joyfulchristian |
|
|
My own personal musings, wonderings, thoughts, and results of personal studies. Also, occasional comments on world events. Counter
Links Christian Resources Christian Blogs Political/News Blogs Totally Cool Sites Greatest Hits
Archives 
|
Monday, May 13, 2002
Psalms 3 - WEB Yahweh, how my adversaries have increased! Many are those who rise up against me. Many there are who say of my soul, There is no help for him in God. Selah. But you, Yahweh, are a shield around me, My glory, and the one who lifts up my head.
I cry to Yahweh with my voice, And he answers me out of his holy hill. Selah. I laid myself down and slept. I awakened; for Yahweh sustains me. I will not be afraid of tens of thousands of people Who have set themselves against me on every side. Arise, Yahweh! Save me, my God! For you have struck all of my enemies on the cheek bone. You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to Yahweh. Your blessing be on your people. Selah.
Father, we honor you above all. Sometimes it seems that Satan has sent ten thousand to oppose us. We thank you for sending your Son to deliver us and you Spirit to give us strength. Lord, I see so much in this world that frightens me and that I know must pain you. Give us the courage to spread your word to the world. May we be doing the task you set before us, reconciling a lost world to you.
I pray Lord that you provide my needs daily and help me not to be puffed up and think I have provided for myself. I ask that you forgive me of my sins and help me to forgive others. Teach me to flee from temptation and to resist it when I can't outrun it. You are the holy, awesome, and might God and I praise your name above all the earth. In your Son's glorious name, Amen. Martin Roth has added David Heddle's blog, He Lives to his list of Christian Blogs. I just got an email from David myself and went to check out his site. What I've found so far was thoughtful and well reasoned. I suggest you give it a look. Eugene Volokh has an interesting entry about fear, guns, and cars. He notes in their that one argument that some gun control people make is that guns aren't fun. He points out that this is clearly a matter rational people can differ on. I would point out that while many people fine cars to be fun, I do not. That is no argument to ban or clamp down on cars. He is right that this is a matter rational people can differ on, but he he leaves open the possibility that it if you could prove conclusively that "guns aren't fun," that would have any relevance to the gun control argument. It doesn't. Its a complete non sequiter. Despite that minor quibble, I find the Volokh Brothers blog to be very interesting and recommend that people read it. (Especially if you have an interest in the Second Amendment. [If you live in the U.S., even if like me, you've never owned a gun and don't plan to, you should have and interest in the Second Amendment.]) Sunday, May 12, 2002
Right now I'm reading The Great Republic which is a redaction of Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. This shorter version concentrates on the history of the US. I found a passage that made my blood run cold. It is a tragedy of history that our country not only allowed, but specifically provided for, slavery. Not just any slavery either, but a type that chose a specific group of people and declared that they, as a group, were unworthy of freedom. (It is probably not widely appreciated, but slavery itself was not a new thing to the world. What was new (relatively speaking) was the idea of a racial slave system.) It was this emphasis on degrading a whole group of people based on physical (and to some extent cultural) characteristics that, I feel, made slavery in America particularly vile. (Not that I approve of slavery in any context, its just that some instances are far more grievous than others.) Looking back, its easy to say, "If I'd been there, I'd have acted differently." That tendency is, I think, what caused me to be so disturbed by this passage.
It is almost impossible for us nowadays to understand how profoundly and inextricably negro slavery was interwoven into the whole life, economy, and culture of the Southern states. . . One assertion alone reveals the powerlessness of the community to shake itself free from the frightful disease which had become part of its being. It was said that over six hundred and sixty thousand slaves were held by ministers of the Gospel and members of the different Protestant Churches. Five thousand Methodist ministers owned two hundred and nineteen thousand slaves; six thousand five hundred Baptist ministers owned a hundred and twenty-five thousand; one thousand four hundred Episcopalians held eighty-eight thousand; and so on. Thus the institution of slavery was not only defended by every argument of self-interest, but many a Southern pulpit championed it as a system ordained by the Creator and sanctified by the Gospel of Christ. It is beyond my ambition at this time to do an in-depth look at slavery and the Bible. I just wanted to observe how easy it is to convince yourself that even the most terrible things under the sun are actually the will of God. We would do well to examine this tendency in ourselves. The problems are probably not as extreme as what Churchill describes, but the tendency is there regardless.
So what should we do about this? Paul charged Timothy to accurately handle the word of truth. This tells us some things. The first is that it is clearly possible, as demonstrated above, to mishandle the word. It is possible to read the scriptures and come away with the wrong meaning. The second is that we have a responsibility to avoid doing so.
I would suggest that we try to find ways to avoid mishandling the word. I think that you will find that the times you are most likely to come to the wrong conclusion about what a scripture means are those times that we already know, before picking up our Bible, what we think it says (or worse, what we wished it said). The challenge is to make sure that scripture informs your theology which in turn informs your philosophy and ideology. Danger arises when we allow our ideology and philosphy to inform our theology and then go looking for our new theology in the scriptures.
I know a guy who jokes that he's decided to start following every command in the Bible to the letter, beginning with Hosea 1:2. (The passage where Hosea is ordered by God, in order to be a living metaphor of God's relationship with Israel, to marry a prostitute.) While this is said in jest, the point is very serious. If you want to, it is possible to justify almost any position with a passage in the Bible. You may have to yank the passage out of context and twist it beyond recognition, but it can be (and has been) done.
Given this danger, it is important to be very careful when studying the word. It is important to identify two things (at least) when studying scripture. The first thing you should be aware of is what baggage your bringing with you on the journey. What preconceived notions do you have before you begin your study? (If possible identify where they came from. Ideas you carry because of previous study are not nearly as dangerous as ideas you've formulated in your head or picked up in the culture at large.) The other thing to be aware of is the context of the passage being studied. Who wrote it? Who are they writing too? If they are recording history, identify who was doing the talking and who their audience was. When did the events take place? What was happening in the world at that time? To summarize these two points, understand the background of the passage and understand your own background.
