Driving People Away

I read a comment in the AJC this morning about people with fish emblems on their cars trying to get to Heaven sooner. I have to believe that they are referring to the atrocious driving habits of so many with religious paraphernalia on their cars. I've seen it, too, and I have to admit that it really bothers me to see people driving down the road at fifteen miles over the speed limit with a cell phone in one hand and a taco in the other...

What would Jesus do? He'd take the subway. To be honest, I have a hard time seeing Jesus with a driver's license. I have an even harder time seeing Him owning a car. I imagine some of His disciples would have both. I don't think Jesus objects to us driving, or using any tool that's available to us, as long as it is used for good. My Bible says that we, as Christians, have a responsibility to set an example; for some reason, people seem to think that once they get behind the wheel of a car, nobody knows who they are, so they don't have to behave 'like a Christan.' Even though they have a fish on their bumper, a bumper sticker that says, "Honk if you love Jesus," and another one that says, "Follow me to church." That last one should say, "Follow me to the crash site."

The Bible also says that we should obey the law; it seems to me that would include speed limits. Okay, I admit it: I generally only stay close enough to the speed limit as to not attract the attention of any police that might be in the area. I don't say that to suggest that it's okay, just that I don't always do what I know I'm supposed to, either. I'm also willing to concede a few points to the idea that talking on a cell phone isn't really that much different from talking to someone else in the car (it is a little different--normally we really on facial expressions and body language to help convey meaning, so talking on the phone requires more concentration, which, in turn, slows down response time).

My point, though, is that so many people (Christians and non-Christians alike) treat driving as though it were different than every other aspect of life. People that are normally considerate of others think nothing of cutting someone off on the highway. People that are normally quiet and soft spoken will lean on their horns or make obscene gestures to people they don't even know. A yellow light is not a challenge! If you are a Christian on Sunday morning, you should still be a Christian on Monday morning driving to work. If you aren't a Christian, then you shouldn't behave differently just because you're behind the wheel, either.

It isn't just driving. A lot of us seem to think that as long as I go to church, I can live my life as I see fit. There's an old expression that a lot of people spend Saturday night sowing wild oats, and Sunday morning praying for crop failure. Just because God forgives, it doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to one's actions. Sometimes we don't face those consequences ourselves. Sometimes other people pay the price for what we do. Apostle Paul wrote about how easy it is to offend others at times. Jesus talked about how important it is not to offend. Paul talked about eating meat--if, for example, you had the chance to share with Pamela Anderson, would you do it over a two-piece and a biscuit? Would she listen to anything you said if you did? Granted, that's kind of an extreme example, let's go with something more mainstream: If you knew that there was a woman that you wanted to ask out that thought nose-picking was gross, you'd keep your fingers out of your nose while you were talking to her, wouldn't you? What if you were trying to share the gospel with her? What if you were just inviting her to church? Remember that you are the example of the church--is she going to want to go to church with a bunch of nose-pickers? How can you do the work of an evangelist if you go around offending people all the time?

Misuse of Language

Out of all the things that I thought about over the week-end that I wanted to blog about this week, I can't think of any of them now. I will say this, it irks me when people misuse words (not that I don't ever misuse a word, myself, you understand, it just irks me when other people do it). Sometimes it may not even be actual misuse, it may be that I'm used to hearing things a certain way, and it bothers me to hear it said differently. For example, I know it used to be standard on news broadcasts about trials, they made a point of saying that the defendant 'pled' either guilty or not guilty. Lately they always say 'pleaded;' to be honest, I don't know for sure that one is more correct than the other (UPDATE: the spell-checker tells me that 'pled' is not a word--it doesn't even make an intelligent suggestion as to what word I might mean, so maybe 'pleaded' is correct). I'm used to hearing it one way, and now it bugs me to hear it differently.

I've noticed also that people don't seem to know the difference between 'hung' and 'hanged' anymore. To be hanged means to have a rope tied around your neck and have the support knocked out from under you so that you die. A picture can be hung on the wall; that's not quite the same thing.

'Electrocuted' is another word that I've heard misused a lot lately. I have a friend at church who is an electrician by trade, and one night a bunch of us at the church were having a fish-fry. One of the associate pastors got a call that this electrician (who would normally have been with us for the fish fry, but he hadn't made it home from work yet) had taken an electrical shock. He called us together and announced that this man had been electrocuted, and asked us to pray for him. I almost asked if we shouldn't be praying for his family. After the prayer, he told us which hospital was treating the electrician; then I realized that he hadn't been electrocuted... (Don't scare me like that!)

The Afterlife (part 2)

I posted about the afterlife one day last week (here), but I didn't address the fact that some people don't believe that there is an after life, and some believe that there is an afterlife only for the chosen few.

Obviously I'm not going to change the minds of anyone who doesn't believe in life after death. The Bible says that man was created in God's image. I happen to like what Voltaire said about that, "If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor." People have a tendency to think that if we were created in God's image, then God must look like us. That makes sense, as far as it goes, but, then, what does God look like? Is He black, white, or Asian? Is He blonde, brunette, or redhead? The answer, of course, is, yes, He is; and, yet, He's not. It is a mistake to think that God has a physical being, John 4:24 tells us that He is a Spirit. How does a physical being take on the image of a spiritual being? In Genesis, chapter 2, it tells us that we are created as immortal souls. So, our spirit is like God's Spirit: immortal, never ending. But God told Adam and Eve that they could die. In the physical sense they could, just as we can. Jesus told Martha that anyone who believed in Him would never die; but He was talking about Lazarus, who was already in the grave. John 3:16 says that believers should not perish, but have everlasting life.

What about non-believers? Well, non-believers have the same immortal soul that believers have, the difference is whether spending eternity in Hell really counts as 'life.' Some people believe that if one dies outside of the will of God, then one would just go in the ground and that would be the end of it; their spirit is extinguished. Part of me wishes I could believe that, but, to be honest, if I did, I would have committed suicide a long time ago. There have been times in my life that I felt it would have been better for me if I had simply ceased to exist. I suspect that is why Job wished that he had never been born. His wife suggested death as an option, but he rebuked her. I suspect that he knew that his death would only make things worse for him.

