the sacred chairs. Blah blah blah blah blah. All this sanctimonious nonsense about teaching children how to worship. And what did Jesus say about the little children? If you want your child to learn to worship properly, why not bring him/her to where the action is? And if you do think you need to provide a separate room, why does it have to be like you think the "real" worship service is? If it is a separate room, let the children be. Why not have a room where your kid can cry or scream if s/he needs to but at the same time that allows the parents to not be so self conscious of their loud kid? We've put our kid in nursery before. But she was not expected to sit still with hands folded and be quiet! And why were the parents/children/inmates only aloud to see the pastor perform on stage? That whole one man routine tells me that Bible idolatry and/or personality worship is very close by at this church.

Frankly, if I can help it, I will not be back at Spurgeon's shrine Church again. I hope to let Jesus judge them for their legalism. And it is obvious He will judge me for my lack of spirituality. Because even though I am of the opinion I was sitting in a modern day Christian Pharisee synagogue (Tabernacle as they call it), the place was packed out with hundreds of people in attendance. I simply can not get my head around that. And I have to admit, or so it seems, they must be doing something right, if I do not approve or feel welcome and at home there.

It did my soul good afterward to visit the Bunhill Cemetery, right across from the John Wesley House. What a breathe of fresh air!

When to worry

2010-05-16T15:20:00.006-05:00

Oxford trip: The rest of the story.

We left our friends in Oxford and headed back. They were going to visit Stonehenge and Bath and return around 11pm.

At 1am they were not back nor had we heard from them. Even though it was only 2 hours off schedule I was still getting a little concerned. They had two young children, and it didn't seem like something they would do; stay out so late with children. My thoughts began to think the worse at 2am and still no word from them. Were they OK? Why hadn't they called or shown up? Had they been in a wreck? I mean driving in the UK is different. My friend had been a little stressed, and rightfully so, by having to enter the round-abouts from the left rather than right and simply by the difference in Continental driving and UK driving.

And still why had we not heard from them? Did their cell phone die? Most certainly. I had gotten their voice mail when I had tried to call it. But then why had they not simply shown up? Had they run out of gas along the route? Had they forgotten to yield in the round-about and been hit by another driver and were in the hospital? Or worse, had they flipped their car on the road or into a ditch? Were they OK?

I began to pray for their safety and their well-being. But admittedly I could hardly pray. I simply told God to accept my worry as a prayer for their safety. Lady R said we should get some rest and deal with the issue in the morning. My thought was that if they were in danger we needed to get some help to them sooner rather than later. But I laid down and closed my eyes and somehow did drift off to sleep. Until...

...at 4:30am I woke up from a nightmare very upset and fearing the absolute worse. The scene was just outside the apartment and two tall people came around a corner. I recognized them in the dream (but they were obviously a creation of mind because the two were not real people) as my friends spokespeople. And somehow I knew they had just returned from the hospital. I just kept saying, "oh no, oh no." The guy asked me if my roll cage had been installed in my car. And I couldn't answer with a "yes," or "no," I could only say, "oh no, oh no," The man responded with a warm smile and said it was not what I was thinking. For what I was thinking was that my friends were in the hospital and had flipped their car. They were injured but at least not dead.

When I woke up, I got up out of bed, tried to calm down, and thought that we had to call someone. I woke up Lady R. and told her we should call a friend who would know what to do. She asked if I was sure I really wanted to do this and wake him up. I said I was very sure. As you can imagine at 4:30 am, he was not so coherent, but he heard our story and suggested we wait til 8:30am before we started calling hospitals and the police. He said there were a couple of logical reasons why we had not heard from our visitors. And if they were going to those places, it would be impossible for us to get out on the highway and start looking ourselves. He suggested some rest.

On the dot at 8:30am he called and asked if we had heard anything. Nothing. He came over as we put together a plan of action. We would wait until the afternoon then we would start calling hospitals and the police. My friend's logical reason was that their cell phone had died. They had gotten to far from "home base," and had simply found a hotel for the night and would make their way back sometime in the morning.

As we were passing the time, my friend's wife called and said she had just heard from our visitors. Everyone was fine!! Praise God.

What had happened? Indeed, our friends did leave Oxford a little later than they had expected. They went to Stonehenge, Bath, and even to Straford upon Avon, where they found a lovely hotel for the night. Their cell phone had almost died so they had turned it off. They had taken on too much to get back to our place by 11pm. But why hadn't they simply called? They had. They had the wrong phone number, and since it was so late they didn't want to bother calling our local friends and waited til 9am to call them to call us. They had emailed at 11:30pm, 30 minutes after we had last checked our email and turned in for the night.

When they showed up later that day, we hugged and shared stories. It was too much of a dramatic experience not to have learned some lessons.

1) Communicate clearly when separating from you party. Make sure everyone knows the contingency plan if things change or if someone gets into trouble.
2) You can't trust nightmares. Your mind can create stuff at night when your sleeping that is simply not connected to reality. It is just you living out your own fears in your heads.
3) Even though you can't trust your dreams, figure out the elements of the dream and where they come from. Do this when you have calmed down from the anxiety produced by the nightmares. And don't make rash decisions based on nightmares. Get other people involved to help you think clearly if you feel you need to act on a dream.
4) I do not have the spiritual gift of prophecy, and one can't always trust your intuition. This was already a known, but now I have a powerful reminder.
5) I should work on worry and trusting God more in situations in life. Tough stuff.

Oxford trip

2010-05-14T14:25:00.002-05:00

While some friends are with us, we decided to check out Oxford. Yes, the real Oxford where the University is.

It's a nice place, and I want to go back when I can spend more time. Unfortunately, it is not very tourist friendly nor kid friendly. But what else should one expect from a university town?

We did the Park and Ride at Thornhill and I would suggest that too. It's free to park and £4 for two adults for a round trip. But before you go do a little bit of planning if you have small children. The buses only allow one stroller per bus. Everyone else must take their child(ren) out of the strollers and collapse the strollers and stow them (obviously the strollers not the children) as if they were luggage.

It's a bustling place there at Oxford so be prepared.

From Thornhill we rode the bus to High Street and walked to 49 St. Giles and had lunch at the Eagle and Child Pub, famous for its former frequent visitors, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and their Inklings buddies. Little Ida Claire and her cohorts were pretty noisy themselves. But IC even more so since she was sleepy and screams just before lights out.

If you decide to take in a meal, I'd suggest skipping the hamburger and go for the house specialties, the pies.

Getting back to the Park and Ride station presented us with a challenge. Oxford has a lot of buses. So finding the bus back to Thornhill was no easy task. We walked back to where we were dropped off and kept walking and finally found the bus back to the Park and Ride.

But as I said earliler, with a little bit of pre-planning, you can have a fun time at Oxford imaging yourself as an true erudite.

UK bans pictures of Western Wall

2010-04-18T12:50:00.010-05:00

Thanks to BiblePlaces Blog we have been alerted to the UK ban of pictures of the Western Wall for Israeli tourism in Great Britain.

The article states that the Wall is in "occupied territory," and could be misleading.

And the United Kingdom can make such a judgment? Well, technically it is the Advertising Standard Agency that set the ban. But the point is, Britain has "occupied" an Empire where the sun never set.

Serendipity

2010-04-09T05:24:00.004-05:00

"Serendipity," it's when positive two actions take place at the same time without one expecting it. (You can see that the dictionary defines it better than I can.) It's one of my favorite words.

The other day I was walking around a nearby park and saw some strange ducks. But I had no idea what they were. Today, the picture of the day from Bing is this animal. I was quite happy to find out the name of this species.

Aix galericulata or the Mandarin Duck. Beautiful creature.

First time in a Brit's house

2010-04-04T13:20:00.004-05:00

We have a nice park beside our apartment. And we try to get over there and walk, but it doesn't always happen. But last week we did make it over and found our British landlord lives on the street to the entrance to the park. They opened the window and got our attention and invited us in.

Our first time in a British home!

It took me a moment to get adjusted. Even though they are British, I was not expecting the smell of incense to greet me as I entered. Nor was I expecting the Dancing Shiva and other Hindu artifacts displayed around the rooms to gaze back at me.

Lovely time, I must say. But I'll have to reconfigure my stereotypical idea of what I think ought to be on the inside of a "normal," British house. =)

Feetwashing Thursday

2010-04-01T03:40:00.002-05:00

This is no April Fool's joke.

Today is the day that some Christians remember the night when Jesus washed the disciples' feet. It's a solemn time to follow the example of Jesus.

The employer is not greater than his employee. Nor the president greater than the garbage collector.

It's humbling to wash your students' feet, or another brother in Christ's feet. It's humbling to think that the boss is not greater than his underlings.

But this is what Jesus taught as he got up, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around him, poured water into a basin, and began to wash his students' feet.

Allah had no son

2010-03-23T13:58:00.003-05:00

I remember picking up a Chick Track some years ago that talked about how Allah had no son. I don't recommend nor endorse Chick Tracks. But it was the first time that I learned that Muslims have a huge problem with Jesus being God's Son (or Allah if you will). Recently, some one put it this way, "Jesus is not the Son of God because God could not have had such relations with a woman."

If I were talking to a Muslim about this, I think arguing would be futile. So why do it?

I got out my interpretation of the Qur'an to see what it says (because the Qur'an can't be translated only interpreted, and I do not know Classic Arabic.) about Mary and Jesus.

Surah 19 is about Mary. In Section 2 :16 the preface reads, "She [Mary] gave birth as a virgin to Jesus...[who] was a servant of Allah, a true Prophet...but no more than a man: to call him the son of Allah is to derogate from Allah's Majesty, for Allah is High above all His Creatures..."

and 19:35: "It is not befitting to (the majesty) of Allah that he should beget a son..."

My response hopefully would be not to argue, but to simple say something like this. The birth of Jesus was like this. When his mother was engaged to her husband before they were married and before they had come together, she was with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph who was a righteous man would have broken off the engagement quietly, but an angel appeared to him and told him that what was conceived in Mary was from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and his name will be Jesus because he will deliver his people from their sins.

Maybe I am wrong

2010-02-27T14:41:00.002-06:00

We have moved again back overseas and are still waiting for phone, internet, TV, and our crates.

That's why I have not been able to blog.

While waiting two if not three people have ran this thought by me:

"What if I am wrong?"

It's an attitude of thinking that genuinely takes the other person's viewpoint as correct and one's own as possibly incorrect. It's humbling to say the least when you know you are right and then have to entertain the possibility of being wrong.

It will be hard, but I'm willing to see if this attitude can aid communication with everyone around me.

Investigating Islam

2010-01-18T22:21:00.003-06:00

This is the first (hopefully not last) of a series of posts I want to do on investigating Islam, especially Islam in Europe.

I tried to remember the 5 pillars and only could remember 3. So, I admit my ignorance.

I plan to read the Quran and have actual participants of the religion tell me what they believe and practice.

Why am I doing this?

A fact finding mission. I want simply to know what Islam looks like in Europe.