Once you've done that, start your study. Make sure that you are reading to understand what the text says about this issue. Constantly guard against the urge, when finding a passage that seems to support your ideas, to say, "Aha, I was right. Paul agrees with me," or something along those lines. Even if you find that you were correct, the proper state of mind is one looking to see if you agree with the Bible, not the other way around. Also, when finding a passage that seems to support what you've always believed, don't stop. You may find that in the larger context the passage didn't mean what you thought. You may also find that one passage makes a broad general statement while others refine, narrow, and limit the concept. Also, never assume that you've studied an issue so much that no further study is needed. You may have been wrong before. (Even if you studied the issue extensively.) You may find that there was an angle you had not thought of before. (To that end, studying with others is invaluable.)
I would also suggest that you not confine yourselves to one version. Keep in mind that, unless you are reading in the original Koine Greek, what you have in your hands is a translation. Each translation has a different purpose and a different translation philosophy. (Most Bibles have a section at the beginning of the book describing the translation philosophy.) Some translations emphasize ease of reading while others focus on literal (or even word for word) translations. The closer to word for word a translation gets, the more difficult it is for the average person to read casually because the Greek syntax is very different from ours. There are also a number of translations that fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. (You also have some versions commonly referred to as paraphrases. These are attempts to express the general meaning of the passage, even if the actual language of the original has to be abandoned completely. The danger here is that the further you go from word for word translations, the more dependent you are on the translator to actually know what the original intent of the author was. By the time you get to a paraphrase, you are entirely dependent on someone else's opinions about the meaning of a passage.)
Many of the "contemporary" translations are much more concentrated on readability over precision of translation. (Many get near to, or actually cross over the line into, paraphrase.) I have found that the best for overall readability are probably the Contemporary English Version and the New Living Translation. For word for word, there is of course, the venerable King James Version, but the translation is so old that it is, itself, often in need of translation. The American Standard Version is another good example of word for word, but it too is more difficult for the modern reader. The New American Standard or New Revised Standard will probably be the easiest word for word translations for most. The popular New International Version falls somewhere in between word for word and easy to read. Currently, the best mix of precision in translation and readability that I have found is the English Standard Version which was released late last year.
Each of these translations has its advantages and uses. I would recommend that if you have trouble reading a word for word translation that you pick up a New International or New Living version to use in your ordinary reading. For in depth study, the English Standard or New American Standard are probably your best bet for trying to really understand the original intent of the authors. (Or of course, you can learn to read Koine Greek, which is the new project I am working on right now.) The value of not sticking to a single translation is that each one will translate a verse a little differently. Reading slightly different wording of the same idea can sometimes give you new insight into a passage you thought you knew intimately.
I hope these short tips are of value, but if not, discard them. Don't discard the real message of this essay. Never underestimate the value of correctly handling the word of truth. Blogging ground to a halt yesterday as my father and I worked on fixing my fence. Haven't had time to come up with much. I did however see this piece by Jonah Goldberg about the possible advantages of censorship. Saturday, May 11, 2002
And on the subject of morality and grace, lets look at this passage. 1 Peter 1:13-16 So think clearly and exercise self-control. Look forward to the special blessings that will come to you at the return of Jesus Christ. Obey God because you are his children. Don't slip back into your old ways of doing evil; you didn't know any better then. But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God—who chose you to be his children—is holy. For he himself has said, "You must be holy because I am holy." Most people, I think, completely misunderstand Christianity. I think a lot of people have the impression that Christianity gives a set of rules and if you just follow the rules you can go to heaven. This definitely is NOT what Peter says here. He isn't telling them, "Don't do evil so you can be saved."
His message is completely different. He tells these Christians to obey because they are children of God. His messge is, "You've been saved. Now you've need to act like it. You're holy now. You need to act like you're holy." That's the thing. Christians don't do good in order to be saved. They do good BECAUSE they are saved. That's what they were designed to do. We were designed to do good works.
Father, we love you Lord and praise you for sending your Son to die for us. We ask Lord that you give us a greater appreciation of that sacrifice. May we never forget what you've done for us and may we never stop working for you. In Your Son's name, Amen. I received this e-mail today and thought it worth sharing. He's referencing this post from a few days back about Jerry Falwell and 9/11.
And here's what I wrote back.
After sending that response, it occurred to me that I hadn't addressed his other concern. That is, that when those who are meant to be proclaiming the Good News of Christ end up spending all their time talking about morality, the message of the Cross is lost. This is more dangerous, actually, then he lets on. I've been thinking about this anyway and may as well get this out in the open, though I plan on posting at greater length later. I think that one of the most dangerous lies that Satan tells people is, "You're a good person." One of the dangers of preaching lots of morality and little about the blood of Christ is that it gives some people the impression that if there living a pretty decent life, then they must be OK with God. This is a dangerous lie because it gives people an excuse to not repent. (Why should a "good person repent?) I'm working on some more thoughts on this subject and I'll get them out eventually. Friday, May 10, 2002
I got this in an email several years ago. Found it while poking around my hard drive. Don't know its origins, but I liked it and thougt it worth putting up.
I never really wrote about this because I couldn't think of a good way to say this without being too blunt about it. Perhaps I shouldn't have been quite so squeamish. Either way, Christopher Johnson makes a very good point. He's the first person I've heard make this point in relation to the Church of the Nativity fiasco.
Yes, He is risen. Hallelujah! Eugene Volokh has an excellent bit about money and speech. (Ok, so maybe just a little bit of blogging time. Been kinda busy today. Had to clean house and get ready for some repair work. No time for blogging. Maybe later tonight, but then again, maybe not. Thursday, May 09, 2002
Daniel Urman reminds us that it is possible to overplay the poor performance of John Edwards on the talk show circuit last Sunday. Let's take a look at Colossians 1:3-23
Anybody else get the idea that Paul was trying to make a point by his usage of language? Apparently believers in Colosse had bought into the ideas of their culture. Colosse was a big place for religious experimentation, much like our modern world. People there tended to take bits and pieces of many different religions and sprinke them together. This was apparently going on in the church as well. Consequently, Paul felt the need to take every possible avenue to remind them that Christ is all they needed.
The same lesson holds true today. May we never forget that Christ is preeminent in our lives.
Great Father, we love you above all. We thank you for sending your Son to die for us. May we never lose sight of the importance of your sacrifice. May we also remember to keep Him as the central focus of our lives. In Jesus's name, Amen. John Hawkins has this to say about the US and "special relationships."