There are a number of times that Jesus talked about life after death for non-believers: In Matthew 8, Matthew 13, Matthew 22, Matthew 24, Matthew 25, and Luke 16 He talked about punishment awaiting those that do not make it into Heaven. (Side note: The parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 I think is particularly interesting, first because, out of all the parables he told, Lazarus is the only person that He named. The rich man indicates that if he can't get anything for himself, he would at least like for his family members to be warned, that they not have to join him. He asked that Lazarus be raised from the dead for his brothers' sake. Abraham tells him that they should hear Moses and the prophets; the rich man protests that if one were raised from the dead... In the course of Jesus' ministry, Jesus was raised from the dead, but so was a man named Lazarus... It also strikes me that, as bad as the rich man had it, the one thing that could have made it worse would have been to have someone that he cared about join him in the pit.) The standard argument there, is that those are all parables, those are not things that actually happened. As far as I am concerned, that means that we should pay even more heed to them. Remember that parables are stories that Jesus used to try to make a point. He chose the situations, and the characters in His stories to illustrate spiritual things to the carnally minded. What is He trying to teach in these parables if not that the righteous have an eternal reward, and the wicked have an eternal punishment? Besides, Luke 13 is not a parable, and it makes it pretty clear that people who don't make it into Heaven aren't simply going to cease to exist. Matthew 18 (and Mark 9) is not a parable, and it talks about an 'everlasting fire;' if we simply ceased to exist, eventually that fire would run out of things to burn, wouldn't it?

Of course, one belief that persists is that Hell is really only temporary; that it will only exist until judgment, as suggested in 1 Peter. My question would be, how much torment are you prepared to endure, just on the proposition that it is only temporary; without even knowing how long 'temporary' might be (days, months, years, centuries, millennea)? Further, although Hell is temporary, in Revelations it says that Hell will be cast into the lake of fire. Sort of like, out of the frying pan...

Jots and Tittles

I picked up some interesting new information today: I had, somewhere along the line, been taught that a jot was the dot over a 'j', an iota was the dot over an 'i' and a tittle was the cross-bar of a 't.' I have actually argued with people that wanted to tell me that a jot was the dot over an 'i,' but, to be honest, up until today, I never actually looked it up. Jesus made reference to a jot and a tittle in Matthew 5:18, and I think that's where most of us picked up those terms. To be honest, it doesn't make any sense for Him to refer to the dot over a 'j,' since there is no letter j in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin. When the translators were translating the Bible into English, they used terms that would be familiar to people (in 1611, anyway), but what Jesus was actually referring to were marks in the Hebrew language that assisted with pronunciation--in other words, you could still get the meaning without those marks, they just made it easier to read.

Anyway, I saw this on the Just Free Stuff blog, and almost protested that they had the definition of the word 'tittle' wrong (see # 4), but I decided that I should look it up first. Turns out, I was wrong. The tittle is the dot over the 'i,' and a jot and an iota are the same thing--almost nothing. I'm glad I decided to check myself; I don't even remember who gave me those (erroneous) definitions of jot, iota, and tittle, but it was somebody I felt I had good reason to trust (I trust everybody. It's the devil inside them I don't trust).

In any case, Jesus' point was that we, as Christians, are responsible for every last detail in God's Word. Now, that doesn't mean that we are responsible for making sure people outside our faith are obeying God's Word, as I've seen happen all too often. We need to live a life of Christian example, but leave others to do what they will. If all they ever get from us is condemnation, they won't come to us--they will stay away from us, or attack us at every opportunity. "I'm not afraid of being attacked," you say, but, it's hard to share the love of Jesus with someone who despises you. Particularly if you've given them good reason to want you gone. "I'm not afraid of persecution," you say. There's a difference between persecution and stupi-cution. Jesus said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. We have to be just as smart and as clever as those who would come against the message, but, at the same time, understand that people who attack us are not our enemies; they are victims. Our job is to rescue them. We can't do that by pushing them away. That puts us in a difficult position--we are trying to help people who don't understand that they need our help. Some of them really just wish we would go away (a lot of that is because of the actions of Christians who were not wise as serpents). We can't just be like Jonah, and sit on the side, waiting for God to destroy Ninevah because they really deserve it. We all deserve it--God's mercy has saved us from the fire, and He is depending on us to help share His grace with others. That's what we're here for.

Baptism

There has been a lot of discussion and disagreement in Christian circles about what baptism is and what it is for and when it is needed.

Let me start with what it is. The dictionary definition is: "a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church." Some churches teach that there is a baptism of the spirit, also. If you look at the ancient Greek, however, the word for baptism, baptisma, actually means to be overwhelmed, or fully immersed in a liquid. Certainly you could be overwhelmed by a spirit, but if you look at Acts chapter 10, Peter gets a chance to use the 'Gentile' key on his keyring, and the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter asked the Messianic Jews that were with him, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" If being baptized in the spirit were the desired outcome, well, they've already been overwhelmed by the Spirit. Personally, I think that God wanted all of these Christian Jews to know that He was ready to accept Gentiles--He had already shown that to Peter, but there were others with him that might have thought that Peter had just lost his mind... The point is, that these men received the Holy Ghost and then got baptized in water. Usually we do it the other way around, but if being baptized in spirit were what Jesus had commanded, then Peter was wasting his time getting these men wet for nothing.

So, talking about water baptism, is it full immersion, partial immersion, or having water applied to the individual? Again, the Ancient Greek word referred to immersion. It has been said that this word was used for many different things. That is true, however, all of them involved immersion. It was used in reference to dying garments (immersing a garment in a liquid dye--not tie-dyeing), or washing (taking a bath, not a shower). Actually there are other words for applying a liquid to something or someone, 'ekcheo' for pouring, and 'rantizo' for sprinkling. One of the objections people have its that Jesus, our perfect example, was baptized in the Jordan river, and, in many places, the Jordan isn't deep enough to immerse a person. That is also true; but, in many places it is deep enough... John 3:23 says that, "And John also was baptizing at Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." How much water does it take to apply a little bit of water to a person? What if you were going to baptize a lot of people? How much would you need? Well, if all you are doing is applying a few drops to each person, you can 'baptize' a whole lot of people from just a puddle. If you are baptizing by full immersion, then you need to find a part of the Jordan where it is deep, where there is much water--which is what John the Baptist did.

What is it for? The book of Romans has been referred to as 'the book of salvation.' In chapter six, Apostle Paul talks about the necessity of baptism. The act of baptism is symbolic of taking on the death of Christ, allowing us to be born again, and to live a new life in Christ. Jesus said, in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Some people get hung up on the fact that he didn't say that if you weren't baptized that you would be damned. I can't imagine why anyone who didn't believe would get baptized (unless, of course, their parents took them to church as a baby... but I mean, why would you choose to get baptized if you didn't believe the gospel?); I also don't think anyone who truly believed would refuse to get baptized. Some people say, well, what if you believed, but got hit by a truck before you could get baptized? Well, I don't know what church you grew up in; my church doesn't get much traffic between the altar and the baptismal tank. But, in all seriousness, do you really think that God would ordain a plan of salvation and then not keep those that were legitimately seeking to follow that plan? We could look at it the other way: If you believe that all that is required for salvation is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, what if you are out on the street sharing with someone, and they believe in their heart, but, as they open up their mouth to confess Jesus as Lord of their life, a truck jumps the curb and kills them? It seems to me that's considerably more likely to occur than a truck drive through the church and kill someone who is preparing for baptism. Yes, I realize that a lot of churches don't baptize people right away, but those are churches that don't believe that baptism is essential to salvation. After all, if something were absolutely necessary to get to Heaven, you wouldn't put it off until you had fifty people, or only do it once a year. When you understand the necessity of baptism, you do it right away.