Hwy 90 eateries

2010-01-13T18:47:00.008-06:00

Have you ever read those guide books for tourist places and thought, "I could write reviews of where to stay, what to eat, and what to do."

Well, I have.

I doubt this will be a recurring topic, but one never knows.

There is a stretch of road between the Texas and Florida that parallels the Gulf Coast called Hwy 90. I've not traveled all the road, but I would like to give a summary of some of the best and worse places to eat if you take the scenic route on Hwy 90.

One of my favorite places to get a Po-Boy sandwich used to be Pirate's Cove in Pass Christian, MS. I say used to be because I've not been there since before Katrina.

Going further East in Gautier (pronounced GO-SHAY), you'll find a reasonably priced seafood cafe called Petit Bois (pronounced PETY-BOY) Cafe owned by Michael Majure. I would recommend one of the basket orders.

Just over the bridge into Pascagoula, you'll find several tantalizing establishments like Cornerstone, for seafood; Edd's Drive In for hamburgers and hot dogs; Aunt Nita's for their famous pizza burger; and the Heritage House for Sunday Buffet (they serve lunch everyday too).

At Cornerstone you'll get quality service and pretty good shrimp or catfish po-boys. If you go to Edd's (been there since 1953, I believe) just off Hwy 90 don't worry about the place being worked by teenagers. Ms. Betty runs a tight ship. Once, after I had ordered, my meal was overlooked because of inattentiveness, but after bringing it to the her attention, she got my order, offered a full refund, and scolded the offending parties. I went ahead and paid her back the money. You can't pass up the Orange Freeze here. At Aunt Nita's I'd leave the pizza burger alone if you have heart trouble, but if you're a high schooler, this may be your favorite food in all of Pascagoula.

Just before you enter AL, in Moss Point, MS, you'll find some of the best fried catfish around at Lakeview Catfish Restaurant. But you better come on Thursday through Saturday evenings and Sunday because it's closed otherwise.

If you're looking for Chinese, try the China Chef Restaurant in Theodore, AL. I always go for the house fried rice.

When you get to Tillman's Corner, and are looking for Mexican, you may want to skip Aztecas, especially if you're from Texas. You'll be disappointed, or at least I was.

I used to be able to recommend the Bangkok Thai Cuisine, but not after finding someone's fake fingernail in my rice. You'd be better off at a fast food place. Although I have heard that Three Flavors (Japanese, Thai, and Mexican) is a nice substitute almost next door.

If you don't mind the crowds, try Dick Russel's BarBQ. I wouldn't recommend the Baked Beans but everything else seems nice.

If you take the Causeway, another name for Hwy 90 going across Mobile Bay, you'll have a spectacular view of the Bay while enjoying some local seafood at Felix's Fish Camp. But as is the case with seafood, don't think about getting out of there too cheap.

The Shack

2010-01-12T20:42:00.003-06:00

Finally, I have read The Shack by William Young.

I know this is like two years ago, but I am just now getting around to it.

I do not know what all the ruckus was...well, unless you are a Trendy Calvinist, then yeah, you would have been disappointed in how God is portrayed.

But I liked the book. My favorite was Mack' garden of mess being compared to a fractal.

Vocabulary you can use and NOT be a racist

2010-01-11T13:27:00.006-06:00

We learned this week that indeed you can use "light-skined African American without a Negro-dialect," in reference to Presidential canidate Obama and not be considered a racist.

Dang.

It's great to know we have progressed so far in race relations in the States. It used to be considered racist to label any black person according to the shade of their skin. That is, if you were lighter skinned, then you had some sort of an advantage over the darker skined ones. And it used to be that anyone saying that a black person was "articulate," was a racial slur too.

But not anymore.

Even white people can do it.

I would have surely thought that calling Ebonics "a Negro dialect," would be racist, if not ignorance seeing how Ebonics is an actual language not a dialect. But maybe Harry Reid would have been called a real racist if he'd just called Obama what he really thought of Obama, i.e. a light skinned (aka half white) nigger who talks like a nigger. What other "better choice of words would he use?" This is exactly what he meant.

Or maybe it's that he's a Democratic? A racist nonetheless.

Comparison of religions

2010-01-01T20:26:00.002-06:00

When comparing world religions I will agree, they all are similar (otherwise they would not be called religions), but all religions are not the same.

If we take out "truth" from them all, we do get some comparisons. This tells me man was made for worship.

However, if we consider "truth" when comparing religions, the amount of truth in each one lies on a continuum from mostly true to barely true. If there were no truth at all in every religion, it's no more than futile motions.

The two demoniacs

2009-12-16T20:07:00.004-06:00

Just finished reading about the two demoniacs in Mat 8:28-34. There is an obvious point: Jesus was not afraid of dealing with demon possessed men, and as Son of God he had the power and authority to exorcise the men. This is what Matthew was communicating.

So, going outside the "point" of the story is usually a bad idea. And my next musings are no exception. Beyond this point is my opinion and personal reflection and does not add to the point mentioned above.

I have questions. These two guys lived in a cemetary, and they were so violent no one could pass by there. But Jesus had the audacity to. They thought he was going to torture them. And it seems they sensed he was going to exorcise them. They didn't ask for this, and I wonder even if they could have. The demons were expelled into swine who ran into the water. The ones feeding (the pigs) lost their herd. Since swine are not kosher, why were people feeding them? These had to be non Jews. They ran into town and told what happened, and the people "implored" or "encouraged" Jesus to leave.

The story's focus is the exorcism. But we have no idea what the reaction of the exorcised was. And what about the sentiment of the pig feeders? If we go with "implore," that makes it sound as if the people were upset with Jesus either for killing the pig feeders' pigs or for casting out the demons in the two men.

If we go with "encouraged him to leave," this makes it sound like the people were supportive of what Jesus had done, but realized he had stirred up something that would harm him and/or them. Therefore, they encouraged him to leave to avoid hurt and violence. If they thought Jesus would be harmed, they did not recognize him as the Son of God like the demoniacs had.

There is nothing to suggest they felt they would be harmed as a result of what Jesus had done. But they lived among the demon possessed and felt no harm. Were they so used to bad spiritual stuff that they weren't afraid for themselves? This is what I think was the case.

I think the people of G (there is some speculation about the actually name of the place) were complacent with darkness around them. The pig feeders (probably evil themselves) wouldn't take on Jesus head on and so went into town to raise up a mob. The people obliged and felt that if the whole town went with the pig feeders they could convince Jesus to leave, not for his sake, but because they felt threatened. Light had come into the darkness and the Light was rejected.

Before we think poorly of the people of G, we should probably see ourselves as either the violent men or the pig feeders or the town mob. We may not be demon possessed. But I bet we're hanging out with the pigs trying to keep them healthy to consume. And if we really think about it, we would rather the light stay away from us. Sure, we may say we are followers of Jesus. But he entered the darkness alone. It's a place we're not willing to go; our own darkness.

We too would rather strongly encourage Jesus to leave us alone with our violence and our baseness.

Voice Crying in the Wilderness

2009-11-18T21:57:00.002-06:00

John the Baptizer is attributed as being a voice crying in the wilderness preparing the way for the Christ.

Did he start his job as soon as he was born? Little Ida Claire (named after the Gulf Coast Hurricane in her honor and when you say it together you get, well, I dee clare, a wonderful Suthern xprehshun) sure announces her presence by crying. She gets the whole house's attention. Was this what the Bible means when it described JB as a voice crying? I doubt it, but it sure fits.

And what about little baby Jesus himself? Here is the Word of God lying in a manger, one week and a half after bring born, not being able to say one syllable. He could only cry. And since this was their firstborn, were they able to understand what he was trying to communicate?

WOW. How humbling for God in human flesh, who could not speak but cry.

Away in a Manger

2009-10-29T21:50:00.003-05:00

A couple of Sunday's ago they pulled out the Christmas songs starting with "Away in a Manger."

The first line struck me.

"Away in a manger no crib for a bed."

We had just ordered our crib, and today we picked it up. Obviously, we know Jesus did not have a crib only a manger. But this Christmas the birth of Jesus is just a little more special with our little one on the way.

Yeah, Mary did not have a shower. We have had 4. We have a crib. In fact, we have a crib and a pack in play, which is a bassinet and a play pin. And we have the travel version. Mary had to travel with Jesus in her arms, or give him to Joseph. I am thinking of their going to Egypt with an newborn/infant. No car seats. No car seat installations. Just their arms.

And speaking of traveling, Mary had a long walk down to Bethlehem. And I know that would be a long slow walk if Lady R and I had to do that. That maybe why they arrived too late in Bethlehem to get a room in the inn. And maybe that's why she went into labor when they got down there.

And how did they cut the umbilical cord? And what did they do for diapers? and wipes? and lotion? and any diaper rash? And what was the first bath like? What were all the small details at that first Christmas? There were no cameras to document, no videos to show, no blogs to write. All we have is how the story was reported by Matthew and Luke.

This will be a different Christmas. Little One will be taking center stage. And we, the parents, will begin reading the Christmas story empathizing more than ever with Mary and Joseph wondering how they did it with nothing.

They wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manager.

Nevermind I'm pulling my recommendation

2009-10-23T21:05:00.002-05:00

After last night's episode of Flash Forward, I will no longer be watching the show. Beside the fact that the show is just simply boring now, I do not have to watch two lesbians kissing if I don't want to. And I don't want to.

Pro-giving

2009-10-21T08:36:00.003-05:00

This is a follow up from the post below.

So many times in the realm of ideas and philosophy I tend to state what I am against but not what I am for. I take a more defensive stance rather than an offensive. So, in an attempt to state what I do believe about giving, I give you this post.

In review, I am against church or denominational mandatory tithing. I am against the idea of the church being the storehouse of God. It simply is not.

As Christians we are to support its mission, which is to be examples of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, despite how much we fall short. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. This is how we do it.

If you earn some money, first determine how much you can give back to God happily. Set it aside and then give. That may be 1%, 10%, or 50%. The percentage does not matter. You may not even know the percentage. You may can only joyfully give $5 out of $1000 you make. Fine. Give the $5. But if you can raise your threshold of giving, you will notice God's provision.

This system is not a the-more-I-give-the-more-I-get system. This is not health and wealth which is a lie too. This is one way that God has give his followers to be active in his work everywhere. You decide how much you can participate. I've seen $10 go further than large amounts.

This is not exhaustive but does give the basic idea of Christian giving

Anti-tithing

2009-10-18T20:27:00.005-05:00

Disagree that Christians are required to "tithe," or give 10% of their income to the church.

Proponents of the teaching have as Malachi 3:10 as their proof-text, as was the case in tonight's sermon. The argument is tied to the word "storehouse," equaling the "church."

I did a quick search in the OT for the word, "storehouse." It is actually made up of two Hebrew words 1) house and 2) treasure. It is mostly a place for storing things such as wine, oil, and food. What one finds more often is that the word "treasure," relates to the riches of kings or the riches of the house of God. In the book of Ezra and Nehemiah one finds these references to money being paid to the treasury (of work). And in Nehemiah 10:38 one finds that a legit Levite was to take a 10% of the tithes and bring them to the "storeroom," (the NIV is a bit tricky here, I prefer "treasure room," rather than "storeroom.") of the treasury. However, the word for "treasury," is the word used in Malachi 3:10.

