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.