There is more to be said about when baptism is to be performed. Referring once again to Mark 16:16, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Which would suggest that belief is a prerequisite for baptism. Some churches baptize infants, some churches won't baptize until the age of accountability (usually reckoned as twelve), some churches will only baptize adults. Going with the idea that belief is a prerequisite for a moment, an infant cannot believe. At what age can someone believe? I think twelve is an arbitrary number. Some kids are quite capable of believing and understanding younger than twelve, some aren't until they are older. It seems to me that if a child wants to get baptized, then they should be (and I don't mean if someone pushes them into getting baptized); if later on in life, they feel that they didn't really understand, then they can be re-baptized. Let's look at this from another angle: Can you get credit (or blame) for something that you did (or that you allowed to be done to you) out of sheer ignorance? Only if the ignorance was willful (as in, I know the Bible has the plan of salvation in it, but I refuse to read it because I don't want to be held responsible--sorry, pal, it doesn't work that way). Does a baby have any understanding at all of its own baptism? Let's be honest about it: baptizing babies is something that it done to make the parents feel better, it has nothing to do with that child's salvation.

There is much more that I could say about baptism, but this has already gotten to be one of my longest posts ever (if not the longest post), so I will stop now, and blog about baptism more in a future post.

The Afterlife

HowStuffWorks.com has published an interesting article on the latest scientific research into NDE's and OBE's. It is interesting stuff, but I can't help but think about the implications...

Out of Body Experiences (or OBE's), on the surface, indicate that there is a separation between our physical bodies and our immortal souls. Most of the time, these two very different things occupy the same space, and our flesh acts as a container for our souls. I should point out that there is no science behind those statements...

Anyway, the science suggests that Near Death Experiences (or NDE's) are actually REM Intrusions, and occur in the brain stem--even though the brain itself isn't functioning (the patient is brain dead). The brain stem is a much lower order of intelligence and can operate without generating brain waves. Basically, the brain stem 'wakes up,' and finds that the rest of the body (including the brain) is still 'sleeping.' It 'hallucinates' that it has been separated from the body because it cannot sense--or get any response from--any other part of the body.

Out of Body Experiences (OBE's) seem to be triggered by something in a part of the brain known as angular gyrus, in the temporal parietal junction. This cannot be explained as easily as the NDE's, since the TPJ is part of the brain itself, and not the brain stem, and therefore cannot function during brain death. Is it possible that, under certain circumstances, an NDE can cause the brain stem REMI to hallucinate an OBE? I don't know. I suppose it's possible, but at least some of the people who have experienced NDE OBE have been able to accurately describe things that were happening in the room while they were clinically dead. That's a pretty incredible hallucination.

To be honest, even the Bible doesn't really tell us a whole lot about the afterlife. I am sometimes surprised at people that will read a passage of scripture, and, to them, it says something completely different than what it says to me. Sometimes that is simply a matter of misreading. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." I have had people tell me that the verse tells them that we will look the same in Heaven. What? How do you get that? "It says right there: 'I shall be known, even as I am known.'" No, it says that I shall know, even as also I am known. God knows everything about us. The Bible tells us that even the hairs of our head are numbered. He knows how many cells are in our bodies. He knows every thought we've ever had (except for the ones that have been separated from us as far as the East is from the West). Once we get to Heaven, we will have that kind of detailed knowledge (although not about each other).

Some people believe that when we die, we go straight to Heaven (or somewhere else). Others believe that there is a time of rest (often referred to as Abraham's bosom) to await the judgment. Really, a case can be made for either viewpoint. I believe the latter, personally, but I don't think it matters too much what one believes in this regard; if I die and go straight to Heaven, it will be a welcome surprise. In support of the former, Jesus told the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I feel I must point out that Jesus can't have been talking about a literal 24-hour day, for three days later, He told Mary Magdalene that He had not yet ascended... Another point is in John's vision of Heaven, the martyrs asked the question, when shall we be avenged? If they had to wait until the judgment to enter Heaven, then they had been avenged. I don't really have a good answer for that, except to say that there is an interesting juxtaposition of time here, in that, John is seeing something that hasn't happened yet (in fact, may not have ever or will ever actually happen), but is a representation of things to come. At the time of his vision, the saints had not yet been avenged. In other words, he saw them in a place where they were not yet, and yet having concerns that they would no longer have once they arrived where he saw them. I don't expect that explanation to satisfy anyone who believes in death leading immediately to one's final destination, I'm just throwing it out there. Now, as for those of us who believe in the rest before the judgment, let me point out that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus said that Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. This does not appear to be Heaven (although, certainly an argument could be made that it was, particularly since this was a parable, and not an actual event. It seems to me that if Jesus had meant 'Heaven,' he would have said, 'Heaven'). Also, Apostle Paul wrote that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and we that are alive and remain shall arise to meet them in the air. Notice he didn't say that we would meet them in Heaven, he said that we would meet in the air, presumable on the way to Heaven.

Again, though, I think that we are free to believe what we like on this matter--it doesn't really matter as long as we continue to breathe.

Urination

I overheard somebody ask the question, "Why is it that, in the Old Testament, urinating against a wall was such a terrible sin?" That question threw me for a little bit. That isn't even addressed in Old Testament Law, where did this person get the idea that it was a terrible sin? "Well, several times in the Old Testament, God told Israel to kill everyone that did it." Oh, that. All right, let me try to explain that--but, it isn't what you were thinking.

In ancient times, it was commonly believed that if your people and my people went to war, then my gods and your gods fought also (or, at least, influenced the outcome of the war). If you won, that proved that your gods were stronger than my gods, so I shouldn't worship my gods anymore, I should worship your gods. After all, my gods didn't help me win the war, did they? Most of the time, that wasn't that big of a deal. If I were Greek and you were Roman, then I stopped praying to Zeus, and instead prayed to Jupiter. If you were Norse, then I prayed to Odin. Maybe I would start praying to Thor instead of Apollo. Whatever. Most of the time, it was just learning new names. A lot of the stories were very similar, if not the same.