A couple of observations: 1) In the above mentioned Ezra and Nehemiah passages that speak of money being paid or brought to the treasury, there is no mention of it being a tithe. 2) In the Nehemiah 10:38 passage, one does bring a tithe but Nehemiah 10:39 shows that it was not 10% of anyone's income.

Someone may want to say that God's people (i.e. the children of Israel) were to take care of the needs of the priests (and maybe later even the workers of the walls and temple) by giving them items that would sustain them. And that by comparison, church members should give 10% of their income to sustain the church and her ministers. Thus, we should all give 10% to the church.

It is true that all the other tribes were to support the priestly tribe, the Levites with tithes. And even the Levites had to tithe what they received. But this does not connect the "church," with a "storehouse," not even by comparison.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) has one word for the two Hebrew words and that word comes from a verb meaning "to store up," giving a definition that means a place for keeping things safe. A storehouse.

I am pretty sure as Christians we are not suppose to be giving to the church so she can "store up," what we've given. In fact, as Christians we are not to store up treasures (same word as above) that will disintergrate.

We are not storehouses, keeping it all in for ourselves, are we?

Click on this link for the ironic name of this church pictured above.

Suffering

2009-10-06T15:59:00.003-05:00

Bart Ehrman claims that he's given up on God because the Bible fails to answer our questions about suffering.

Many atheists concur that they can't possibly believe in a good God who allows evil things to happen.

Suffering. It's part of the human experience. Because we feel, we notice suffering. Rocks do not feel and are not bothered my waves that roll over them constantly or wind that beats them. But we are not rocks nor trees pummeled by nature's forces. We feel it when nature hits us with disease and pain.

I'm reading Don Piper's 90 Minutes in Heaven, and I agree with him in one chapter then disagree with him in another on the proper response of people to the injured.****WARNING: DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT A SPOILER*****

Don was in a severe car accident and died for 90 minutes. Upon his return to life he describes his rehabilitation in the months that followed.

The beginning of chapter 8 "Pain and Adjustments," begins with,

" Even though they didn't realize it, visitors made my situation worse. They cared for me and wanted to express that concern. Because they cared, they did the most natural thing in the world-they visited my hospital room. That was the problem."

He goes on in chapter 9 to talk about how these visitors would show up, and when they were leaving they would ask, "Is there anything I can do for you?" And his response was always, "No. Thanks."

A mentoring type retired minister would often visit with him. And one day he got fed up with Piper's refusal to allow others to do even small acts of kindness for him such as retrieve a magazine or buy a strawberry milkshake. So the minister gave Piper a strong rebuke telling him to, " 'You need to get your act together. You're just not doing a very good job.' " He goes on to state that the visitors love him and he was not showing appropriate appreciation to them.

I know how Piper felt when he responded with, " 'I don't want them to do anything... The truth is I don't even want them to be here. I'd just as soon they didn't come. They must have better things to do...' "

I disagree with the aged reverend when he said to Piper, "It's not your call."

When we were in France, both Lady R and I were sick more often and more severe than we ever had been our whole life in the States. I was on some strong medication that made me feel like every breath would be the one before I threw up everything I had eaten in the last 2 days. Lady R was rushed to the ER more than once for a still unknown cause of misery. All topped off with a miscarriage. In the last case, people were offended and hurt when we told them we really didn't need them and that we just wanted to be left alone for a while. Of course, they backed away (a good thing) but then treated us as loose canons (a bad thing). They really wanted to help. I believe that. And they, like the visitors to Piper's room, did what they thought they should; call, offer to come over and stay, "be there if we wanted to talk," etc etc. It was the wrong response. Plain and simple.

Service to others is not what I want to do for others, service is doing for others what they need me to do for them. Otherwise, their service is a hindrance. They will walk away hurt because they will feel rejected. Whereas, if they would serve according to my needs rather than their wants, we both could benefit. When we serve others it is not about making me feel good. It's about alleviating other's burdens not making it heavier. Of course, that's what those who love us WANT to do, but they miss the mark when they think of service in an universal one-size-fits- all means.

Why the onslaught

2009-10-05T15:57:00.002-05:00

I realize this has been an onslaught of posts.

I am guessing this will the last month where I will have a little bit of time to blog before MAJOR changes occur in the pecheur household.

I'm trying to get out everthing I want to blog and read whatever I can before time runs out.

Got to figure out how to install a car seat and finish getting the hospital kit ready. Just today, we've heard of stories of friend's who went into labor at 5.5 weeks before the due date. That's exactly where we are.

Mentally, I'm trying to get prepared for the delivery. What i've heard is that if you are prepared you are less likely to pass out and actually be a help inside of being mopped up off the floor.

Tonight begins our first classes at the hospital.

=)

What do you suggest...

2009-10-03T19:59:00.003-05:00

...not that it will matter but...

I was asked this morning at 10:45 am to speak tomorrow at the evening church service. That barely gives me 24 hours to prepare something. I'm rusty on all this.

So, you can give me your subject if you want, but I'm not going to check my email until after I get this thing finished. I've been mulling over the following:

a) the glory of God
b) the feeding of the 5000
c) Jonah
d) something totally controversial but what I do not know
e) anything on Leviathan but it's not as fresh as I would like to think
f) how to share the gospel with a Muslim
g) answering the question posed to me last week in SS on my thoughts on hell from Luke 16
h) imprecatory prayers and their use in today's world (my favorite so far)

I've spent anywhere from 2 seconds to 2 minutes so far meditating on each of the above topics. That means I need to stop blogging and start praying.

"Give me oil in my lamp keep it burning burning burning, give me oil in my lamp I pray, hallelulah..." (See here for more prayerful lyrics)

ARDI: Ancestor?

2009-10-02T20:47:00.004-05:00

I perked up when I heard about the new discovery (actually just the release into mainstream news of a 1992 discovery) of Ms. Ardipithecus ramidus (aka Ardi). She's older than (4.4 million years ago) Lucy (3.2 million years ago), and her scattered bones all over Ethiopia may help us fill in the Monkey Evolution Chart we see on shirts and bumper stickers.

What I hope this doesn't do is bring out the Evolution vs Creation debate for the upteen time. Why? Quite frankly I'm tired of hearing it.

Let's let the scientists do their job, and those teachers of the faith do their job. Let's let the people of faith believe whatever they want, and the scientists discover whatever they want. Let's stop trying so hard to harmonize a pre-scientific text with a 19th to 21st century scientific world.

Now, after we have let the scientists report their findings, and after we have allowed our theologians the chance to agree or disagree, let's try to find out really what both are saying.

Well...for those who think this really matters.

I've talked about evolution before but rarely. I imagine I'll stay pretty apathatic even after my interest in Ardi dies. At this point Ardi and Lucy are interesting but not foundational to my faith. If you start going into too much detail, don't be insulted if I fall asleep. And it's OK if prehistorical biology is not my thing. I know for some it is. But for those who feel threathened in their faith because of Ardi, don't be, and remember that when the first 11 chapters of Genesis (or Psalms) were written the writer (or maybe writers/editors/compilers) had a very limited understanding of the world around him. If you will notice he was more interested in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than he was with Adam and Eve. The author was concerned about "origins," but only enough to get us to what he really wanted to talk about, (which was not Creation) which was the origin of the Jewish nation and Father of many nations.

Flash Forward

2009-10-02T20:25:00.002-05:00

ABC has a new series this fall, Flash Forward.

If I had been in the TV world I would have invented this show myself. The premise is that everyone (almost) on Earth had a blackout at the same time and saw glimpses of their lives in the future. After coming out of the unconscious state, everyone now wonders how they are going to deal with their futures. Some see themselves in relationships other than the ones they are currently in. Some become alcoholic. Some see a thought-to-be dead daughter. And still some see their lives as a success.

"Everyone is a prophet," so says one of the characters.

Even though I am curious to see what side of the determinist fence the show will land, I also see some spiritual aspects to the show (outside of the characters asking if this is the Rapture and what small groups are discussing at their churches).

We don't know if the show will say life is determined, so get over it, or if the show will say that life is really all about choices; there is a way your life could end up or you can change its course. I hope we see some people living out their "destinies," because they choose to and we see others who changed their "prophecy."

The abundant life we have is all about choices. I believe God has given us a ship in which we are the masters of own fate and the captain of our own soul

Through with recycling

2009-09-19T21:45:00.003-05:00

I'll admit I'm a really BAD person.

I'm not longer recycling plastic while in AL. The local recycle center only accepts beverage containers without lids and milk jugs without lids. And how many more plastic types are out there?

So, I will continue to do my part to fill up the local landfills.

A disgrace I know.

Neo-Gnostics

2009-09-19T21:10:00.002-05:00

Do we have to worry about the rise of Gnosticism in today's church or Christian world?

The answer is yes, but not from where you might normally think, i.e. the Dan Browns nor the Christian Science Club.

It is true that the heresy of gnosticism has been around nearly as long as proper Christianity. The idea that salvation is based on a certain revealed knowledge rather than on a "born again" experience (understood that this is a HUGE weighted expression that nearly has no meaning outside the church today).

But I am not talking about the revived interest of around 45 to 60 titles found in 1945 in the Egyptian desert called the Nag Hammadi Library. Nor am I speaking to those that Irenaeus was addressing when he said those who draw others away under the pretense of knowledge. Am I worried about those who claim that the "winners" wrote and defined the current Christian NT canon and declared Jesus to be divine in order to keep their power over the people? A little worried but worried more about another Neo-Gnostic group. I'm not so worried about the former Gnostics when they claim the Council of Nicea needed control in the 4th century and invented the church. For I think it can be seen that 200 years before Nicea, the apostle Paul (whose writings date back to A.D. 50 to A.D. 68) was saying who and what Jesus was as well as defining the church.

No, I am worried about the Neo-gnostics of today's church who believe that "knowledge," is supreme. Those that think "discipleship," is learning the books of the Bible (or something akin to this like learning certain doctrines of the particular church or denomination) rather than learning the ways of Christ. Those who read the Bible only to get smarter instead or reading, meditating, and applying the principles of Christ to their life and injecting them into their commnuities and sowing them into the lives of those near them.

The apostle Paul still has something to say to these knowledge seekers. "Knowledge (gnosis) makes arrogant, but love (agape) edifies." May I study the Bible not for knowledge sake only but to be a better person following after the way of Christ

Julie and Julia

2009-08-19T21:41:00.003-05:00

**WARNING MOVIE SPOILER***
Do not read unless you have seen the movie or don't care about having the plot of Julie and Julia spoiled.

The idea of Julie, a girl of today, cooking through the Julia Child's cookbook and blogging about it turned out to be a pretty good plot for a movie, and a good book too I'm told.