I'll admit that sometimes I think Dick Morris is stark raving bonkers. This is not one of those times. Does anybody believe she would occupy the West Bank if Arabs were not blowing up her cafes and temples? There is no moral equivalence between those who commit terror - the Arabs - and those who rank among its victims - the Israelis. The soldiers who occupy the West Bank have the same moral justification as the desperate rebels of the Warsaw Ghetto. Just because the Jews have the tanks now makes no moral difference. Michael Kelly asks, "What would you do? Yes, we have been a little disappointed, haven't we? You give a fellow a perfectly good peace process, not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize; award him much of the land he demands and a $90 million monthly budget; let him build an armed force on Israeli territory; and, finally (as America's former top negotiator, Dennis Ross, recently revealed in a remarkable Fox News interview), get both the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel to promise him all of Gaza and nearly all of the West Bank as an independent and joined Palestinian state, with a right of Palestinian return to that state, plus a multibillion-dollar reparations fund -- and what does he do? He goes to war against you. Yes, a disappointment to us all. Disappointing? Yes. Unxepected? No. Latest round robin discussion on the men who locked themselves into the Church of the Nativity with a bunch of monks (who are absolutely NOT hostages, how could you possibly think such a thing) is that they may be shipped to Canada. I wonder if anyone's asked the Canadians.
As memory serves, a deal was originally announced to ship them to Italy. The Italians resonse? "What you talking about Willis?" (Sorry, shameless Different Strokes flashback.) Apparently the Spanish have also been hit up to take them and declined. I heard on the radio that the Vatican and the EU were trying to pressure the Italians into taking them. (My question, why doesn't the Vatican or the EU do it if its such a great thing to do?)
Of course, I'm flabergasted that there would be this much argument about where these guys can or can't go. I mean, its not like there terrorist or anything. Wednesday, May 08, 2002
Lileks had an interesting “Bleat” about comic books a few days back. Specifically, Spider-
He thinks he knows:
If Thor, God of Thunder, was indeed flying around Manhattan on a daily basis, what would this do to organized religions? Here’s a living incarnation of an ancient creed. Flying around. In broad daylight. Imagine the anguish: we’re all waiting for an incarnation to appear, and it’s THAT religion? Like, the God of SWEDEN? I would suggest that this would cause a meltdown in Western society, especially once Thor’s interviewed on TV. Later he adds: Legalisms aside, at some point we’d have to confront Thor’s manifest divinity:“I’m one of many gods, and we live up there, in the sky. Our leader is Odin, who’s your typical big fellow with a white beard. We’re the only gods up there, as far as I know.” People would come out of church, see Thor flying across the sky (with a hammer! A stupid HAMMER!) and feel this horrible pang of doubt. Let’s break this down a bit. Is Lileks right? Would people’s faith be shattered if we suddenly met Thor (or some other mythical god) in the flesh? I’m afraid he’s right. Most people’s faith would shatter.
Now why do I think this is important to examine? Because people’s faith would be shattered for no good reason. Further, people’s faith is shattered all the time by things no where near as profound as the appearance of Thor.
Some of you are probably surprised. Do I seriously believe that the sudden appearance of a god out of myth has no affect on our faith? Let me be perfectly clear. This event would certainly change our world view. Among other things, it would blow away one of my arguments about what makes Christianity so important. (That being that while its central story may resemble some myths, Christianity points to a place and time and says the myth became fact at that point in history.) But, that argument is NOT Christianity, nor is it biblical, or actually important in the grand scheme of the Christian’s walk with Christ.
I certainly concede that Thor’s appearance would change our world view. (Not just the Christian’s either. It would be a big shock to atheists and agnostics as well.) I do contend, though, that whether or not Thor is real has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. Let’s think about this. The only way the truth of one fact statement is evidence of the falseness of another is if those two statements are mutually exclusive. The statements, “Thor is real,” and, “Yahweh is real,” are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, even if Lileks’s hypothetical statement by Thor really happened, “I’m one of many gods, and we live up there, in the sky. Our leader is Odin, who’s your typical big fellow with a white beard. We’re the only gods up there, as far as I know,” it still would not be antithetical to Christianity.
Someone may say, but doesn’t the Bible say there is only one God? And in fact, it does. Several times. But now its important to understand what we mean by the word "god." I would suggest that historically the word has often been used to describe someone with a great deal more power or ability than you yourself have. This would explain why, for example, men like Caesar Augustus could be worshipped as gods. The point of this is that while the same kind of language was used by pagans to describe beings they believed to be greater than themselves as we use to describe the one Being greater than all does not mean that the words mean the same things in these different contexts.
The Bible's description of Yahweh is of a one of a kind Being. If Thor existed for real, the fact that some people have considered him to be a god would not disprove Christianity. My faith is not based on word games. My faith is based on having found the New Testament account to be a reliable source of information and moving on to see that it describes Jesus being raised from the dead. The rest of my faith is built on that cornerstone. The existence of Thor or any other mythical character being proved to be real would not contradict the evidence of the resurrection. (As mentioned above, great men have often been worshipped as gods. The existence of Alexander or Augustus does not shake our faith. The only difference I see is that Thor would have more intrinsic power and actually be among us. His power would not be as great as that claimed for Yahweh, so that should have no effect. His being here in the flesh doesn't put him at a rational advantage of Augustus because very few people doubt Augustus's existence.) Nor should we be disturbed by Thor's statement that there was nobody else up there in the sky with him. (While we talk about Heaven being above, we know that to be a metaphor to describe that which we cannot otherwise explain.)
I can see no reason why the existence of Thor would have more effect on men's faith then the existence of Superman. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the existence of Superman would disprove the existence of God. (Nor would be likely to change our minds if we found out some primitive tribe called Superman a god.) I do think that many people would lose their Christian faith, however, if Thor were found to be real. I think that the reason why boils down to two things. The first is that many people don't really know what the Bible teaches and would simply assume, without thinking too much at all, that the Bible had been contradicted.