If you were Jewish, though, then I have a problem. I have to replace my entire pantheon with your one God. If I've grown up with a god over the other the other gods, and a god of war, and a god of the sea, and a god of the forge, and a messenger god, and a god of brushing my teeth... And suddenly I can only have one God... No matter how many times Israel defeated the Philistines, the Philistines kept going back to their gods. They just couldn't wrap their minds around the idea of one God creating the whole universe and maintaining control of it (What does that have to do with urination? Bear with me, we're getting there. I just need to lay some foundation first).

For some reason women accepted it more easily than men, but a lot of them couldn't do it either. Children were easier, depending on their age. Usually, once a male child was indoctrinated into polytheism, he couldn't accept monotheism. Further, you ran into the problem that a son who witnessed his father being killed by the people that are now occupying his country, then there will be, almost inevitably, thoughts of revenge. These thoughts can make accepting a new religion difficult, if not impossible. So, how does one determine if a male child is old enough to reject Judaism? Well, if he pees standing up, that's probably not a good sign. Keep in mind that God didn't always tell Israel the same thing when they conquered another nation. Sometimes He told them to kill everything--including their farm animals. Other times He was more selective. But God knew the hearts and minds of the people. He knew when people were ready to accept Him, and when they were not.

Bottom line, it wasn't that urinating against a wall was a sin, it was just a measure of maturity, or of the ability to accept the truth as opposed to what one was raised to believe.

Politics

Normally, I try to stay away from politics in this blog, but there are some things that have happened lately that I feel I must comment on:

First, I would like to thank Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mark Mays, of Clear Channel Communications, essentially passing on a baseless accusation that Rush Limbaugh called military members that didn't agree with the war in Iraq 'phony soldiers.' In point of fact, the phrase 'phony soldiers' came from an ABC news report about people protesting the war claiming to be veterans of the Iraq war, when, in fact, they had not been to Iraq at all, and some of them aren't even veterans. In any case, the letter was auctioned off Friday, and leveraged into a 4.2 million dollar donation to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation--a charitable organization set up to help the survivors of Marines and Law Enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This is the sort of thing that we like to see happen in the name of 'supporting our troops.' So thank you, Mr. Reid.

In other news, we are taking up a collection to buy Ann Coulter a shoe horn. It needs to be a very strong shoe horn, because her foot is so much bigger than her mouth, and it needs to be durable, because she manages to get her foot in her mouth so often. She made a comment last week saying that she wanted the Jews 'to be perfected.' As if that made them any different than the rest of us... She has caught a lot of flack about 'these are the kind of comments that led to Auschwitz.' I have to disagree. The Nazis weren't trying to perfect the Jews, they were trying to perfect themselves. A lot of Germans believed that they had been weakened by Jewish influence, Hitler preached that the Jews needed to be eliminated in order to recover the 'master race'--the blond-haired, blue-eyed people that God intended for us to be... The criticism, of course, stems from the fact that the Nazis and Ann Coulter both seem to think that the Jews are inferior. I don't think that Ann Coulter would advocate killing Jews because they are imperfect (and if she is advocating killing people who aren't perfect, then she should set the example by getting in line for execution first--and people like me will just have to hope that once she's gone, the push to kill imperfect people will die down). I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "There are no perfect people." We also need to get her one of those bumper stickers that says, "Christians aren't perfect--just forgiven."I think I understand what she meant. The plain and simple truth is that the Jews have been waiting for a savior for over two thousand years. Some of them set out an extra chair and set an extra place setting at meals, in case the Messiah shows up. Meanwhile, we Christians know Christ. We are waiting for Him to come back, and take us Home. The Jews are inextricably linked to our salvation, and they don't even see it. Some people cry that they killed Jesus; my salvation was bought with His blood--I say, thank God for the Jews! I would like to see as many of them in Heaven as possible. I don't want to see them threatened or browbeaten; that's not effective anyway. Side note: Recently some sociologists discovered some Latino Roman Catholics in the United States that celebrated Chanukah, Purim, and Passover. They only did this in the privacy of their own homes, they never talked to anyone at church about it, and all are descendants of Spaniards that lived during the Spanish Inquisition. Apparently these people have been (secretly) practicing Jewish rites for over 400 years...

To be honest, Ann Coulter illustrates an unfortunate aspect of Christianity. We, as Christians, think of ourselves as 'chosen.' Well, okay, we don't just think of ourselves as chosen, we are chosen. But we have a bad tendency to think that we are somehow special, that God chose us because we have some talent or ability that was instrumental to His grand scheme--as opposed to God giving talents and abilities to people who are willing to follow His direction. But our 'specialness' comes from our obeisance, not from our abilities, or our looks. If any one of us decides not to follow God, he will simply raise up another. We are recipients of Grace; not because of what we have done or even could do, but because God is a loving and merciful God. God would like to extend His Grace even further, but is often limited by our failings as Christians. If the Jews are not saved, it may very well be because of us. Apostle Paul wrote about not 'boasting against' the Jews...

Killing in God's Name

Lately there has been a lot of talk about killing in God's name (usually by someone claiming to be a member of "the religion of peace"). Are there Biblical precedents for such an attitude or belief? Let's consider:

God gives us early encouragement not to kill, in the case of Cain VS. Abel...

Moses killed a man, but then God chose to use him to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt anyway...

God gives Moses the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill...

But, then, God becomes angry at King Saul for not killing...

But King David got in trouble for killing...

In addition, under Old Testament Law, there were allowances made for killing for revenge. If someone killed a relative of yours, you had a right to hunt them down, unless it was an accident, and they were able to get to a city of refuge before you got to them...

It gets complicated. But, realistically, under the new covenant, we don't have to worry about such things any more. Jesus made it real simple: Turn the other cheek. Interestingly enough, Jesus made that comment very shortly after referencing the Old Testament eye for an eye... Something that has been attributed to both Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is that "an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind." Certainly that's true. As I have posted before, we are imperfect people, seeking to do the perfect will of God, and sometimes we get it right. But we make a lot of mistakes along the way. I would hope that no one dies because of my mistakes, but I can't guarantee that. If someone dies, who then has the right to kill me? God didn't grant anyone the right to kill Cain... It is important that we forgive each other, because there is not a one among us that will never need forgiveness.

The bottom line is, in the modern day, killing in the name of God is wrong. period. I don't care if you are talking about killing people who refuse to accept your religion, or your way of thinking, or whether you are talking about killing abortionists. Thou shalt not kill. God likes mercy, and we need God's mercy.