Julie works in NYC in a job where she is under appreciated. She loves cooking as a way of escape and embarks on trying every single recipe in Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Julia Child, whose life is interspersed throughout the movie, is a wife to an ambassador living in Paris. She decides she needs something to do and enrolls at Le Cordon Bleu, the famous cooking school of Paris. She decides,along with a couple of others and over an 8 year period, to write "an opus magnum" bringing French cooking to Americans.

The opening scene of Julia in Paris and her falling all over herself because she gets to live in Paris is truly how many Americans view how it would be to live there. I know this is an "escapist" movie, but I'd like to have seen a little more culture shock Paris. Of course, she has trouble with the language, and the head honcho at Le Cordon Bleu hates her, but she never dreamed of going back to the States, or it never showed at least. And speaking of the language, I doubt they spoke English at Le Cordon Bleu. I know, I know this is an English speaking movie and so to have them speaking as it really were would require a ton of subtitles (which both French and American audiences hate). So, for me, this part was too romanticizing about living in Paris.

But this movie does show something very true about French culture, food is like air, and food is complicated. I'm surprised Julie, our today girl, was actually able to learn how to do everything, including bone a duck, in just a year. Not only is French food complicated, but it takes forever to prepare. Can anyone sympathize with me when I say that food was one (if not the biggest) of the major adjustments I had to go through? It's not simple, and when you're hungry you don't want to have to figure out all this stuff. Plus, in my opinion, it really doesn't taste all that divine as everyone seems to think it does, but that is just my opinion. =0

Julie gets quite a following on her blog. She's always wanted to be a writer and get published and how else to achieve that than self-publishing by blogging. She admits that blogging is pretty self-centered. So much so that her husband leaves for awhile. This was the first serious weakness of the movie. I mean really. As an audience member I do not know if I'm suppose to think he's a jerk or if she's to blame. Poor editing here.

But the absolute worst part of the movie was when Julie gets a call from a reporter asking for a comment in response to Child's hatred of what Julie has done. WHAT?? How could Child dislike someone actually cooking her recipes and writing about them? That part of the movie, severely underdevelopped and out of no where really dampers the overall emotion of the film. Was it true? Are we even to believe Child had a computer and had even read the blog? Or are we to believe that the reporter was simply trying to get Julie to say something mean about her inspiration, Child? I don't believe Child, in her right mind, would have said anything but nice things about Julie's project. I mean how many Americans have actually taken the time to learn how to Master the Art of French Cooking?

Good for you Julie!

Just a filler

2009-07-25T12:18:00.002-05:00

I know you are waiting with anticipation for how America has "shocked" us upon re-entry. That will come in due time. Although, most of you will be disappointed. I've not really had any major adjustments. It's just like I imagined. I've seen a couple of quirky things, but already I am used to them again.

I'm writing as I take a break. I'm working on a talk I will be giving soon, followed by 3 talks I will be giving in the near future. So, I'm pretty busy.

I've been doing some summer reading. I'm almost done with Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. I have 20 pages left. I'd recommend it.

I can say I miss Portugal. But I am much more excited about being home.

In my few moments of free time, I'm putting together a website with all my research from my language project in France. That has to be up before little one gets here.

Can't wait to catch up with everyone.

Do you know where you are?

2009-06-16T15:53:00.003-05:00

One of the things I've noticed about the people here is the concept of space and how it is different from mine. I knew coming in that personal space was much less in Europe than in America. It got a little getting used to, but after awhile I was more comfortable having people in "my space."

But what I've noticed is not an issue of personal space. It's a matter of people really not knowing where they are in space. So many times I'm in a store, and someone will just bump into me. Or someone will be walking and just walk right into my shoulder as if they couldn't judge the distance well enough to avoid a collision. I do not know if the personal space is so small that one person's space actually runs into the next. But personal space here is not like being at the top of the Eiffel Tower and literally having Japanese tourist push their way around you. It's more like people are just not sure where they are.

It carries over into parking lots and highways. How many times do you see scratch marks along the side of cars? Either they have gotten too close to the pillars in the underground parking or too close to another car on the highway. Obviously, one could blame that on the small parking areas and no merge lanes. But if the car is an extension of one's self, it might well could be an issue of misjudging space.

Run but do not cheat

2009-06-08T14:32:00.002-05:00

Being on the 11th floor gives us a certain point of view. This past Sunday I noticed a race happening right below on the street. As I observed the race, I noticed the police were stopping traffic and turning drivers around to the chagrin of several irate taxi and bus drivers. I also noticed race officials whose sole job was to ensure no runner cheated by cutting the corner. I must say they were not doing such a great job. Many runners rounded the corner and went on the inside of the red cone instead of the outside. Not really a huge blunder.

What amazed me more was that not a single person crossed the road until they came to the red cone. It would have been so easy to run down one side of the road and cross over and be ahead of a lot of people. So even though many cut inside the red cone (a really small gesture) no one dared "cheat," by crossing the road.

I was thinking...the runners had put a lot of effort to train for this race. There were so many who knew they had no chance of winning. They were running just to be running. But each runner decided to run the entire length of the circuit and not cheat. It meant something for them to run the entire distance.

In our sojourn on Earth, we run. We could cheat our way through with selfishness and arrogance, but when we cross the line, we'll know in our hearts that we really did not run well. We simply ran.

Lost vs Stolen

2009-06-04T11:40:00.003-05:00

Recently, a good friend of mine has his passports stolen.

Yesterday, another friend lost his cell phone in the back of my car.

Today, I lost my own cell phone and found it in my bag.

When something is stolen, it feels like a personal violation. Someone has taken our property. When we loose something, often we were negligent in some way. But no matter, there is within us a feeling of something "taken." When the item is recovered we are joyful and relieved.

We all hate loosing things or being the victim of a robbery. The Evil One is set on doing both. He steals, will kill, and basically wants to destroy our life. But even in the clutches of the Evil One, Jesus came to redeem lost and stolen people. Much has been taken, much can be redeemed. Oh the joy of finding lost and stolen objects.

Je leur ai dit la vérité

2009-06-01T13:04:00.004-05:00

Quoi? Qu'est-ce qui a dit par le président de la République aux familles des victimes du vol AF447 Rio à Paris?

L'avion a disparu après avoir entré dans une zone de turbulence au-dessus de l'Océan atlantique. Quand Sarkozy arrivait à l'aéroport Roissy, il a rencontré les familles qui étaient à une cellule de crise.

Sarkozy a dit <<Je leur ai dit la vérité, c'est-à-dire que les perspectives de trouver des survivants sont très faibles.>>

Vraiment! Et c'est une message "d'entretien?" Vraiment? Il leur a dit la vérité. Je veux la vérité mais assaisonnée de sel et dans l'amour.

Condoléances aux victimes. Que Dieu soit avec tous eux!

Pentecost Sunday

2009-05-31T09:16:00.006-05:00

10 days ago Christ ascended. What a great 40 days we had with him after his resurrection!!

He told us to wait for the Holy Spirit. Today, he came.

Not sure why Pentecost is not a bigger deal than it is. But I've taken this Pentecost to enjoy revisiting the Scripture on Pentecost. Of course Pentecost began as a Jewish festival 50 days after Passover. This day is also called the Festival of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits.

When the Holy Spirit came 10 days after the Ascension of Christ, everyone who was gathered in Jerusalem could speak to each other and be understood (Acts 2:6). It was a matter of both speaking and understanding foreign languages never learned. (Acts 2:4,8,11) But let's not get too caught up with this. The reason the Holy Spirit allowed everyone to communicate with each other was to hear the message of Peter (v22 "listen to these words"), respond appropriately (v37 "what shall we do?"), and form a fellowship together through common initiation activity (v38 "repent and be baptised because of your sins being forgiven") and devotion to the apostles' teachings (v42). It wasn't the miracles of the Holy Spirit that was so important on that day, remember Jesus had performed many miracles and produced many signs and wonders too (v22). But like Jesus, the important thing would be the work of the Holy Spirit. That day He was poured forth to indwell the believers and gather them together like the grain used to be gathered into a bundle. This was also the first picking of the harvest that God is still reaping when one is united to His body by faith through the Spirit's work.

Facebook making Reunions obsolete?

2009-05-28T11:39:00.002-05:00

I am amazed at the social networking tools available today. I guess one of the most popular ones is Facebook. I've heard about Facebook for years and refused to join until about a year or so ago.

But what a tool. You fill out the information about yourself and then go searching for long lost friends from high school or college or even childhood. I've been surprised by whom I've found and also by those who have found me.

So, how will Facebook change (or has changed) society? Well, I'm no sociologist by any means. But I have a few observations. Facebook may bring back the the high school (or any time in our lives) cliques. For example, Popular Person A will only be friends with all his popular friends from high school. No harm there. Why would I want to be friends with Popular Person A now when s/he didn't even give me the time of day back in high school? But what if you thought you and Popular Person A were friends in high school and never get your friend-request accepted from PPA? As you wait and wait to be accepted, you start to wonder if you were in fact really friends. Was the other person just enduring you and really did not consider you a friend? Or could it be that the other person has actually forgotten about you? Or were you really friends, but for whatever reason s/he has not kept your memory alive so when they get the email saying they have a friend request from you, they either deny it or wait to see if something joggs their memory of you. One way to find out how this person may know you is by checking out yours and his mutal friends. That can put you in a context for them.

The other thing Facebook might do is put an end to high school reunions. If I find Lost Friend A from high school, we may send a couple of messages back and forth getting caught up. Usually this is no more than where the person is, to whom they've married, how many kids they have, and what their profession is. I've found that after that most Long Lost Friends (A, B, and C) really don't have that much to add, or either they are way too busy to give me more information than the basics. So, when the 25th high school reunion comes around, they may think to themselves, "I've already gotten caught up on Lost Friends X, Y, and Z, and I really could care less about Acquaintances M, N, and O, so I won't go to the reunion. Besides, if I really wanted to know about Acquaintances M, N, and O, I would accept their friend request, but I really didn't like them anyway." (see above paragraph). And can you blame them? I can get an update on what my friends are doing everytime I log in (provided they have updated). They change their status, post some pictures, write notes, and keep sending me invitations to join their little groups or games. So, if anyone does go to the high school reunions, no one will have anything to talk about. We've already got reunited.

Now, the death of the high school reunion could be based on other social conditions like being too busy, too far to travel, too young, etc., etc. But I imagine as communication increases through social networks like Facebook that taking the time to see each other again face to face will be a thing of the past. Besides, isn't it more convenient to catch up on everybody by logging in to Facebook rather than trying to plan and attend the reunion?!

A new change coming

2009-05-21T12:25:00.002-05:00

Life is always full of changes. And for me and Lady R our lives are about to change a whole lot. We are expecting!

Yesterday was the 15th week. We had our a normally scheduled doctor's appointment, and she said everything looked fine. This is good news, and we've waited to say something until we were past the first trimester because of a previous miscarriage.

Please pray for us as we become parents and for the protection of our little one. We should know if it is a boy or a girl just before we come back to the States in a few weeks for a little R&R.