The second is dangerous to the serious believer. All of us sometimes waiver in our faith for no good reason. I don't think many people are rationally argued out of Christianity. For the most part, faith seems to be lost for emotional reasons that have nothing to do with the actual evidence. That is why faith is considered to be a virtue. It is often easier to stand up to intellectual criticism, which we can respond to rationally, then it is to deal with emotional shocks which rattle us and cause our capacity for rational thought to abandon us.
It is certainly true that things will come along which will force us to back up and reexamine the evidence. When new information comes to light, that is exactly what we should do. But if the new information doesn’t shed any actual light on the situation, rationally, our beliefs should not change. That’s really what faith is. Keeping on believing when you’ve gotten a nasty shock, but nothing has really changed to alter the basic facts of your beliefs.
As bizarre as it would be, suddenly seeing Thor in the flesh would be just such a shock. But if it happened as Lileks described, it wouldn’t be something that could shake the faith of those who understand the reasons for their faith. And if a jolt like that can’t knock us down, the everyday stuff should be easy.
P.S. to comic book fans. As far as I know, Lileks complaint that this issue was never discussed in relation to Thor is correct. However, changing comic book company's D.C. did briefly address this issue in Justice League of America #183 where the Earth 2 Wonderwoman declares that she believes in no gods besides the gods of Mount Olympus and "the only true 'God' whose nature remains unknown." Granted, that neat little sidestep probably wouldn't satisfy Lileks anyway. Martin Roth pointed out this excellent article. You ought to read the whole thing, but I wanted to point out:
One of the chief reasons why we have ceased to speak the truth is that we are fearful of the reaction of those around us. We have even fallen into the trap of justifying our moral stances by a secularist theory of ethics. We have contributed towards the gagging of God, perhaps because we are frightened of suffering. Amen. Flashback -For my own thoughts about truth, click here. On the rhetoric front, Jonah Goldberg made this suggestion on The Corner. I know this is an old argument by now, but….Instead of the clunky "homicide bombers" or the historically slanderous "Kamikaze-Bombers," how about massacre-bombers. The definition of massacre is to kill indiscriminately and wantonly without concern for civilians or anyone else (which is the basic reason why Jenin wasn’t a massacre). So a massacre-bomber is someone who kills so indiscriminately that he kills himself in the process. The suicide is incidental. After all, no one doubts that if Hamas could inflict the same damage on Israelis, they’d be perfectly happy if the bombers got out alive. Works for me. Tuesday, May 07, 2002
Rush Limbaugh raises an interesting point. The Republican National Committee is suing to overturn the new campaign finance law. President Bush has effective control of the RNC. President Bush signed the bill into law in the first place. Anything wrong with this picture? As usual, Martin Roth makes me think, and that's a good thing. Today's topic? Isn't it a bit strange that while worrying about the health of people in third world countries, we shell out enormous amounts of money to keep our pets well? And what does that mean for us as Christians? Martin doesn't really answer these question and wasn't trying too. It would be wise for us to think about them though. Last week I allowed my accounting classes to turn in an extra credit assignment. They had to work a problem, but the problem was set in the context of a "real-life" situation. They were supposed to comment on the ethical situation involved. Basically, the case presents a scenario where someone has been asked by a manager to prepare a sales forecast for a product. The protaganist knows that if the company sells more than 25,000 units of product, an automated system will be more profitable for the company. This person has a friend who is a supervisor on the current manual process. Wanting to help her friend, and afraid people are going to lose their jobs, she lies to her manager about projected sales to make the automated system seem less attractive.
The scenario makes clear "Anna" has no authority in this decision making process and that her only job was to prepare the forecast. The students were asked to comment on whether the decision was ethical and whether they agreed with it. They were then asked to compare her conduct against a code of ethics given in their books.
The majority found the decision to lie to be unethical. Most of these people expressed very strongly that they would disapprove if the manager subsequently failed to at least consider the plight of his employees. Well and good. Many of them agreed with the decision. That is not the disturbing thing. (Some of these people had well thought arguments which showed reflection on the issue.) What was disturbing is that most of these students failed to even acknowledge in their response that the actual lie was an issue. Nor did they recognize that she was violating specific prohibitions in the stated ethical code. Instead, they basically adopted an ends justifies the means argument. "Her actions saved peoples jobs, what's the problem?" What bothered me was that few of these students seemed to have grasped the concept that your motives don't always justify your actions.
Perhaps even more disturbing was some of the conflicted answers I received. I had some students who listed in detail the portions of the ethical standards that had been broken, yet concluded, with no explanation whatever, that the actions were ethical. I also had one student who stated that the conduct was unethical, but went on to say that she agreed with the decision regardless.
I was, and still am, at a loss to know what to think about this. While it bothers me that people could condone the decision in this case, it bothers me more that they would do so without even thinking it through. I would estimate that 20% of my students failed to even recognize that the ethical quandry resolved around the issue of lying. If people can't even recognize an ethical issue when thrown in their face, what hope have we? I really don't know. I haven't seen Spiderman yet, but Lileks has. Now there's a man who loves his Spiderman. You really ought to read his piece. I can't do it justice. There is this one line though: We’re never as good as our myths, but surely it says something that our myths are good. And perhaps that's the true appeal of Spiderman. He is a great myth. That and one fantastic morality play. That is, in the end, what story centered around the line, "With great power comes great responsibility." has to be. Spiderman has always succeeded there. Given the state of things, I think the Wall-Crawler came to the big screen just in time. Much was made of the comments made by Jerry Falwell after the Trade Center attacks when he blamed various groups for the attacks and indicated that they were a punishment for different sins. Like many others I believed his comments were, at
I was reminded of my thoughts then because I was reading Lamentations today. That is also how I spent much of my time on 9/11. Specifically, I was thinking of this passage.
Lamentations 1:5 Her oppressors have become her masters, The reason I bring this up is because this passage, like some others
Instead of the usual, my gripe with Falwell is not that he raised this possibility. My problem with him is that he assumes he knows why God is doing things. That shows an incredible amount of arrogance. We do not know why God does a great many things. Its not productive to run around telling people that this one sin is the thing that brought everything coming down in droves.