GodTube

ABC recently discovered GodTube. I've known about GodTube for awhile. To be honest, I don't watch many videos on GodTube--I really don't have time. What I like about GodTube, as opposed to YouTube, is that you have a pretty good idea going into it what you're getting. Granted, GodTube is a copy of YouTube, but with religious overtones. It's like somebody looked at YouTube and said, this would make a great tool for Christians if only it were run by Christian people. It's pretty obvious that it isn't run by Christians--and that's not necessarily bad; if the only businesses allowed to operate were Christian-run businesses, we would be in trouble. YouTube has a long history of, well, interesting ethical choices. They have a policy that they will not allow copyrighted content on their site, however, they have, until recently, put the onus of copyright protection on their contributors and the owners of said copyright. In other words, you aren't supposed to post content to their site unless you own the rights to it--and their terms of use page spells out exactly how you can tell if you own the rights or not, but if you do, they don't really check, but if someone else complains that they own the copyright, YouTube will take the video off their site. As an example, a video was posted on YouTube several months ago that met the criteria for original content, but a TV show about internet video used the video on their show (without permission from the producer of said video). The producer video'd the TV program that featured his video, and posted the video on YouTube, in place of his original video, including on-air comments about his video. The network informed YouTube that they owned the copyright, and YouTube took down the video. The original producer tried to make the case that they used his video without permission, but that really didn't fly--it's not like he was collecting royalties from YouTube.

More than that, though, YouTube has a policy that they will not host material that is deemed offensive. Experience has taught us that what we consider to be offensive isn't necessarily what YouTube considers offensive. There are many videos on YouTube that would not be rated PG in by the MPAA. More than that, there are a number of videos that criticize various religions or ethnic groups. Some of these are taken down very quickly, others stay put for years. Generally, if it is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, it is deemed to be non-offensive. If it is critical of Islam, it is removed quickly; even if it is clear that it is only critical of terrorists groups as opposed to Islam as a whole. Perhaps that is because Jews and Christians don't have a history of flying airplanes into buildings. Don't misunderstand me, I am well aware that most Muslims are very peaceful people. I know that. I know that the vast majority of Muslims who have immigrated to this country are here because they are trying to get away from the extremists who sponsor terror. I mean those people no ill-will. My point is, simply, that YouTube clearly is more concerned about offending the terrorists than they are the vast majority of their users. To be honest, I can somewhat understand. They offend me, I quit using their site. They have lost one user. This will have a fairly negligible effect on their advertising revenue. They offend some terrorist group, they may get some of their people killed. There is also the concern that the terrorists may not target YouTube, but the producers of the video, but leaving the operators of YouTube with some sense of responsibility (or not--some people are quite immune to such things, but I would like to think that they would feel some responsibility). There is a certain wisdom to the way YouTube operates. The thing is, if I go to YouTube, and click on 'humor,' I may get a video that will make me laugh, or I may get some pop-tart showing me things that I don't really need to see, or some bigot making jokes about the Holocaust...

Granted, the videos at GodTube mostly leave me disappointed. Some of them are funny. Some of them are thought-provoking. A lot of them take a great concept and use wooden acting, bad camera angles and poor scripting to just, I don't know how to describe it--it's like instead of taking a photograph of a beautiful sunset, you sit down and paint it using watercolors on graph paper in the rain (I suppose if you don't have a camera or canvas or a dry spot to paint, that's the best you can do).

It's been pointed out that GodTube is a little embarrassing. It's such an obvious copy. The site could have been designed a lot better. Most of the videos could be a lot better. Some of them are just plain stupid. But they are clean. They are not offensive (well, not usually, anyway, and not offensive in the sense that they are showing things they ought not, or expressing opinions that offend--sometimes they are offensively stupid, but that's about it). One of my personal favorite videos on GodTube is called, "Baby Got Book." It's a take-off of a secular music video, but this guy talks (sings?) about how he likes women with (big) Bibles. I've watched it several times and I still get a chuckle out of it. One of my least favorite is one that calls the banana an atheist's worst nightmare--although, to be honest, that one is stupid enough to be funny, even though it clearly wasn't intended as humor.

So, the question is, do I watch YouTube, and risk being offended at what I see, or watch GodTube, and risk being disappointed? Or just stay busy with other things, and not worry about it...

That Which Is in Part

I have had some discussions with people about speaking in tongues. The conventional wisdom in Christian circles seems to be that tongues were done away with; the usual reference given is 1 Corinthians 13:10. That reference has really never made sense to me. I can sort of see it, but not really. In verse eight it talks about prophesies failing, tongues ceasing, and knowledge passing away. In verse nine, it tells us that we know in part, and we prophecy in part. Verse ten says that when "that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Now, I know this is being nit-picky, but I have to point out that it doesn't say that tongues are in part. It does lump tongues with knowledge and prophesy in verse eight, and tells us that the other two are in part in verse nine, so, by implication, tongues are in part. I'm not sure what that would mean, exactly (I understand the idea that prophesy is in part, because God doesn't show us everything that is going to happen; I understand that knowledge is in part, because there is an awful lot that we don't know--is tongues in part because most of the time we speak the language that we grew up with?) . Now John 21:25 would seem to indicate that the gospels themselves are in part; should they be done away with as well?

Really, though, that's not the point. The point is, what did Paul mean by "that which is perfect?" These people seem to think that he was referring to the completed Bible. Let me again refer you to John 21:25. I don't really want to say that the Bible isn't perfect, but where is the text that covers Jesus' life from 12 to 30? There is an eighteen year gap there, and, to be honest, it doesn't tell us a lot about His early years either. It seems fairly obvious to me that Paul was talking about Christ's return--when He carries us, His children, home. Then we will know and understand all the things that we don't get now. Now, we see through a glass darkly (because we are spiritual beings, but robed in flesh, and we experience things in a carnal way), but then face to face (because when I see Jesus' face, He and I will both be wholly spiritual, with no flesh between us to distort the experience). Let me also point out that in 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul goes on to say that, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." That doesn't sound like what was in part was being destroyed, as much as being completed (that works, doesn't it? If that which is in part is completed, then it is no longer 'in part,' so that which is in part has been done away).

Personally, I find it hard to believe that tongues have been done away with: It seems to me that all the gifts that God gave to the early church He gave to the church. The church is still around, so the gifts are still around. Some of them are much rarer now than they were (that may simply signify a lack of faith on our part), I have to admit that the vast majority of the time that I have heard 'speaking in tongues,' it just sounded like jibber-jabber to me. Were they faking it, or was I just not properly attuned to hear it for what it was? I can't be sure. I do believe that there is a lot of fakery out there. I suspect that there are probably a whole lot more people pretending to speak in tongues than actually speaking in tongues. Does that mean that tongues are done away with? I don't think so.