Did you get His attention

2009-05-12T15:57:00.005-05:00

I just came back from one of the most famous pilgrimages in Europe. The pilgrimage to Fatima. I was there mostly as an observer. I didn't go there on foot but by car. I didn't do anything at Fatima but pray out loud for those around me.

My first impression was sadness. I couldn't believe people were on their knees walking around trying to get God's attention.

The next emotion was anger. Anger at the Catholic Church for letting this stuff go on. Now, I am not one to go around saying Catholics worship Mary and idols. But when I was in Fatima what I saw was pure paganism and idol worship, mainly of Mary.

What's my response to Fatima? I'm still thinking about it. Would you like to help contribute to my conclusion?

Additional words added May 31, 2009 in regards to above.

This is an open invitation to discuss ideas in regards to the above. But I am not asking for personal attacks on me or my readers. If you want to interact with the idea of Fatima, let's talk. If you wish to insult we have nothing else to say.

Questioning Evangelicalism

2009-04-30T14:20:00.003-05:00

I have never really liked the label "evangelical."

I just heard a conversation from one of these "evangelicals." They had all their talking points laid out, and they talked as if they were trying to convert anyone hearing them to their politics (their religion). But their arrogance (on any subject) repulsed me. I was angry.

My favorite was their critique on Catholicism. It was the usual. Catholicism is a works-based religion. They don't understand "grace." It is all about doing good deeds and praying certain prayers.

Whatever Catholicism is, can't we say Evangelicalism certainly looks a lot like their definition of "Catholicism," to which they are vehemently opposed?!

As Catholicism has involved herself in local (and global) politics throughout history so has Evangelicalism in American politics today. Aren't many Evangelicals clueless concerning "grace," when it has to do with people who are divorced, had a kid out of wedlock, or are struggling with homosexuality or pornography? Aren't certain Evangelicals more concerned with global warming, social justice, poverty and AIDS in Africa than getting their own life connected to God? And what is the thing one MUST do "to get saved?" It's pray a prayer!

If we are followers of Christ, our only mission is to make other followers. Exchanging one's thoughts on abortion for one's thoughts on the environment doesn't make you a better follower of Christ. Following Christ (still hard to define what that means) may change my outlook on some issues, but might it also change who I am at my core? Could this "learning Christ," be more than just changing my mind on a variety of topics (political, theological, and social et.al.)?

Church services

2009-04-24T12:26:00.005-05:00

I was eager to report on how the Easter service went a couple of Sundays ago. But since we had company come, and we picked up two late afternoon classes, I've not had time nor the energy to reflect and write.

Here is a quick rundown of what happened. We left Saturday late in the morning and arrived just after lunch at the place where we were staying. We were met by a super nice couple with whom we stayed the entire weekend. They took us around to see the beauty of the South and then to their favorite cafe and later, to their favorite restaurant for supper. The next day we got up around 5:30 AM for the sunrise at 6AM on the beach. It was a wonderful time celebrating the resurrection with Germans, Russians, South Africans, Welsh, Scottish, and Portuguese. Afterwards, we went to a breakfast and enjoyed pancakes from around the world. My favorite was the Russian pancake cake. Next, we went back to our host's home to get ready for their Easter lunch. I snuck in a nap, but I didn't sleep too long and was able to help in the kitchen. I got to cut fresh mint for a cup of fresh mint tea.

The guest having arrived we proceeded to eat lamb among other things. It was a nice mix of both believers and non-believers. I got to meet some really neat people. Around 5:30 PM or so, the host made the announcement that we were going to church for the Easter service.

It was a good time with special music and communion. I tried to deliver the message that I thought was appropiate, and then we all gathered for a coffee.

Nice group of people. But I left asking myself, "Why did we have to move the party to the church building?" Why couldn't we've had "church," at the host's house instead of making everyone go to the church? That way, the non-believers may have stayed around some and got to hear the good news and why the resurrection is so important. It certainly was a non-hostile environment for them to be at church without having to go to church.

Happy Easter

2009-04-11T23:33:00.000-05:00

Yes, this is it. The crux of the Christian faith.

The Empty Tomb.
Everything accomplished.
He is Risen
Why Search for the Living among the Dead!!!

Happy Easter. Reconciliation of the strayed sheep!!!

It's just Saturday

2009-04-11T04:32:00.002-05:00

Sermon finished. Now it must be delivered in the Spirit's power.

He's still dead...but it's not over.

Sorrowful Friday

2009-04-10T08:38:00.003-05:00

There is nothing new under the sun. I am sort of happy about that.

As I said yesterday blogging helps me to think through while I do the studying part of sermon preparation. Today, I've two angles about which I had thought about writing. But two people have already thought about it too. And It actually makes me happy that others are thinking the same thing at the same time.

The first was why is today called "Good," Friday? My friend Madge suggested we call it "sorrowful" Friday. And I would agree with her. The death of Christ was not good. It is not the good news. It's the honest news. We as humans screwed it all up and caused God to send Jesus, who also voluntarily came and gave up his life, to be crucified. The crucifixion will not be good news until 3 days later.

Jesus is dead.

Secondly, last night, unlike us he didn't sleep. When he saw the sunset last night, it was his last. He was upbeat as he met with his friends and ate with them and encouraged them. Soon, though, he was betrayed by one of these associates. He was arrested like a thug. Next, thrown into a kangaroo type court (or so it seems to me). And beat to a pulp. Then, because of mob rule sentenced to die. From about noon to three he was in the clutches of death, and a little after 3PM this afternoon he allowed life to leave his body. Joseph, one of the Council leaders who was not in favor of doing any of this to Jesus, has come and buried him and sealed the tomb.

He's dead.

There is nothing "good" about it. The blood frenzy is over and some people, a soldier even, are now realizing something bad has gone on. Don't think this is "good." It is sorrowful.

At this point the crucifixion of Jesus was just like any other crucifixion.

Two thugs on either side were sentenced to death with him. Professional soldiers took care to execute these three men. Let there be no doubt about it. He's dead. There is nothing to indicate the soldiers botched any of the three's execution. They are all three dead. The one in the middle is just as dead as the one on the right and the one on the left. Not a one of these "swooned," "fainted," "faked,"or "pretended" to die. NO. They are DEAD!!! This is what happens under normal circumstances. Soldiers, who've done this many times before, carried out their orders perfectly to slowly antagonize one to death.

There is nothing unusual here, Jesus is dead and buried. This is not good.

Maundy Thursday

2009-04-09T14:08:00.003-05:00

Ok, the answer is yes, today I have blogerrhea, a condition where you are constantly blogging. It is helping me think.

Maundy Thursday. A day to commemorate the institution of communion and a couple of other key practices for Christianity.

Jesus was celebrating the Jewish Passover, a day of remembering when the children of Israel were spared from death if they had had blood sprinkled over and on the side of their doors. He announced one of his disciples would betray him. It was that same night that he took the elements of Passover and used them symbolically to demonstrate his blood being poured out and his body being broken. It was the same night he took a towel and washed the disciple's feet and told them to do likewise. It was the same night he told them he was going away in order to prepare a place for them. It was that night he told the disciples he would come back for them and in his absence he would send them The Helper. It was a time for him to tell them that they knew the Way and to abide in him and he would abide in them. It was a night where Jesus prayed for all his disciples both those there and those future followers. It was the night where Judas betrayed him in front of his closest friends. That night began the process towards the Crucifixion and Death and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah.

Thank you for redemption. Thank you for showing us your blood being poured out and your body being broken. Thank you for enduring betrayal. Thank you for your example. Thank you for washing the feet of your disciples and telling us to do the same. Thank you for the encouragement you gave. Thank you for preparing a place and coming back to get us. Thank you for being the Vine. Thank you for being the way back to the Father. Thank you for the Helper. Thank you for praying for us. May we keep your commandment to love God first and each other second.

Easter Preparation

2009-04-09T11:46:00.005-05:00

I am sitting here reading the Gospel accounts of the events surrounding Easter along with John Stott's The Cross of Christ in preparation for a sermon I get to preach this Sunday (feeling a little rusty since it's been awhile since I've had to do sermon preparation).

It's neat being reminded of some of the small details related to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Like Pilate knowing Jesus was handed over because of envy. And all the former dead people walking around Jerusalem after the Resurrection (see Mt 27:52-53).

But my sermon thoughts are not the reason I decided to put aside sermon prep and write a blog post. As I was taking a break I read BiblePlaces Blog on the Tomb of Jesus and actually watched the video from Expedition Bible. I would suggest you watch it too, but if you are like me you ignore like 95% of videos posted on blogs. So, I'll tell you my viewpoint on it.

With the recent discovery of the inscription of "Jesus son of Joseph" on one of the ossuaries from Talpiot, I have had little interest in following the drama surrounding the so-called family of Jesus tomb. From the beginning I've noticed intellectual dishonesty surrounding the tombs and particularly the inscriptions. I knew the issue was that the bones of Jesus had been found thus evidence that we Christians are a bunch of idiots following a good man hoping for some fantasy land where like minded people go who have nothing else to do but have a simpleton belief in God. But beyond that it's one of those issues I frankly could care less about. Not just because it contradicts what I believe (for I often entertain many things that contradict what I believe) but mainly because it had little substance to its claims.

In my own words, here are the issues, if you believe I am in error, let's talk. In the 1980's a 1st century tomb was found containing about 10 ossuaries (a limestone box that contains bones) of which 6 had inscriptions. One of the inscriptions is "Jesus son of Joseph." This led a filmmaker and journalist to conclude that this was Jesus of Nazareth. Their argument is that this combination of Jesus as son of Joseph is probably and statistically refering to the Joseph and Jesus commonly known in the New Testament.

While there are other smaller issues, basically these two guys believe they have solid evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but in fact his disciples stole the body and did something with it. So, for all it is worth and for all their creativity, they haven't come up with anything original. This was the exact lie and conspiracy forged days after the death of Jesus.

My first reaction is draw my sword and cut their ears off (or rather cut out their lying tongues) but I know those who live by the sword die by it. My second is to pray for these guys who so desperately want to believe a lie rather than truth. Are they really so far removed from the opponents of Jesus of his day?

May their journalism skills stay objective. May their creativity be used for good not bad. Draw them to the cross, the grave, the resurrection and the consequences thereof. In Jesus' name. Amen.

If Jesus did not come back to life after his death, the only honest and noble thing for me to do is to stop following him. But HE LIVES, HE LIVES, HE LIVES.

The lesson from a fellow fisherman

2009-03-23T10:26:00.004-05:00

The other day I was following someone to meet two nationals. We were about 2 hours outside the capital and were entering a nice size town. As we came into town a white truck was parked in my lane, the right lane, cater cornered towards the left. I had to swerve over into the left lane to avoid a collision. My first instinct was to blow my horn at him, but this time I didn't. And I am glad I didn't.

We met our friends and the person I was following suggested we go back and check to see if the man was OK. It was thought he may have been sick or having a heart attack or something. So, we turned around and found the truck empty. But soon the driver was found walking up the hill. His car had overheated.