The problem is that we do not know the mind of God. Short of divine inspiration, we cannot be sure why God does anything. As the Almighty asked Job:
Job 38:33 - NAS "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth? Lord God, may we be humble as we come before you and realize that there are some things we will never know until Messiah comes. Not content with taxing their own citizens into oblivion, the EU is now going to try to force American businesses selling products online to collect their atrocious VAT taxes. My firm had a client that did some business in the UK. Keeping track of the VAT tax was one of the least desirable parts of that job. As usual, Victor Hanson makes me think about things in a way that I hadn't before. You really should read this article and see if things don't make a little more sense in the Middle East than they did before. Monday, May 06, 2002
Psalms 6 - O LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your rage. Have compassion on me, LORD, for I am weak. Heal me, LORD, for my body is in agony. I am sick at heart. How long, O LORD, until you restore me? Return, O LORD, and rescue me. Save me because of your unfailing love. For in death, who remembers you? Who can praise you from the grave? I am worn out from sobbing. Every night tears drench my bed; my pillow is wet from weeping. My vision is blurred by grief; my eyes are worn out because of all my enemies. Go away, all you who do evil, for the LORD has heard my crying. The LORD has heard my plea; the LORD will answer my prayer. May all my enemies be disgraced and terrified. May they suddenly turn back in shame. I'd never thought seriously about what "space, the final frontier" really meant. This article by Glen Reynolds is changing that. I suggest you read it. Dennis Prager has some interesting things to say about the proper use of violence.
The irony is, that at the same time these pacifist find themselves unable to distinguish between the attacker and the attacked on the ethical field, they have no problem identifying the violence itself as wrong. Which leads to his next point.
This of course, ties back to his previous point. It also reminds me of discussions in some of C.S. Lewis's books about morality. He warned that there was no such thing as a truly new morality, however people may sometimes take a few, or maybe only one, moral precept(s) and elevate it above all the rest. These people's view of the world then becomes skewed. In this case, the idea that peace is the supreme good has been elevated above justice, mercy, and human rights. All must be subjected to peace. The problem is that if you pursue peace while ignoring justice and mercy is that you wind up with none of the above.
YES!
This is a lesson we're going to end up learning soon. I just hope we don't have to learn it the hard way. The more I read from Martin Roth about the state of Christianity in Australia, the more I'm convinced that our problems are largely the same here. Today, he asks an important question: A quarter of Australian church-goers believe the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally. The Sydney Morning Herald seems surprised the proportion is so high. But what on earth do the rest believe? I ask myself questions like this all the time. I don't have a clue what the answer is though. If you don't, at a minimum believe the Bible to be historically reliable and theologically correct, what's the point? Friday, May 03, 2002
My cousin is graduating from Lubbock Christian University today. Since that's about a 6 or 7 hour drive, I've got to get going. Be back tomorrow night. Doubt I'll have internet access in the meantime, so no blogging for a while. This morning, I was remembering something. Does anybody else remember that our country once denied a visa to Arafat because, in the words of Secretary of State Schultz, "The US government has convincing evidence that PLO elements have engaged in terrorism against Americans and others ... As chairman of the PLO, Mr. Arafat is responsible for actions of these organizations which are units of Fatah, an element of the PLO of which he also is chairman and which is under his control." (Reading that article is interesting. Don't worry too much about the patronizing attitude of the writer of that article though. It was all I could find searching Google for 13 year old news.)
I think this is interesting because it shows that there was a time that the US government was not deceived into thinking that Arafat was a "partner in peace." We used to call him a terrorist. Unfortunately, a few months later, things began to change. All this time the State Department was encouraging dialogue with Arafat. At about the same time, we were insisting that Arafat make a statement including, "recognition of Israel, acceptance of U.N. Resolution 242 and renunciation of terrorism." As George Will said at the time, "The PLO did none of the three, but feigned agonies of surrender, so State ruled that it had done all three."
Will also summarizes the PLO position at the time:
Regarding terrorism, the PLO said: We never have used it, we promise to stop using it, and attacks against Israelis are not terrorism. Since then, the PLO has increased terrorism in three ways. There have been more attacks across the border, including squads from the Fatah faction. PLO radio from Baghdad incites and praises terrorism within pre-1967 Israel, such as the act of plunging an Israeli bus into a ravine. And there has been a sharp increase in murders of moderate Palestinians--89 so far--on the West Bank. What amazes me about this blast from the past is that years later we still are demanding Arafat renounce terrorism. Which he does, but its still in the old, "We'll stop it even though we never started it and even if we were doing it, it wouldn't be terrorism because the victims are Jews" kinda way. In the meantime, the attacks escalate everytime Arafat gets a chance, the Arab world is still praising the terrorist, and Arafat's goons are still killing "collaborators" without trials. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results, then our foregein policy requires its own wing at the loony bin. There are signs of hope. While the rest of the world hasn't changed its responses much at all in the last 13 years, Israel has. They're fighting back now and that's a good thing. One other sign of hope I found while taking this trip down memory lane. My Goole search for Arafat and Visa turned up this story that I missed somehow. Just the title of the story is a good sign. "Congress Considers Yanking Arafat Visa" Well maybe things are looking up on the home front too.
Oliver North, in discussing the Motor Voter law asks, "Are foreign nationals voting in our elections?" Its a good question. I have repeatedly been amazed at the sheer brilliance of Thomas Sowell. In his article today about the LA riots 10 years ago, he has an interesting analogy about putting the use of force in context, and how the media repeatedly refused to do that. Imagine if creatures in another galaxy developed telescopes which gave them their first view of the earth just as the invasion of Normandy began in 1944. What would they see? Large numbers of Germans on shore, quietly minding their own business, while hundreds of thousands of Americans and Britons came storming in, shooting at them and bombing them. Without knowing what the Nazis had done before then, what was happening on D-Day would seem wholly unjustified. This is a great point. I remember when this whole thing was going on that they had something like 7 1/2 minutes worth of tape, but were only showing about 90 seconds worth from the end. I never once saw more than that 90 seconds worth until after the cops trial was over. Just looking at that last 90 seconds I still thought the whole thing was overblown, but it did look like the cops were going overboard. Just after the cops trial, I saw an extended version of the tape. I say King repeatedly lunging at the cops. After I saw that, I knew they were completely justified. Once again, context is king. Martin Roth has a piece people ought to read about why he got into blogging. It mostly centers on things that worry him about the state of Christianity in Australia, but a lot of those problems extend much further than just one continent. Thursday, May 02, 2002
Sarah Maserati has some scathing remarks about the UT-Austin business school. (No extra charge, occasional gratuitous stabs at the rest of academia as well.) Luke 18:18-30 An important man asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?" Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good. You know the commandments: 'Be faithful in marriage. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not tell lies about others. Respect your father and mother.' " He told Jesus, "I have obeyed all these commandments since I was a young man."