One story that I want to pass on, just because it's kind of related: Some years ago, some friends and I went to visit a Baptist Church in Milwaukee. One of the pastors there had a doctorate in theology, and was a very educated man. At one point during the service, he began leading in prayer, and, partway into the prayer, he stopped speaking English. Now, I am not nearly as well educated as he was, but I recognized a few words as ancient Hebrew (or possibly modern Hebrew--I'm not sure I could tell the difference). After the service, one of my friends started laughing at the pastor, "I thought Baptists didn't believe in speaking in tongues!" I tried to explain that he wasn't speaking in tongues, but he wasn't listening. Of course, there are about 400 different flavors of Baptist in this country, so I don't think it's fair to say that Baptists don't believe in speaking in tongues. Some of them do, don't they?

Blog Action Day

I was just informed that today is blog action day--bloggers are being asked to blog about the environment today. I could, of course, post the obvious: We only have one planet, and if we keep polluting it, our children or grandchildren will have no place to stay. I could blog about what to do about it, but a lot of other blogs are doing that. Still, this is the day, and it is important, so here goes:

I think that there are a lot of misconceptions out there about environmental issues. For one thing, there has been a lot of talk about electric cars, or hybrid cars that can run on gas or electricity. The problem with that is that we're really just moving the pollution. about 70% of the electricity produced in this country comes from burning fossil fuels, so, if you're driving a car with an electric motor, your car may not be polluting, but there's a very good chance that the power plant that produced the electricity for you car is. In point of fact, considering the inherent inefficiencies of the power plant, the power distribution system, the charger for the battery in your car, and so forth, the power plant probably produces at least as much (if not more) pollution per mile than your car would using gasoline. The solution, of course, would be to build more power plants that don't burn anything. There are two kinds of power plants that don't burn anything: Hydroelectric, and nuclear. Hydroelectric is good, we simply dam up a river, and use the current to drive turbines to make electricity. Unfortunately, there are only so many rivers, and only so many places where we can make lakes. That leaves nuclear, which the environmentalists generally don't like. I'm not entirely at odds with them, but I do think that they overdramatize the issue. A lot of them worry about having a Chernobyl here in the United States. That's unlikely, at best. Without going into a lot of detail, the Soviets put a lot of emphasis on efficiency--getting the most kilowattage for the ruble--as opposed to safety. Our safety record isn't all that great, either, but our designs are more of a compromise between efficiency and safety. Three Mile Island is pretty much a worst case scenario for an American-made reactor, and even that was preventable (well, Chernobyl was preventable, too; if they had incorporated a boron fill system--but I digress). The point is, that Chernobyl was built on an entirely different philosophy than American reactors--even those built in the same time period. Still, we don't want another Three Mile Island, either; that's a legitimate concern. I would hope that nuclear plant operators have a better understanding, now, of just how wrong things can go; still, we human beings have a bad tendency to make mistakes, even with something as dangerous as nuclear power (and when profits are on the line, corporations can minimize or even eliminate safety margins).

On the other hand, there are things that we as individuals can do. I am not going to beat the recycling drum, common sense will tell you that recycling is good. It has picked up some detractors on the basis of it isn't cost-effective--only because of government subsidies is recycled paper priced about the same as 'new' paper. Let's be honest with ourselves--reuse the paper, or use it to fill a landfill somewhere so that in a hundred years or so, it will become dirt (or, if we're really lucky, it becomes fossil fuel).

We're doing a lot of the right things, we're just not doing enough. We, as a species, thought for centuries that our biosphere was too large and too complex for us to have a lasting impact on it. We know better now, but we're stuck in old habits. Remember, the biggest difference between a rut and a grave are the dimensions.

Understanding Women

I heard something on the radio this morning about married women not liking to give their husbands hints. It seems kind of unladylike. On the other hand, I've heard comedians joke about how hints don't work. Women seem to think that being in love means never having to explain yourself--your partner always knows what you're thinking. Women always seem to think they know what their significant others are thinking. I think they'd be pretty surprised if they really knew what we were thinking--and, most of the time, we're not trying to keep it a secret!

Women seem to think that love grants one psychic abilities. It doesn't. We can't read your mind, and you can't read ours. You can generally get an idea about what we're thinking, because men are much less inclined to play games with it. Women will often create a pretense just to see if the man catches it. Even if we know that your behavior is a sham, we generally don't know what to about it. Dave Barry wrote a column in which he said, "A woman is someone who, when you ask her what is wrong, says, 'Nothing.' A man is a person who, when a woman tells him nothing is wrong, believes her." Obviously, that's not entirely true. At the very least, Mr. Barry has learned (from long, hard experience, no doubt) that when a woman says nothing is wrong, that usually means that something is very wrong, but she isn't willing to talk about it. Are we then to begin guessing as to what it wrong? Not really, because that simply leads to further denials about there being anything wrong. Sometimes, you can wear her down to the point where she will say, "If you loved me, you would know what was wrong." Again, there is a big difference between being in love, and being psychic. Frequently, men get frustrated and just quit worrying about it (or, at least, try not to worry about it); after all, eventually she will tell us what's bothering her, or get over it. In any case, without a clue as to what is going on, we can't really do much about it, except play dumb. I know there's something wrong, but she wants to pretend that nothing is wrong, so I'll play her game. This generally means that retribution will be much harsher, later, but she's not in the mood for a game of twenty questions, anyway. I'll go watch the game, or finish fixing the closet door, or whatever else I've got to do, and wait on her.

Another thing about women that I don't get: Why is it, that when a woman wants affirmation that she is still loved, that she can't wait for a commercial? Why does it always have to be when the score is tied, there's thirty seven seconds left on the clock, our team has the ball, and it's third and twelve; or the TV detective has just called all of the suspects together and is about to reveal who the killer is, or the guys in the black hats have got our hero pinned down and he only has one bullet left... And she wants to turn the TV off and discuss what color tile should go in the hall bathroom. Of course, we both know that this isn't about floor tile, this is about her making sure that she is more important than whatever it was we were doing. We know that, but it's still frustrating (less frustrating with TIVO, of course, but still).