No one had stopped to check on this man, or find out why his car was in the middle of the road. We pushed his car off the road and got him some water. One of nationals, a local pastor, started talking to the guy in a very nice and genuinely concerned manner. It turns out this man had had a tumor/aneurysm removed recently. So, when his truck overheated he was having a hard time dealing with the problem and really didn't know what to do next. The pastor also found out that this man was a fisherman and that he was on his way to deliver some sort of gourmand fish (looked like an eel or a snake to me) to a fancy restaurant in town. The fish had to be delivered alive in order to be prepared correctly. The pastor was able to phone the restaurant, and have someone come and pick up the fish. Then, he called someone to come help get the car going again.

I felt really bad that my first impulse was to blown my horn at this guy instead of even thinking to help or that something might be wrong. I am afraid that I would have been the two people who passed the Samaritan. Sometimes, it is just good to have a reality check about those who annoy us.

So many lessons I learned from this brief encounter with a fisherman. 1) Give people a break, you have no idea what might be going on behind the scenes. 2) Is my action really going to change the situation. If I had honked my horn would that have really gotten the man out of the way? 3) Being a good example speaks volumes. The pastor's example said more to me than the few Portuguese words I understood him to say on Sunday. 4) Be around those who are doing right will influence me to do right. I would not have thought twice about this guy, but being with others who are obviously more spiritual than I, showed me my errant ways.

Book Meme

2009-03-14T16:20:00.002-05:00

Don't worry no one is getting tagged. I got this from Stew, and he was saying he disagrees with the BBC report that most will only have read 6 of the 100. See the bottom for my results. If you tag yourself, let me know so I can see your results.

Instructions:

1. Look at the list and put an ‘x’ after those you have read ENTIRELY
2. Add a ‘+’ to the ones you LOVE.
3. Star (*) those you plan on reading.
4. Tally your total at the bottom.

My reading list:

1. Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2. The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
3. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte *
4. Harry Potter series - JK Rowling
5. To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee X+
6. The Bible X+
7. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8. Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell *
9. His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11. Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12. Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy X
13. Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14. Complete Works of Shakespeare
15. Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16. The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien X
17. Birdsong - Sebastian Faulks
18. Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger X
19. The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20. Middlemarch - George Eliot
21. Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22. The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald X+
23. Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
26. Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh
27. Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28. Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck X
29. Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
30. The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame X+
31. Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32. David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33. Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis X+
34. Emma - Jane Austen
35. Persuasion - Jane Austen
36. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis X
37. The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39. Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
40. Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne
41. Animal Farm - George Orwell *
42. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown X
43. One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44. A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45. The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46. Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47. Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy *
48. The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49. Lord of the Flies - William Golding X+
50. Atonement - Ian McEwan
51. Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52. Dune - Frank Herbert
53. Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54. Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55. A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56. The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57. A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58. Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60. Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61. Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62. Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63. The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64. The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
65. Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66. On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67. Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy *
68. Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding
69. Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70. Moby Dick - Herman Melville *
71. Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72. Dracula - Bram Stoker
73. The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74. Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75. Ulysses - James Joyce
76. The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
77. Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78. Germinal - Emile Zola
79. Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80. Possession - AS Byatt
81. A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82. Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83. The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84. The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85. Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
86. A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87. Charlotte’s Web - EB White X
88. The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Alborn
89. Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90. The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91. Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad *
92. The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery *
93. The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94. Watership Down - Richard Adams
95. A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96. A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97. The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98. Hamlet - William Shakespeare X
99. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100. Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Total 14/100

Sadly, a lot of the classics I've read was not on the list. Then, there are those I've only partially read. I'd be familiar with even more.=(

What Penn Says is this

2009-03-10T15:46:00.003-05:00

The famous talker of the duo Penn and Teller gives us his impression of a gift given to him after a show.

And despite the title of this post I am not going to even try to speak for Penn. He is capable of speaking for himself. But he brings up a good question I'd like to ask. What is the role of religion in society? I think it does serve some function. But does religion make people good? I look around and see hard core atheists doing good deeds. Is it always that humans do good based on faith (or their religion)? I think clearly the answer is no. Religion does not serve society by making people better.

I can see some common outcomes of religion. Most, if not all, seem to make a society more cohesive, or form some sort of community. But when your society is not all the same religion, does religion serve the entire community? To a degree it serves everyone by separating them into like minded groups. Thus, in a particular society you may get Jews and Gentiles living within the same space and possibly even becoming friends who understand each others spiritual differences, but who are nonetheless separated by that same mentality. Then, inside each major religion you find smaller communities being formed around their particular emphasis of how things should be. In Christianity, this is how denominations come into existence.

Another outcome of religion that I see would be the shaping of worldview. Religion provides a way to explain the world in which we live; why things are the way they are and usually a solution of some sort to how things ought to be in the future (or the present).

But I'm digressing a bit. Penn is touched by the gift of this "good" man. It's almost as if whatever faith this man had could make everyone as good as he, then Penn might be open to further exploration and actual promotion of this faith. And although Penn still retains his atheism, he values "good."

I think we all do. But who (or what) is good? How do we explain the transformation of some people who've found "religion?" Then, how can we explain the goodness of the faithless? Could it be that the concept of goodness is relative? Even Jesus said no one is good except God, that would mean, according to him, even the most devout Muslim, Jew, Sikh, or whatever is not good, as well as the most well behaved atheist. Yet we value "good," and wish to experience it done to us and we to others.

Therefore, finding good (only found in God, according to Jesus) seems to be different than finding religion, as such.

All paths are not created equally

2009-03-04T06:50:00.005-06:00

I have been thinking about this subject for a few days. And I will continue to think about it. So, this post is not my final answer on the topic, but I wanted to at least start writing about it.

While in language school Lady R and I met this Japanese Buddhist monk. He was here to do a Christian pilgrimage. He said the Dalai Lama has encouraged the investigation of other world religions for the purpose of peace. So, he'd decided to do a Christian pilgrimage or two. He's already done several pilgrimages in China, Japan, and India.

We were talking the other day, and he said the goal of Buddhism is Enlightenment. I always thought it was to reach Nirvana, but what do I know? He said Enlightenment was like the peak of a mountain and all religious paths led to that peak. One simply chooses the path that best suits him. For some this is Christianity and others it's Buddhism or Shintoism or any religion. Buddhism, he claims, is an inclusive religion which morphs into the local traditions. They do not deny God or the gods, but accept whatever gods are around.

But if Buddhism is so inclusive why did they used to kill converts to Christianity? It seems that if Christianity is a legitimate path (and one that "suits" someone) , that one would have been able to convert without repercussions. Why is it only recently that Buddhism accepts a person converting to Christianity? Or is it really true that Buddhism now or ever has accepted other religions? Isn't it more true to say that you can convert to Christianity as long as you stay Buddhist? This means you must have some form of syncretism. In this revised system, you must maintain a Buddhist worldview but are allowed to pray to Jesus. Otherwise, you would have to completely give up the Buddhist understanding of the world for another.

I am well aware of how Christianity has meshed (never well) with many local traditions around the world. I am keenly aware of the exclusive position of Jesus Christ himself. I know that you can say that you can keep your Hinduism and apparently your Buddhism and take on a little Christianity without any spiritual dissonance (or cognitive dissonance even). And I know that it doesn't work the other way around. You can't be Christian and a Hindu or Buddhist at the same time. So, I ask, "Are all paths equal?"

How can they be? I know you can only stretch a metaphor so far. So, when one says that the peak of the mountain (whatever that is, heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, etc) is attained by many paths, one is saying something rather figuratively. But I know that all paths do not reach the top. Some paths lead nowhere. Some take you dangerously close to the edge where if you continue you will fall off. Therefore, can we really say all religions lead you to the same end? This is not a question of personal preference. I suspect if the goal is the top of the mountain that the path is hard and narrow and not many people find it nor attain the destination. But again, what do I know?

Carnival and Lent

2009-02-26T08:43:00.004-06:00

So what are you giving up for Lent?

I have never "done" a Lent, and do not anticipate doing one anytime soon.

Having lived in the birthplace of Mardi Gras celebration in the USA (not New Orleans either) for over 23 years, I am aware of the "party-it-up attitude," before the "giving-it-all-up attitude," of Lent.

Well, this year I was curious to see if a Portuguese Carnaval compared to a Mardi Gras. I would say it's just as lacking in dignity as any Mardi Gras but in a different way. My biggest question is what possesses a majority male population of those in attendance at Carnaval to desire to dress up as women? Sociological, what question is this begging to ask? What needs are there to become someone else of a different sex and act out? Enlighten me, please.

Transportation

2009-02-13T14:56:00.004-06:00

Somehow some way you have to get around. You can go by foot, by car, by train, by boat, by plane, on horseback, and a variety of other means, but if you travel you will use some kind of transportation.

In Paris I think the public transportation is really good (as well as in London). You can get almost anywhere by metro plus walking a few minutes. My observation is that the London underground is a lot cleaner than the Paris metro, but the Paris system seems to be more efficient (except during the times of strikes or demonstrations).

The metro in Lisbon is clean and efficient (unless you need to get from the red line to the yellow, but they are working on it). However, I do have a complaint. If you are one of the poor souls that have to stand up during your trek across town, you have to hold on to these grips above you, that is if there is anything to hold on at all. This makes it ideal for pickpockets and hard to keep your balance.

The public buses are a little better with poles to hang on to. But some of the buses are old (as they are in Paris too) and the ride is rough. I think it is more the streets than the actual buses themselves. I think Lisbon must have the most cobble stone roads in Europe.

And speaking of roads, today we drove around to get a feel for the city. We've noticed that paint is in short supply. You can have a road with three lanes and nothing to distinguish one lane from another. You end up driving somewhere in the middle of any lane. Or you might have a lane change without warning. All of sudden you are in a turn lane but wanting to go straight. And road signs are no better. In that way, living in Dallas has helped me not to rely totally on signs to direct me in the way I should go. Today, we were driving on a road separated by a train track. We knew we needed to get over the tracks, but there was no way to. Finally, we saw a ramp, but trying to find how to get on it took a little bit of luck and skill. Then, you had to watch out so as not to be swallowed by the massive potholes. We could have easily lost an axle if we had ran full fledged into one, which we almost did a time or two.

And one last thing. What ever made Ford so great? I grew up, influenced by dad, to have a strong dislike for Fords. He's had a Chevrolet ever since I was born, and it was a known fact in our household that Ford was not all that. Later on, something happened and he bought my mom a Ford, and so I thought to myself, "Well, if my dad had a change of heart maybe they aren't so bad." It prepared me for Europe where we've had a Ford the whole time. And I am not complaining in the least. I am tickled pink just to have a vehicle (and a nice one at that). I am very thankful to be able to drive anything. But I'll tell you, old or new, every Ford I've ever driven is hard to get going in the beginning. They all have the same feel, and it's like you really have to manhandle them to get 'em to go. I stalled out so many times today. But in a little while I'll have it down! Or at least I hope to have it down.

About a month ago

2009-02-04T04:29:00.003-06:00

This is a SHORT run down of all that has been going on since we left France on Dec 16.