When Jesus heard this, he said, "There is one thing you still need to do. Go and sell everything you own! Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and be my follower."
When the man heard this, he was sad, because he was very rich.
Jesus had identified the one thing this man was not willing to give to God, and He asked for it. This was not selfishness on Jesus’s part. Remember, shortly Jesus would give his life. He demonstrated that there was nothing He was not willing to give for us. The time will come when you will have to give something up for Jesus. That will not be the time to decide whether you are willing to do so. We would all be well advised to find time to analyze our life and see if there is anything there we wouldn't sacrifice for Him. There is a song that portrays Christ asking us a question:
Someday, that question will be asked of each of us in a very direct way. What will you answer be? Father, we know that many of the things we do in this world display our selfishness and unwillingness to sacrifice. Despite all that, you made the ultimate sacrfice by sending your son to die for our sins. May your sacrifice awaken the sacrficial nature in us. Help us Lord, to purge from our minds the thought that there is anything so important that it would not be worth giving up for you. We love you Lord. We praise you and honor you above all. In Your Son's name, Amen. MEMRI has translated a column from an Egyptian newspaper. I'll summarize:
Did I mention that Islam is a religion of peace? At least this piece makes more since than some I've seen. A while back I saw some that first said the Holocaust didn't happen and then lamented that Hitler didn't finish the job in the next paragraph. This is the kind of thinking we have to deal with. Rod Dreher has some disturbing observations about the affect of 9/11 on children. Today's New York Times (link requires registration) reports that NYC schoolchildren are still suffering psychological fallout from 9/11. Same with NYC pre-schoolchildren, at least in my house. Our 2 1/2 year old son still tells us daily that "the Twin Towers crashed," and asks us if it's going to happen again. Seven months after the fact! When he says his prayers at night, the only thing he asks to pray about is "the big fire," and sometimes "the people from the Twin Towers." Two nights ago, we saw him stacking boxes on top of each other, and flying his toy airplane into them. He's two-and-a-half years old.Islam, by the way, is a religion of peace. Josh Chafetz says something about anti-semtism that can't be said too often. Look: there are good people, in Palestine, in Israel, in the United States, in Europe, who really just want to see Israel return to the pre-1967 borders. But there are a lot of people who want to see Israel return to its pre-1947 borders, too. And there are some who just want the Jews dead no matter where they live. There's a reason that Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion are selling like hotcakes in the Arab world. There's a reason that a prominent Saudi cleric has called for the enslavement of Jewish women. There's a reason that synagogues in Europe have come under attack. And it's this: some people just want the Jews dead. I've never been able to understand the rabid hatred of Jews that has come down through the centuries. We must do what we can to stand up to this hatred. I've just found out some interesting things about the application of the money laundering rules of the USA Patriot Act. Its going to take some time to dig into the related regulations, but it looks like large numbers of small companies are going to be required institute all kinds of costly measures to make sure no one uses them to launder money. I'm going to have to look into this to find out which of my clients are affected. When I get more info, I'll post it. In the meantime, if your business cashes checks, handles travelers checks or money orders, or engages in various and sundry other financial related activities, watch out. Wednesday, May 01, 2002
Natalie Solent has taken Glen Reynold's question of rhetoric on what to call that place south of Iraq to what I hope is its prophetic end. From now on, "The Kingdom Formerly Known as Saudi Arabia" it is. Best of the Web points out this site where people can order pizza's for Israeli soldiers in the field. An interesting idea. Glen Reynolds has a post in which he discusses whether it is possible to be a faithful Christian and faithful to the Constitution. In particular, he's dealing with cloning and the Constitution, so I'll confine my comments to that subject. Without going into detail, let me say that I believe life begins at conception. Because I believe that, I see no difference between creating a new embryo with the intent of killing it by experimenting on him on the one hand and taking and old man and cutting him up to experiment on him (killing him in the process) on the other. To me, they are both murders. Consequently, I believe that both should be illegal. (I don't oppose "reproductive" cloning per se, because the intent is to bring the embryo to term, not to kill it. I have some trouble with some of the particulars, but that's another story.)
It does not follow, however, that because I believe something should be illegal, that I believe the Federal government should ban it. When I read Article I, section 8 of the Constitution I do not find anything that allows Congress to make murder of any kind illegal. Further, in relation to scientific research, Congress is only allowed to pass legislation on how to insure patents for new technologies. There is nothing in there about regulating the actual research. When I read the 10th Amendment, I find that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow Congress to do something, then Congress can't do it. (Not that Congress shows any signs of having read the 10th Amendment. Nor, for that matter, have the courts.)
By combining my Christian principles on murder and the principles of the Constitution, I conclude that I should lobby my state government to ban reproductive cloning.
Update- Realized after posting this that I'd left something out. If we spent more time doing our job of winning people to Christ and less time worrying about politics, we might find that the politics took care of itself. After all, if EVERYONE was a Christian, we would at least be able to build from a common viewpoint on the basic issues and be much more likely to come up with solutions palatable to Christians. Just a thought. Over in The Corner they've been discussing this report from MEMRI. Specifically, it's a report that many leaders in Eastern churches have been blasting the west. The report includes these comments from a bishop in the Assyrian Orthodox Church:
The discussion at The Corner centers on the question, "Did Jesus really call the Jews the sons of Satan?" Well, lets go to the tape:
So there you have it. Jesus was talking to Jews. He told them their father was the devil. Case closed, right? Wrong. It's time to employ what my father calls the three basic rules of Bible study:
In other words, to properly interpret any passage in the Gospels you need to know:
The answer to the question of authorship is John. Generally this is agreed to be the apostle John, or as he's described in the book of John, "the disciple who Jesus loved." (This is not an ego trip on John's part, but that's another issue entirely) Some skeptics doubt the apostle's authorship. They generally point out that the other books written ascribed common authorship with this Gospel include references to John "the Elder" and contend that this was actually a different person. We'll leave that aside, because I doubt that particular argument is of much use in this context. We also need to note who the book was written to. Chapters 19 and 20 both contain affirmations that the things written are true and that they were written so the reader would believe. Chapters 19 and 21 contain statements that the author was present at the events mentioned herein and is therefore trustworthy. These comments, while not revealing the specific intended audience, indicate that the book was written to people who either were not sure of Jesus's identity as the Christ or to those who believed, but were beginning to waver. (Possibly some of both.) You should also note that in chapter 21, John says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." This tells us that he had a wealth of information to draw from. Those things which were included then, were most likely included because John believed that they were useful in promoting the general purpose the book. (Increasing people's faith. See above.)
