Addictions

When you talk about addiction, most people automatically think about drugs. Certainly drug addiction is a serious problem, but there are other addictions. Some people don't think of alcohol as a drug, but it is, and so alcoholism is just another drug addiction. Nicotine is also a drug, but it is generally more habit-forming than addicting. Part of the problem is that different people are susceptible to different things. One person may be able to smoke for awhile, and then stop for awhile, and then pick it up again, while another person may suffer withdrawal symptoms within hours after putting out a cigarette; for one, it's a habit, for the other, it's an addiction.

But drugs are not the only thing. For some people, gambling is an addiction. Granted, there is a certain amount of thinking that they just need one quick win to get ahead, and then they will stop; but the more they gamble, the more they lose, and the bigger the win needed to get out of the hole, and then, on the rare occasion that they actually get that big win, then they develop the attitude that they can afford to gamble now, they have money, and end up losing everything anyway. Casinos don't exist to make their customers rich--they exist to make their owners rich.

Some people find pornography addicting. Psychologists say that the appeal of pornography is that one can engage in sexual activity without actual having to go through the social activity that normally leads to the emotional closeness that should lead to, well, I'll say marriage, even though most psychologists probably don't consider marriage to be a mandatory precursor to sexual activity... The problem, of course, is that God has given us a desire to procreate: We, being the basically simple-minded people that we are, have turned that into a simple desire for sex, at least on the surface. Below the surface, though, there is a desire to see our genes, our DNA, in the children that will eventually grow up and, either take care of us in our declining years, or choose our nursing homes. No matter how much pornography one views, that basic need is never met: It's sort of like painting over rotting wood to cover the problem instead of replacing the wood and fixing the problem.

There is a statement commonly attributed to John D. Rockefeller (although I can't find anything to directly link him to the quote), that, when asked "How much money does it take to make a man happy?" he replied, "Just a little bit more." In the book of Ecclesiastes, God tells us that we will never be satisfied with increase; this doesn't just apply to money. Whatever action that makes one feel better, if it is not of God, will snowball; it will take more and more to achieve that same feeling, and, even then, it's a temporary feel-good type of thing, it is not satisfaction. Mick Jagger was right about that...

It's Funny

It is funny that everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die. On the other hand, if one is too willing to die, then one's death might be considered suicide, and you don't get to Heaven by killing oneself. Although some believers in Islam would disagree on that. Personally, I think it's funny (funny odd, more than funny ha-ha) that they think that if they kill themselves 'for the cause' then they get 72 virgins in Heaven (is that actually in the Koran somewhere? I doubt it, but I don't know). So if a woman keeps herself pure for Allah, she gets to spend eternity sharing a suicide bomber with 71 other women who kept themselves pure--that's her reward?

Mark Twain once pointed out that everybody believes that we are going to be playing harps in Heaven, but most of us don't take harp lessons here on earth. Of course, he suggested that we are all going to end up in Heaven not knowing how to play the standard-issue harp, but plucking away at it anyway, for the glory of God. I don't remember anything in the Bible about playing the harp in Heaven, but I do know that the Bible says that in Heaven we will know much more than we do here on earth (1 Corinthians 13:12). Just between us, I don't think we're going to be playing harps in Heaven, but, if we do, we'll know exactly how to play them.

It's funny that we tend to think of St. Peter as the gatekeeper for Heaven. Where did that come from? I know Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom, but I really don't think that means that Peter is going to spend eternity at the gate, comparing names to a list, letting people in, or turning them away. Matthew 25 certainly doesn't describe judgment that way. Isn't there a difference between a gatekeeper and a keymaster, anyway?

I also think it's funny that so many people got so upset over 'The DaVinci Code.' If some of the concepts in that book (or movie) caused you to question your faith, then maybe your faith needed to be questioned, but, it was a work of fiction. Even if there really is a group of people that believes that they are protecting the last descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (and there is not), that doesn't prove by any stretch of the imagination that there actually ever was a descendant of Jesus and Mary... (Just a side note, Dan Brown asserts in the beginning of his book that the Priory of Sion is a real organization. It was--maybe it still is, but I believe it has been dissolved. However, the Priory never claimed to have any knowledge of the descendants of Jesus. Their stated purpose was to protect the descendants of the former kings of France.) Keep in mind that, book or movie, "The DaVinci Code" is a work of fiction. Of course, it is a work of fiction that works best in the mind of the reader if certain ideas are presented as being factual. Remember 'The Blair Witch Project?' The movie did very well as long as people believed that it actually was spliced together from film recovered after three film students disappeared in the woods, researching the Blair Witch. Once word got out the film was completely fictional, most people lost interest.