Our pictures were in the local paper and an article written about our language project there.
Drove to Paris to sell our car and spent a couple of days seeing the city for the last time at least for a year.
Visited some friends in Germany for Christmas.
While there heard a wonderful Christmas Eve sermon and I bought some walking shoes
Left Germany on Dec 30; arrived in Lisbon in PM
Woke up the next morning seeing the Tejo River.
Started driving immediately. WHAT?!! but survived
Spent New Year's Eve watching fireworks with some friends and made new ones.
Visited Palacio da Ajuda and Torre de Belem
Eaten tons of local pastries and drank more coffee than I ever have in my life.
Asked to help assist coach for an American football team (of all things)
Started job teaching English on Monday, 5th.
Visited Vasco da Gama's tomb and have eaten at Chilis (WHOOOHOOO American food)
Seen some of the surfing beaches around town (Cascais, Parede, Carcavelos et al.)
Went to Mafra, Cabo da Roca and Boco do Inferno
Signed up for a gym (what a novel idea)
Got my haircut (really did not like it)
Got my prescription for my glasses filled. They are way too strong
We've taken a two week intensive Portuguese class.
Have had the time of my life so far. Lady R has been doing great with culture stress. I, on the other hand, have felt it a bit more, but have been able to deal with it!

Lisboa

2009-01-09T05:44:00.002-06:00

I thought I would try to write a quick update. I have not died nor fallen off the planet. I am in Lisboa, been here for a little over a week, have started my job, and so far love mostly everything about our new place.

I wish I could go into more details but I am at an internet cafe at the mall because I still do not have internet at our place. We are trying to resolve the issues.

It´s supper cold here. In fact it is as cold here as it was when we left France. We have gotten to see a lot of neat stuff and even had diner at Chili´s.

When there is more time I will give more of the juicy details.

What I'll Miss in France

2008-12-13T16:43:00.000-06:00

10. The slower pace of life here.

9. Dark Chocolate Options.

8. Our relationships we've developed with those in our language classes and in our community at large.

7. Bisous. It's nice; those air kisses you do when you meet someone for the first time during the day.

6. Fly Overs by military jets. We live in the flight path of the Navy's training courses.

5. Sunsets over the "Mountain" that can be seen from our living room window

4. Rocky Beaches

3. The Monks (B&P) and Nuns (ML & Y)

2. Cleaning the rivers with the locals

1. Vanilla Coke. Supposedly it is longer made in the USA

Our first couple of lessons

2008-12-04T15:17:00.003-06:00

In the midst of packing we try to listen to our Pimsleur's Portugal. It's a great way of learning to speak before "seeing" the language.

Here's what we've learned so far. I have no idea how these phrases are suppose to be written. I'm only writing how it sounds to me. I do not know how to indicate the nasal sounds, it's just there.

/Desh kulp/- Excuse me
/mina Señora/- ma'am
/eSeñora fala inglesh/- Do you(f) speak English?
/por tu gesh/-Portuguese
/oSeñor eh americanoo/- Are you(m) American?
/Faloo uhn pok d por tu gesh/ - I speak a little Portuguese.
/Now so americana/- I'm not American (f)
/Now faloo por tu gesh muy to bane/- I do not speak Portuguese very well.
/Per se bo por tu gesh/ - I understand Portuguese.
/oSeñor per se bah inglesh/- Do you(m) understand Portuguese?
/bon dia/- Good morning
/boa tard/- Good afternoon
/Komoo shta/- How are you?
/Muy to bane/- Very well
/ee eSeñora/- And you (f)?
/Di ondah eSeñora/- Where are you from (to a woman)?
/Soda Amerika/- I am from America.
/Soduh Lish boa/- I am from Lisbon.
/Ay Di oosh/- Good bye.

As you can see, Portuguese is distinctive in that it has a certain "sh" sound. If an "s" is between a vowel and a consonant, it is pronounced /sh/ (as in Lisboa /lish boa/ ) or if an "s" comes at the end of a word like in /por tu gesh/.

You will also note that a very formal way of saying "you" is literally "the Lady," and "the Mister." Thus, we have /eSeñora fala inglesh/ - Do you (f) speak English?

An Official Announcement

2008-12-01T11:49:00.004-06:00

Today, I have an official announcement to make.

We've been living here in France for just under 3 years. In that time Lady R and I have gone through a whole lot. We've experienced and gotten over cultural shock, learned two languages, been misunderstood on more than one occasion, learned to drive a stick shift, had a bunch of on-the-job-training, traveled too much for business, eaten pizza in Italy, seen the Alps in three countries, rode on a boat down the Seine, seen windmills in Holland, and enjoyed the warm weather in Spain in the winter. And that's the small list.

We have been approved to return to France and continue our projects. But before we can continue, we must be out of the country for a year. So, we've been invited to go to Portugal for 6 months to teach. I am very excited to take this position even if it is only for just a semester. Then, it is back to the States for another 6 months.

Some of the changes that will take place here at CL will be more articles written about Portugal and less articles about France. I know very little about Portuguese culture and hope to take in as much as possible in our short time there. I also am thinking about including some of the knowledge I've gained here about Celtic language and history and culture.

I thank you all for kindly stopping by and being a loyal reader of my blog! I hope you continue coming, and I wish you all the best.

Blogging today's headlines on church buildings

2008-11-13T12:13:00.003-06:00

I found it ironic today to find two articles on church buildings today.

The first was about a Russian church that turned up missing and thought to be stolen. That is so comic book worthy, I may have to start a story line. How do you steal a church? Where do you hide it? What do you do with it after you've stolen it? It seems those guilty of such a "grave sin of blasphemy," were not thinking of the severe consequences of stealing a church. Don't get me wrong I do not advocate stealing, but this stunt begs the question, "What would church be like, if all the buildings were gone? Could/Would the Church survive?"

The second story was about ugly church architecture (also from CNN). In the 1950's and 1960's churches (in America and England) began to build buildings that were no longer aesthetically pleasing but possibly a bit more economical. So why do people care these more functional but less attractive buildings, that "deviate from how we expect a church to look," are ugly? What is it about a church building that we insist on it being beautiful? Why do we make it a point to render a visit to the local church when we are on vacation? (not for a service but as a tourist to see what's inside) What if it really is too expensive to maintain or build bigger church buildings now? The Third CoC Scientist (see article above) built this really ugly building then some preservation group came along and said it was a historical monument. Now, they can't even tear it down despite the fact they want to. Europe is littered with churches by the hundreds that can't be touched not to mention torn down, even though these churches are empty because of drastic drop in attendance over the past few years. Again, I ask, "How would our spiritual lives be different if we no longer had a building?"

If he was there he would roll over in his grave

2008-11-09T14:33:00.004-06:00

If Jesus was still in the grave at St. Sepulcher, he'd be rolling over in it after today's incident at one of Christianity's holiest site.

It appears the clash was over who has the "correct" right over the place. It's so typical Christian, too fight over territory deemed "holy." I hate this, and it disgusts me to see people who claim they are following Christ squabbling over sections in a church. It's no better than Baptists who refuse to give up their seat to visitors. This is not what Christ was about.

If anyone is interested I can post something on why this site is such a hot spot for Christian confrontation. However, I feel the reasons why are not as important as why these different Christian groups can't stop be so territorial. It's ridiculous! Shame shame shame on the whole bunch of you, and especially the Greeks and the Armenians. You're both wrong!

America the Beautiful

2008-11-05T03:35:00.004-06:00

The Obama victory shows the world that America really is one of the greatest countries on this planet. As was said in his victory speech, dreams can become a reality in America.

What Obama has done is to galvanize the black vote (among others) unlike any other black politician has done to date. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others never could "get the vote out," like this campaign did. This election had the highest voter turn out since 1908 with 66% of registered voters voting. 95% of African-American voters voted for Obama.

America is an example of progress. For a country to go from barely having voting rights for blacks before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to actually electing a black president shows considerable gains. What other Western country has done this to this magnitude? In France, with the Sarkozy administration, there is Rama Yade, the Secretary of State and for Human Rights. But I can not recall any European country who has elected for its top official a minority. We are an example. We are still capable of being a world leader.

Maybe the world will change its thinking in regards to America now. As we will be making plans to leave Iraq and hopefully will have some plan for "Main Street" economics instead of "Wall Street" business, how long will it take for the world to again look at America with disdain because of its greatness? How long will those who cried "Hosanna," crucify their "black Jesus?"

Are you ready for the New United Socialists

2008-11-02T12:23:00.001-06:00

Hymns

2008-10-30T15:33:00.003-05:00

I've seen in the church the revolution of worship style. Growing up I remember singing hymns almost exclusively. Every once and awhile we'd have someone sing another type of song, but by far and large it was hymns.

Then, in the 90's, Christian Contemporary Music (from the Jesus' Movement) became mainstream. It was a nice change.

Even in the midst of change, I never enjoyed just the new stuff or just the old stuff. I really enjoyed, what has been labeled, "the blended service."

This last Sunday I noticed something again. If a congregation rarely opens the hymnal, it will produce a musically illiterate congregation. When that happens, only the professionals, on stage, can lead music. And the congregation can't really jump in because they don't know the songs. This leaves the professionals on stage the only ones singing.

I, like many, learned music from church and gained an appreciation for it there. I like to see the musical score not just the words. But that's just me.

Between 1/2 and 3/4

2008-10-30T15:01:00.006-05:00

Fall is definitely in the air. The temperature has dropped, and the rain has settled in for the long dark winter ahead of us here.

But we've tried to not let that prevent us from biking and walking down a little walking path near our home. I've noticed something. The hardest part of getting through my exercise is between the 1/2 and 3/4 mark. I tend to do a lot of self talk when exercising. It helps me to push onward and upward. Getting to the 1/2 mark does not seem to be too hard. You are in the "Oh, I can get this done no problem," mode. And when you are doing the last 1/4, you can see it to the end. Relief is in sight. But when I get to the 1/2 point and then turn around, I struggle despite the self-talk.

The world at times seems to be in that 1/2 and 3/4 place.

Here are some of my self-talk and possibly self-other talk taken from the Bible.

In the day of my trouble I shall call upon You, For You will answer me.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.

The Lord is my strength and my shield; My heart trusts in Him, and I am helped; Therefore my heart exults, and with my song I shall thank Him!

When I am afraid I will put my trust in You

This I know that God is for me.

You will make known to me the path of life, In Your Presence is fullness of joy.

O God, do not be far from me. O my God hasten to my help!

In whose hand are the depths of the earth, the peaks of the mountains are His also.

The sea is His, for it was He who made it. And His hands formed the dry land.

He caused the storm to be still. So that the waves of the sea were hushed.

Even the darkness is not dark to You. And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You.

The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.

He counts the number of the stars. He gives names to all of them.

Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters, all deeps.

Mushrooms

2008-10-20T12:05:00.003-05:00

I had a little field trip yesterday to pick some mushrooms with some fellow local-language learners. This activity is usually stereotypical of the French. But there were some who'd never done this activity before.