Jerks

It was nice having a three day week-end. Hope you enjoyed yours. I would have enjoyed mine more, except I'm suffering from a cold. Nothing major, really, it's pretty minor. It mostly made it hard for me to sleep. The bad part of a cold like this one is that you need to sleep in order for your immune system to fight off the cold, but the cold symptoms keep you awake at night. I think I'm going to invest in some Nyquil this afternoon. Over the week-end, sleep wasn't really that big of a deal, because I didn't have to get up in the morning. Now that I'm back at work, I definitely need to be getting up in the morning, so I need to sleep like lumber. Still, it was a good week-end. Even with the cold, I got a lot done.This week may be a little strained. They caught somebody last week playing games on his computer when he was supposed to be working. From what I understand, he was the fourth one in less than three weeks. Now, no one is allowed to go on the internet, except during lunch. I'm not sure how long this will last. Usually knee-jerk reactions are good for about three weeks. Usually nobody actually tells us that the moratorium has been lifted, but it takes about that long before people start doing what they were doing before, and the powers that be have either forgotten, or decide that it's not worth pushing it. I'm not sure if it has occurred to anybody that you don't need the internet to waste time (but it sure helps!).Of course, this is the same organization that, a few years ago, decided that the workers needed more mobility, and had the IT department acquire laptops for everyone, and replaced the desktops. Do you understand what I'm saying? They took away everyone's desktop computer, and replaced them with laptops. Then, less than a week later, started having concerns about laptops getting stolen, so, they came in and cable-locked the laptops to the desks. So, they got us laptops for better mobility, but then locked them to the desks, so that we couldn't go anywhere with them. Brilliant people--always thinking ahead.

Bible Difficulties

There have been a lot of people that oppose the Bible due to the fact that there are difficulties in it. How can we believe a book that has problems? It seems to me that the problems are not so much with the book, as just our understanding of it.

One that has been pointed out to me is that the Bible talks about unicorns, which are mythical creatures. Are they? As far as the horse-like creature with a pretty horn protruding from its forehead, yes, that's a mythical creature, but that's not what the Bible is talking about. What is it talking about? The term unicorn simply means, one horn. So it is (or was) some creature with a single horn, or maybe an animal with its horns arranged in a row in the middle of its head, rather than on either side. Something like a rhinoceros, perhaps? I don't know; that's just a suggestion. I can certainly understand if rhino's were not well known to the Jews at the time, and none of them had stuck around one long enough to realize that it had more than one horn.

Another is that the gospels give two different genealogies for Jesus. Jesus had two parents, didn't He? Joseph wasn't His father, though. True, but Jesus' lineage through Joseph is important because it was a royal lineage. Joseph was descended from the kings of Judea, and, in fact, would have been king if Judea had not been under Roman occupation. So, Matthew lists Jesus' lineage through his adopted father (and an adopted son would still be considered royalty), and Luke lists Jesus' lineage through Mary.

In Habakkuk 2:3 it says, talking about 'an appointed time,' "...though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." See there? It contradicts itself, right there in the same verse! Wow. You dug pretty deep for that one. Most people never even read the book of Habakkuk, but, okay, let's consider this. As I mentioned earlier, this is talking about 'an appointed time.' God hasn't given us any indication as to when this appointed time will be. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 24:36, Jesus said that no man knows the day or the hour. So how would we know if the appointed time did tarry? But certainly, if things continue as they were, as they always have been, it becomes easy for us to think that the time has been delayed, and that it tarries. I heard a cute announcement on the radio recently where a bomb squad technician gets called out to deal with an explosive device that has no timer on it. He takes the attitude that, since he doesn't know when the bomb is set to explode, it could be days, while another police officer tries to impress on him that it could just as easily be minutes. If you don't know what the appointed time is, then you may convince yourself that it is a long way off, but you just don't know. Maybe Habakkuk should have written, "...though it seem to tarry..." but I think anyone who is reading the Bible in an attempt to understand it will get the meaning, but people looking to form an argument will just jump on that as a 'clear contradiction.'

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, and yet, Mary was a Judean, and Elizabeth was a Levite. How is that possible? Let me ask you a question: Do all of your cousins have the same last name that you have? If Mary's father was a Judean, then she would be considered Judean, wouldn't she? And if Elizabeth's father were a Levite, then she would be considered a Levite, right? But that doesn't say anything about their mothers' lineage. They could have both been Benjamites, for all we know. By the way, some of you may be saying, "But Jews figure their lineage differently than we do--they trace lineage through their mothers" (which makes sense; there's rarely any question about who a baby's mother is). Okay, so reverse the parents in the above example. Maybe Mary's father and Elizabeth's father were brothers; it doesn't really matter. The point is that cousins are not necessarily of the same tribe (or have the same last name).

Biblical Expressions

When I was younger, my father used to make a point of holding the door for my aunt, and saying, "Age before beauty." Her response was always the same, she would smile sweetly, and say, "Pearls before swine." I don't remember when I realized that my aunt was quoting Jesus (sort of).

There are a lot of other expressions that are used in the Bible, some of them originated in the Bible. Judas was left holding the bag, but that expression doesn't seem to have had the implication of guilt that it does now. Paul (or Saul at the time) was knocked off his high horse, although, in all fairness, the Bible doesn't say that he was riding a horse, but the expression fits: Here is a man who was so wrong, and so sure that he was right (and so proud of being right) until being proven completely and unarguably wrong. Also the term scapegoat comes from the Bible. When I was in the Navy, we used to keep a rope ladder on the ship in case of an emergency, known as a Jacob's ladder. Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall. Jesus warned against letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, which can be a good thing, but today is normally viewed as poor communication. Abraham Lincoln is usually credited with saying that a house divided against itself shall not stand--but he was quoting Jesus. Herod's stepdaughter wanted John the Baptist's head on a silver platter... The expression, the blind leading the blind is fairly well known, now, I don't think it was when Jesus said it. Washing one's hands of something is basically allowing without accepting the blame for--it didn't work so well for Pontius Pilate. Money is the root of all evil is a common expression, but it's also a misquote. The truth shall set you free. Out of the mouths of babes come truth. Apostle Paul had a thorn in his side. Can a leopard change it's spots? (I've blogged about that before--but not using that reference) Why is a skeptic referred to as a doubting Thomas?

Of course, there are some jokes that have evolved from the expressions in the Bible. What is God's favorite automotive brand, and how do we know? Well, he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden in a Fury, so He must like Plymouths. On the other hand, the early church was partial to Hondas--on the day of Pentacost, they managed to squeeze 120 people into one Accord. What kind of sports did they play in the Bible? Well, baseball, obviously, because the Bible starts out saying, "In the big inning..." But also tennis, because Daniel served in the king's court. No mention of football that I know of, although some people in modern times have made the request, "Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goal posts of life..."

Of course, there are also misunderstood expressions. I've blogged about 'fetching a compass' before. In Acts 7:54, it says that when Stephen preached the gospel to the crowd, they 'gnashed on him with their teeth." To gnash means to grind together--all this is really saying is that they gnashed their teeth at him or because of him. I heard some people say that these people were so upset that they were chewing on Stephen; I don't think so. In 1st Samuel 5, the Bible talks about God smiting the Philistines with 'emerods.' This is a word that is no longer in common use. The word has 'evolved.' For some reason it has attracted a lot more letters. Let's just say that if the word hadn't changed, there would be commercials now for tubes of 'Preparation E.'