The person being quoted in this case is Jesus. If you refer to the beginning of this passage, Jesus is indeed talking to Jews. He's not to talking to just a bunch of Jews though. He's talking specifically to those Jews those who believed in him. (Not to get ahead of myself, but from just that information it would be much more logical to conclude that Jesus was condemning not all Jews, but only those who believed in him. NOTE: I'm not saying that's what he meant, just that even that interpretation makes more since than the one we're questioning.) Basically, the exchange went this way:
Note that the real contrast here is not between sons of Abraham and sons of the devil, but between sons of the devil and sons of God. That will be important later. Meanwhile, what we have here is an exchange between people who had become convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and that same Messiah. For why these people believed he was the Messiah, you have to back up to chapters five through seven. In chapter 5 Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. Since then, people have been arguing. Some believed the healing proved he was from God. Others believed the fact that he did it on the Sabbath meant he was evil. Jesus himself had this same argument with the Jewish leaders in chapter 5 where he asserted that God was his Father. This argument has been festering since then and John records similar discussions in chapter 7 when Jesus returns to Jerusalem. That healing combined with the forcefulness of his teaching (chapter 7again) convinced many people he must be the Messiah. It was to those people so convinced that Jesus was speaking when he offered to set them free. The ensuing argument is really about one of the key ingredients of Christianity. I wrote recently that a Christian is, before he can be anything else, someone who recognizes he is a sinner. This is because you must recognize you are a sinner before the doctrines of repentence and redemption can possibly mean anything to you. This is what this exchange is about. Jesus makes these people the offer he came to make. He offers to set them free from their bondage. They respond that they are already free. This was wrong for two reasons. As noted above, they were under the dominion of Rome physically. And as Christ was trying to make them see, spiritually they were under the dominion of Satan.
If you look closely at the book of John, you can see that the whole book is set in terms of making this contrast. Either good or evil. Either God or Satan. Most prominently in John, either light or darkness. Here, as elsewhere, Jesus is pointing out what the people refuse to acknowledge. You are either in the light or you are in the darkness. You're either a son of God or a son of Satan. Those are your choices. The whole message of redemption is to make sons of Satan into sons of God. That is to reverse the process that took place at the time of the Fall where the sons of God became sons of Satan. But before must be preceded by repentence. Repentence must be preceded by an acknowledgment that you are a son of Satan.
So, Jesus did tell a group of Jews that they were sons of the devil. That does not mean, however, that the message was that all Jews are sons of the devil. The message was that ALL of us are either sons of the devil or sons of God. You're going to have to make your choice. The sooner the better. Joshua 24:15 "If it seem evil to you to serve Yahweh, choose you this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh." Martin Roth asks, "What is a Christian Blog?" I'll take a stab at that. A Christian blog follows the same principles as Christian literature, Christian drama, Christian plumbing, and Christian cooking. A Christian blog does not have to be about Christianity per se. It does have to be done in Christian ways. Christian principles should govern our choice of topics. Christian virtues should be present in our discussions. Every opportunity should be taken to show the world Christ living in us.
Anyway, that's my answer. A Christian blog is one run by Christians and doing Christian things in Christian ways. Bjorn Staerk has some comments about the political status quo in Norway. There's a disease in our culture, and it's not the myriads of intrusive and counterproductive laws, small and large, but our acceptance of them. Unfortunately, I don't think this is just a Norwegian problem. I see the same sickness here. MartinRothOnline usually has some interesting things to say about the state of religion in Australia. He's also got an article posted about Christian bloggers. The Wall Street Journal has some comments about guns in the cockpit. (Link via Glen Reynolds.)