I thought we'd be given a little instruction before. But no, we were just sent off into the woods to find mushrooms. We'd pick them and then later on our pharmacy friend would help identify them all. You see, part of a pharmacist's training is mushroom identification.

I watched others and noticed what they were doing. I thought the goal was to find the most mushrooms like in a contest or something. Others thought it was to find the prettiest mushrooms. And still others thought the point was to find edible mushrooms for their omelets.

I actually did not find many mushrooms. I took the opportunity to walk in the woods. Lady R found a whole lot, and it's good an expert was around because she told Lady R all hers were toxic except for the last ones which seem to be ones well sought after for a gourmand mushroom sauce for meat. Of course, Lady R can't wait to make that sauce and pour it over meat. I am little more hesitate in wanting to actually eat this dish. But if it kills me maybe I'll be remembered as a martyr or something noble. (I've asked not to be buried in France, I'd hate to put my nutrients back in the soil to kept those bad mushrooms growing)

All in all, we had great weather and only one lethal mushroom found. The pharmacist took it with her to keep it safely away from the others. Or I guess that's what she plans to do with it. Has anyone ever heard of being poisoned to death by the local pharmacist?

David and Bathsheba

2008-10-17T15:41:00.003-05:00

It's that time again. Time that I got another story completed. I need to say I realize that the Taj Mahal is not a palace but a tomb (Lady R said I needed to put that disclaimer in). And Bathsheba means possibly the 7th daughter.

Enjoy!

As I walk out the door

2008-10-08T14:57:00.002-05:00

I wanted to post something neutral. Something that ALL could enjoy. Maybe even something personal. But I do not believe such a post exists.

Instead I am writing to get some advice. The last time I came to you in such dire straits, mice had invaded my house. You all had some great responses, and I took some of y'all's advice. I tried luring a cat into the yard with success. I set out poison and traps. Combined, it appears something worked.

But now I have another rodent problem. Moles have showed up in my yard and turned it into a tens of small mud mounds. Everywhere. They are destroying my yard. I already hate cutting my grass (when it's not raining) with my little putter of an electric lawnmower. And with the piles of dirt everywhere, it's almost impossible.

So, what should I do?

I voted already

2008-10-07T08:55:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, it happened. I voted. But not really FOR either of the two main candidates running. It mostly a vote AGAINST the other.

It came down to this one issue, socialized medicine. Basically, I am against it. Why? Take a look at the United Kingdom. That's the last place in Europe I want to be if I'm hurt or really sick. And this is not just an American's prejudice, most of the Brits that I know who live here say that one of the reasons they moved here is better health care.

But doesn't that contradict the notion that socialized medicine = bad? Isn't the socialized system in France better? Granted, it is better, and if you live in a big city you really can get pretty decent health care. But what Americans seem to ignore about any universal health care is that they will, no questions asked, pay much more taxes. And the payoff may not be so great. I give you again the United Kingdom as an example. Americans, in general and including me, are not willing to give over nearly half their income to the government for coverage. Just because you are covered does not guarantee quality. In France, the further you go from any large city the fewer the doctors which equals longer waiting times to see doctors.

I give just one example. I broke my glasses when I first moved out here (way out in the country). I called to get an eye appointment. It was going to take 8 months before they could schedule me in. Lady R has also experienced a delay in seeing doctors out here. On the other hand, we have had great dental service.

(I realize the American health system needs some improvements)

I reprint this article from DirectSoir, a metro newspaper, when I was in Paris a few weeks ago. It basically says what I said above, the further from a city you go the greater the decline in medical services. Also check out these ex-pats living (or having recently lived) in Europe.
Thanks to Dispatches from France for the I vote pic. Be aware not everyone shares my position.
Here is Contexting's take. And from a great blogger Kari at Culture Shock Happens.

Médecins: le déséquilibre hexagonal

L’ordre des médecins a publié aujourd’hui son atlas de la démographie médicale en France. On y apprend que Ile-de-France, l’Alsace, et les cinq régions du Sud (Corse, Paca, Lanquedoc-Rousillon, Midi-Pyrénées et Aquitaine) comptent davantage de médecins par habitant que les autres. L’écart le plus important s’etablit entre la Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, où la densité est de 418 practiciens généralistes pour 100 000 habitants, et la Picardie, où elle n’atteint que 259 médecins pour la même population. L’ordre, qui s’interroge sur l’impact des “incitations gouvernementales” pour faire croître la proportion de généralistes dans les “zones dites désertifiées”, souligne que les nouveaux inscrits “restent dans les grandes villes, près des centres hospitaliers universitaires (CHU)”. De plus, ils s’installent de plus en plus tard pour les deux tiers.

Directsoir N°404/Jeudi 18 septembre 2008.

Flinging things and thinking ships

2008-10-05T15:03:00.003-05:00

Today, I decided to take some time and actually "study" the Bible rather than just reading it and getting a nice little thought for the day.

Every since seminary I've been wanting to really nail down the Hebrew from both Jonah and Ruth. Learning two languages in the last three years has sort of put a damper on keeping up the Hebrew (and Greek). In fact, it still is and will be until we get back to the States some time next year. And for the record, I do not believe you need to know one iota of Greek or one jot of Hebrew to read and completely understand the Bible. For me, I just enjoy "studying" the Bible in this way. It certainly is not needful/necessary. As the French say, "C'est juste mon truc" (It's just my thing).

In Jonah 1:4, the Lord is said to have "sent out," "hurl," or "flung," a great storm on the sea. I get this image of this really big hurricane, and God is so much bigger than it, that he can fling it onto the sea. I just like the word "fling," or "hurl," for a storm sent by God onto the sea.

In the same verse, the ship that the sailors were on is said to have been on the verge of breaking up. Literally, we have the ship "thinking about," "planning," or "considering" breaking up. Granted, we know that the ancient Hebrews (those who wrote and those experiencing the storm on the ship) did not believe that ships had a brain and was thinking. But the use of personification grabs the reader's attention. The ship "considering breaking up" shows how close the ship was actually was in being destroyed. It literally was on the very verge of it.

The point. God hurls storms and ships think. That's a pretty cool ship and an even cooler God.

Out of service

2008-09-16T02:52:00.004-05:00

I can remember a business meeting I was in once where someone made a motion to NOT do something. That person was called on the carpet, and it was stated you do not make a motion to not do something. You just don't do it.

That's me. I am posting a note to say I will not be writing for a little while.

Am I just plain faithless?

2008-09-11T12:17:00.003-05:00

or are these people making Christians look like idiots?

Not my Rock N Roll Jesus

2008-09-07T13:23:00.005-05:00

Recently, we heard a guy singing a chorus that included the lines, "...and singing 'Sweet Home Alabama' all summer long..."

The song even has the ever famous riff from the Lynyrd Skynyrd's classic rock hit. Who was this guy and what was this song? People here in France always believe they are impressing us with their international knowledge (and sometimes it is impressive and sometimes well...) when they quote lines from either "Sweet Home Alabama," or "Oh Susanna," you know the "I came from Alabama with a banjo on my knee." So, when a new pop song with another reference to Alabama came out, we decided we needed to be informed about what was being propagated about our home state.

In one instance we were all warm and bubbly inside getting that "oh, it's from home" feeling. The next...we were thinking, "Oh great, another embarrassing negative stereotype."

Kid Rock's newest album Rock n Roll Jesus features the song "All Summer Long." Obviously, the lyrics are as shallow as a dried mud hole, but the most offensive thing is found in the video. One minute, Kid Rock (I can't help thinking the narrator and the author are the same person in this case. i.e. KR is singing about himself) is fondly remembering singing LS's "Sweet Home..."then the next minute he's driving away in a car with a license plate that reads MICHIGAN!! And is anyone else offended by the Confederate Flag bikini! That desecration is kin to burning the American flag.

Now, what YANKEE enjoys singing a song about Alabama being a sweet home?!

No thanks, Rock and Roll Jesus. I stick with the original Jesus and the original song.

At least the guys who wrote the original were from the South!

"I kissed a girl...

2008-09-05T08:26:00.004-05:00

...and I liked it"

This popular hit song by Katy Perry has stirred up the sensibilities of some Christian groups. And, of course, the begging question is how should (or even should) Christians respond? I have an answer.

If you do not know who Katy Perry is, you can read a little about her here. You will notice she is the daughter of two pastors and used to be on a "Christian" label (whatever that means). So, when she changed her name and signed to a different label and came out with "UR So Gay," and "I Kissed A Girl," some asked what was going on.

The message behind "UR So Gay" is actually more about effeminate guys than homosexual guys. It seems the song was inspired by an ex-boyfriend who was more into his guy liner and hair straightener than into her. It's an expression of a girl being hurt by a boy who's not acting like a boy. He's become the girl in that relationship. If she had wanted that kind of relationship she wouldn't have picked such a "gay" guy (who doesn't even like boys).

The other song, "I Kissed A Girl", has not really been embraced by the gay community as a positive promotion of their lifestyle. This song is about a girl who kisses another girl to get back at her boyfriend. It's to make him jealous. Gay groups complain that the song encourages whimsical gay kissing solely to gain attention and that it plays right into the hands of stereotypical and prejudice ideas about the gay lifestyle.

Of course, there are Christian groups (and even her pastoral parents) who have denounced the song as promoting the sin of homosexuality. Even on Perry's blog she's posted a picture of a church sign that reads, "I kissed a girl and I liked it then I went to hell."

What is a person to do with Katy Perry? The gay groups hate her for perpetuating wrong gay ideas, and the Christian community hates her for promoting gay ideas period.

I do not think church signs condemning Perry to hell is going to do any good. Oh, it might make someone feel good that someone is saying out loud what they are thinking inside. But it isn't going to bring a change.

Here's what Christians (or followers of Jesus or any other appellation you wish to attach to yourself) should do. Let God deal with Katy Perry. Point Finale. And in the quiet recesses of your being pray for her. Pray the best for her. No matter who we are we could all use a little prayer for our betterment.

Effects of evolution on the cell church

2008-08-28T15:34:00.004-05:00

Job fights back

2008-08-25T03:49:00.003-05:00

Started reading the book of Job again.

I like how he, in his most trying time, still defends himself. Job has just lost everything. His three friends have just come over to "to sympathize with him and comfort him," and "they sat down on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights with no one speaking a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great."

If they had stopped there, they would have acted appropriately. But Eliphaz thought, like so many, that he needed to preach Job a little sermon. He starts out (ch 4) by reminding Job how Job used to be an encourager to others. But now Job is not toughing it out as he has encouraged others to do. In fact, it has to be Job's fault for his misery.

But Job returns the discourse: He does not want (or need) a sermon; he's looking for understanding. And his "friends" are scared of trouble. In addition, Job did not want a problem solver.

Things could easily change in a moment's notice. I am not in the storm of life today. Tomorrow I maybe, we just never know. But from this vantage point of being outside of trouble and having been in a "situation" within the last year, I can say "sermons" are not the medicine for a hurting soul. No matter how true the content of the sermon may be, the timing of its delivery is so important. It may just need to wait. Besides, usually the "preacher" does not have all the facts anyway to compose his "message."