Quizzes

I get a little frustrated from time to time with quizzes. I like to have my mind challenged, but sometimes the people that want to challenge my mind don't do a very good job of it.

Some time ago, I was visiting a web site that had quizzes on a number of different subjects, but most of the choices didn't really appeal to me. There was one on science fiction, so I clicked on that one. A ten question quiz, the first question was about Star Trek, and it was easy. The second question was about Star Wars, also easy. The rest of the questions dealt with Joss Wheedon stuff. Okay, Joss Wheedon has done some science fiction ("Alien: Resurrection", "Titan A. E.", "Firefly" and "Serenity"), but none of these questions dealt with any of that. The remaining eight questions all dealt with "Buffy" and "Angel"--not science fiction. I managed to guess right on four of those questions, giving me a 60%. Normally I would be disappointed in myself for scoring 60% on a science fiction quiz, but, considering that only 20% of the quiz dealt with science fiction, I felt pretty good about myself--just not very good towards whoever put the quiz together.

Another web site was trying to set itself up as a collection of expertise, and they were taking applications from people who felt that they were experts in a particular field. In order to qualify, though, you had to score well on a quiz prepared by one of their existing experts. No, science fiction was not an available category (not that I really think that I'm an expert in science fiction--I know more than a lot of people, but not nearly as much as some), but the Bible was. That's interesting; let's see if I can qualify as a Bible expert. I didn't. One question in particular that bothered me was, "How many loaves of bread and how many fishes did Jesus use to feed the multitude?" That's kind of a vague question, since Jesus fed the multitude more than once; but the first time it was five loaves and two fishes, the second time it was seven loaves and 'a few' fishes. Neither one of those were possible answers. The closest I could find was five loaves and three fishes, so I put that. WRONG! The 'correct' answer was five of each. I'd sure like to know which version of the Bible that came from...

There was also another one that was obviously put together by someone just trying to be contentious--they asked a lot of very strange questions (meaning that I didn't know how to begin to answer them) , but one in particular asked, "What is the seventh commandment?" Their answer: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." That's not even in the right chapter...

Anyway, one that I like much better is on the gotoquiz web site. To be honest, they call this "The Ultimate Bible Quiz," but most of the answers can be deduced even if you don't know (they have a bad tendency to ask 'who in the Bible' questions with two of the choices being people born in the twentieth century...). Maybe that's why I like it... Personally, though, I think the ultimate Bible quiz should have questions on it like, "Name both of Ruth's husbands." with choices like, "a. Mahlon and Chilion b. Mahlon and Boaz c. Chilion and Boaz d. Mahlon, Chilion, and Boaz," or, name all of the women mentioned in the lineage of Christ in Matthew. But, of course, I'm sure that such a quiz would have questions on it that I wouldn't be able to answer--but it would be fun to learn from it.

They Are Lying To You

By now, I think most of us have seen internet ads that proclaim, "They're lying to you, and it's costing you a fortune!" They're right. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that those ads are entirely true, either.
As far as home-based or internet-based businesses, if you think that you can just painlessly make the transition from working for someone else and being self-employed, guess again. Granted, when you're part of the 9-to-5 mass, it can seem like Heaven to not have to punch a clock anymore, but, setting your own hours can be disastrous. You still need to get your work done; being able to decide when to work sometimes means not getting the work done. It's very easy to put off doing things (especially things that you don't really want to do) when 'situations' arise (and they do). In the early days (or months or years) of being self-employed, it usually means working more hours (the person who set you up promised no more 40-hour work weeks--that's true; you'll be wishing for 40 hour work weeks before too long) for less pay.
Some of us have heard that the government is lying to us about 9/11 and Iraq. There's probably a lot of truth in that, too (but don't take the accusers at face value, either).
I have to wonder about the Jena 6. If they were really trying to kill that white boy, they sure didn't do a very good job of it. He received outpatient treatment at the local hospital. He attended some event the night he was beaten (some reports say a party, some say a school event). It seems to me that if 6 people tried to kill me, I wouldn't be willing to leave the hospital right away, much less go to a party; sounds to me like he didn't get beaten that badly. Did the Jena 6 get interrupted? The media has been strangely silent about why the victim had so little injury. On the other hand, the one of the Jena 6 that's been convicted already (the conviction was overturned on the grounds that he isn't old enough to be tried as an adult), Mychal Bell, has been convicted 3 times before (in juvenile court, I assume) of violent crimes. In any case, the lack of proof of intent to kill should not result in a finding not guilty, just guilty of a lesser charge.
None of this is really my point today. Most people take what information they are given and internalize most of it without really questioning it, whether it comes from politicians, or our bosses, or the media, or our religious leaders. It seems like a lot of people have lost the ability to question sources. Don't misunderstand me, almost everybody questions some sources, but they almost always have some sources that they don't question that aren't any more honest than the sources that they question.
For many years, a lot of established religions have taught that one shouldn't read the book or books that the religion is allegedly based on. The usual reason given is that common people can't understand the writings, they are much too complex. There may be some legitimate concern about exactly that, but, by teaching that you shouldn't read the Bible or the Koran, or whatever, but trust your religious leaders to explain the writings to you, it gives the clergy an immense amount of power. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that most priests and imams are careful not to abuse that power, but there will always be a few. And, to be honest, IMHO, most people are really at least a little afraid of finding out what the book actually says. It's a holy book, and I am so far from being holy... I think that's why there are so many books out there that try to explain what the Bible says. There was a very popular series of books recently that dramatized the writers' interpretation of the book of Revelation. How accurate was it? Most people that read the books didn't read Revelation, so they really have no way of knowing. This in spite of the fact that most people had never heard of either of the two men before these books came out, and have no real reason to trust either one of them. Even if these two men are giving their honest evaluation of what will probably happen as the prophecies play out, why would you want to limit yourself to their understanding?
All I'm saying is, if you believe the Bible, then read it; better yet, study it. If there are things in there that confuse you, then pray for understanding. If you believe the Koran, then read it, study it. I understand that Islam teaches that only certain people are considered to be qualified to interpret the writings of the Koran, so if there are things in there that you don't understand, you should find out what they think. But I would encourage you to be skeptical; you don't want to be limited to some man's understanding. God wants you to understand what He expects from you. If you run from that, it doesn't make you any less accountable.

Update: I saw this 'toon on Reverendfun.com, and it goes so well with my post, I just had to add it.