Personally, I've got a different answer. You don't stop. If engineers and bus drivers want to carry guns too, I say let them. David Limbaugh has some things to say about faith, politicians, and the media. Let's not miss the message here: It is not only wrong and dangerous for a president to refer to God in his speeches. But he must not even allow his religious worldview to inform his public policy decisions. Let this be a reminder, fellow Christians. We are at war. Their objective: to silence us forever. Our objective: to win them for Christ. Impossible? Sure, but, "but with God all things are possible." Senator Robert Byrd is grandstanding. I'll wait a moment as you recover from the shock of that statement. Ho, hum . . . Everybody recovered now? Good. Byrd is ranting that Tom Ridge is refusing to testify before Congress. There are several reasons for that. Most notably that his postiion is one of advisory capacity to the President. Just like the National Security Advisor. You don't seen them begging Condi Rice to testify do you? But the most obvious reason is right there in Byrd's own rant: ``The real losers are the American people whose lives this government is trying to protect,'' Byrd said, adding, ``They are not being told the whole strategy. The Congress and the American people are forced to learn about the administration's homeland security efforts in piecemeal, patchwork fashion.'' There you have it. Byrd wants to get Ridge on the hill and describe our new security measures against terrorism in their entirety. Let me clue you into something Senator. I don't want to know our whole strategy. If I know, so do the terrorist. What would worry me would be if I did know our entire strategy. Tuesday, April 30, 2002
InstaPundit reader Alex Bensky wrote in to question medical people's expertise on gun violence. I take his point, but I quibble with one bit: And my friend the realtor has special insight into nuclear warfare because nuclear war would, after all, destroy real estate and reduce the value of what's left. Maybe he could form a group called Realtors for Social Responsibility. My quibble? If a nuclear war destroyed real estate, the value of what's left would increase. (Unless of course the casualties killed off enough people to significantly reduce the demand for land.) James Lileks has an interesting question about what he calls the, "Thor problem" problem. I've got some thoughts about this, but its taking me longer than I expected to pound them out. When I get it ready, it will go up. In the meantime, his bit is pretty interesting, especially if you loved your comic books as a child. FOXNews.com has this story about a new version of volleyball. One catch though. Only short people allowed. I love this line. But longtime volleyball players are skeptical and think Challenge Volleyball might be an example of political correctness run amok. You think? Monday, April 29, 2002
Psalms 3:6-8 WEB I will not be afraid of tens of thousands of people Who have set themselves against me on every side. Arise, Yahweh! Save me, my God! For you have struck all of my enemies on the cheek bone. You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to Yahweh. Your blessing be on your people. Lord God, Maker of the heavens and the earth. We thank you for sending your Son to die for us so that we could gain admittance into your kingdom. Lord, everyday it is obvious that this world has rebelled against you. May we be a light to this world exposing the evil and reconciling men to you. We know it will not be easy, but with you on our side, we do not fear our enemies. Be with us, guide us, and protects us. Lord forgive us of our sins and teach us to forgive those who sin against us. Lord teach us to avoid temptations and help us to flee when they cannot be avoided. You are the mighty and awesome God. May your name be praised forever. In your Son's name, Amen. Normally, I'm a Drudge Report fan, but I don't get this headline. "JOHNNY CARSON BREAKS SILENCE" As though we were all sitting around with baited breath to find out what Johnny Carson thought about patriotism at the Superbowl and Enron. But since I've had to read the drivel, let me comment on something Carson said. I do this because I've heard people make this argument before and its stupid. Carson comments on the fact that President Bush used to call Ken Lay, "Kenny Boy" and now calls him, "Mr. Lay." I've got a couple of angles on this. People actually use this change in nomenclature as some sort of evidence that Bush was involved in a cover-up. I still haven't figured out the logic behind this, but I think it goes something like this.
1. Bush used to be close to Ken Lay and had a knickname for him. I could be wrong, but if that's not what they're thinking I don't have a clue what it is. Anyway, here's a couple of theories on this. 1. Bush gives knicknames to people whose company he enjoys. (Yes he gives knicknames to political opponents and to combative journalists, but I've never seen anything to indicate that any of these names are used spitefully. They're playful.) It now looks like Ken Lay may be a crook who screwed his own employees (worst case) or an incompetent idiot who allowed someone else to screw his employees (best case). In short, he's no longer someone whose company the President enjoys. The point of this being that I don't see any evidence that this change is even a conscious one on his part. Consequently, I don't see anything insidious here. What really blows me away is that this is one of the best arguments I've heard to support the coverup theory. Basically what we're hearing here is, "There is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing, therefore we must investigate." David Carr, posting from London on Samizdata had this to say in response to an EUniks question about why many British prefer a relationship with America over the EU Allow me to clue you in, Prodi: it's because the Channel is wider than the Atlantic. Across the Channel are friends, across the Atlantic is family. And we aim to keep on being family for a long time. This story from Electronic Media indicates that Saudi run Arabia is trying to purchase advertising time on major American television networks to try to beef up their image. Specifically, they are trying to push this line, "The People of Saudi Arabia -- Allies Against Terrorism." A couple of small observations. 15 of the 19 9/11 highjackers were from this benighted tyranny. In a recent telethon our "partners against terrorism" raised more than $55 million dollars to help Palestinian "martys." This term, as used by the Arab world means anyone killed by an Israeli OR anyone who kills himself while killing Israeli's. Thank you, but you don't become a partner in the fight against terrorism by giving money to the families of nhilistic-homicidal-suicidal maniacs with bombs. You become a partner in the fight against terrorism by finding all the nhilistic-homicidal-suicidal maniacs with bombs that you can and shooting them before they carry out their diabolical plans Josh Chafetz thinks that we're seeing the beginning of the end for liberal domination of the academy.
I don't know if he's right, but I hope so. Sunday, April 28, 2002
Glen Reynolds has a picture up on his site. The big blob of light in the middle of the pic is South Korea. Note, you can't tell from this pic, but South Korea is NOT an island. There really is the rest of a peninsula connecting it to the mainland. Its just that there aren't enough lights in that part of the world to show up. The next time someone tries to tell you how great command economies are, this picture would be a great rebuttal. Of course, that's not the only application. Jay Nordlinger pointed out that President Bush commented on this picture a few weeks ago when he was in South Korea. His quote from President Bush prompted me to write this. A friend's father pointed me to this passage tonight. Ecclesiastes 9:11 (Young's Literal Translation) I have turned so as to see under the sun, that not to the swift [is] the race, nor to the mighty the battle, nor even to the wise bread, nor even to the intelligent wealth, nor even to the skilful grace, for time and chance happen with them all. Solomon, one of the richest and wisest men of all time wrote these words. They remind us that the world rarely works out how we expected, and certainly not as we planned. I am particularly struck by the wise and wealthy Solomon acknowledging that wisdom does not necessarily mean wealth. He realized that there is not a linear relationship between ability and success.
That should be a reminder to us. When we succeed, that does not, per se, mean that our ability created the success. This should prevent us from being proud and puffed up. It should also remind us that life, as Solomon said, is "meaningless." Which is to say, that if you put your hopes in this world, disappointment is inevitable.
If it is unwise to put our hopes in this world, what should we do? Fortunately, Solomon forces us to ask the question. More fortunate that he answers it. Ecclesiastes 12:13 WEB "This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." Well, somebody in the blogosphere noticed me. I didn't start this blog in order to be noticed or read. I started it because writing gives me a chance to formulate my thoughts more systematically than I might otherwise do. My blog gives me a reason to write. That is to say that I don't always have time to write my thoughts out. This forum gives me a mental prod to make the time. However, because I wasn't doing this to be read, I didn't take any steps to publicize this site. That being said, it is gratifying that someone else actually found my site and felt it wasn't beneath the dignity of a link. So, a quick thanks to the Midwest Conservative Journal for putting a link here on their site. (I don't know if this means I'm being read, but at least I now know somebody found me.) Glen Reynolds has a great comment about gun control:
To me too.
|