Trust

Trust can be a real issue for a lot of people. We don't trust each other, we don't trust our government, we don't trust anybody. Even people that mean well will eventually disappoint, or let you down because they are people. We are only human, none of us is perfect.

We are taught in the Scriptures that God is our Father. This can be problematic, at least for some people, because human fathers are, well, human. To compare God to a human father risks attributing fault to God. Even our own natural fathers are human and prone to failure; but the relationship we are supposed to have with them is similar to the relationship we should have with God. We as human beings have a bad tendency to attribute human qualities to non-humans. Sometimes we even humanize objects (that's easy to do with computers, but sometimes we even blame a piece of furniture for being in the way as if it had moved itself from where we left it--sometimes we even assign it a motive for moving...). Someone asked the question, "Why does a mirror reverse left and right and not up and down?" Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose that you are lying on your left side, facing a mirror; now left is down, and right is up. Move your right arm (your 'up' arm). Now, does your reflections 'up' arm move, or does its 'down' arm move? (If you have a hard time imagining this, try it and see how it comes out.) The 'up' arm, of course, because mirrors don't reverse up and down. Now, consider for a moment, isn't the arm that moved on your right (remember, right is up)? The problem isn't that mirrors reverse left and right, it's that we expect them to reverse left and right (the reflection looks like another person, and that other person's right should be to our left, but it isn't) and they don't reverse anything. This is just us, humanizing our own reflections.

We should not attribute human qualities to God, however. Aren't we created in God's image? Yes, in the sense that we are immortal souls, but, unlike God, we have mortal flesh that doesn't always agree with what is best for our souls. Voltaire once commented that, "If God created us in His own image, we have more than reciprocated." There is a certain logic to the idea that if God created us in His own image, then God must look like us, yet, most of what we think of as our defining characteristics aren't common to all of humanity. Some of are fair-complected, others are dark complected, many others are somewhere in-between; so what color is God? Again, God is a Spirit, He is not flesh and blood. We can, and should, trust God, because He is not a man, that He should lie; He is not a man that He should repent (or have anything to repent of, except for creating us). Don't misunderstand me, I know that there are times when God has changed His mind (usually because of something than one or more of us human beings has done), but as far as Him having done something evil and having to repent of that, no, that's never happened.

I hate it when people overlook the obvious. Sometimes I wonder if what they are overlooking is only obvious to me. For example, many times I have heard people comment on the contention between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:38, and they say, "Now, we don't know what the contention was between Paul and Barnabas..." And I say, "You don't? Did you try reading the previous two verses?" It seems obvious to me that Barnabas felt very strongly that God wanted him to work with Mark, but he had grown so accustomed to working with Paul that it really didn't even occur to him that he was supposed to work with Mark instead of working with Paul. Meanwhile, Paul felt very strongly that he wasn't supposed to work with Mark, but he also was very accustomed to working with Barnabas, and it didn't occur to him, either, that Barnabas should work with Mark and Paul should find someone else to work with. But Barnabas insisted that they should work with Mark, and Paul insisted that they should not, and eventually they realized that they could no longer work together--which is what God wanted all along anyway. So Barnabas worked with Mark, and Paul worked with Silas.

Paul and Silas went on to be thrown in jail in Thessalonica, but then led a revival in the jail. That's an interesting story in and of itself. Paul and Silas, having been beaten badly, and having their feet locked in stocks in the inner prison, began praising God. The other prisoners heard them, and had to have thought that these guys are nuts--just completely whacked out of their gourds--but then, God sent an earthquake, and the stocks came loose, and the door to the cell opened. The jailer awoke, and seeing the door opened, assumed that Paul and Silas had escaped. Knowing what kind of punishment he would receive, and the disgrace to his family, the jailer thought it better to kill himself on the spot. He pulled out his sword, and Paul, knowing what was going through the jailer's mind, stopped him, and assured him that no one had escaped. The first thought in the jailers mind was probably that these guys are nuts... but he realized that Paul was the kind of man that didn't want to be even partially responsible for someone else's death. This Paul, he's real, he could have walked away and let me die, but he put my own life above his own (think about it: Paul didn't know what the morning held, he and Silas could very easily have been executed for their alleged crimes). What drives a man like that? How can I be more like that? The jailer took Paul and Silas to his own home, tended to their injuries, they shared with him the gospel message, and he was baptized, and his whole family (at what time? 2:00 AM? We know it was midnight when Paul and Silas started worshipping in their cell...) I wonder what the jailer's wife thought when he brought two prisoners home in the middle of the night (in the middle of his shift), and woke her up, and wanted her to listen to what they had to say... She probably thought her husband was nuts--completely whacked out of his gourd, but she knew that something had changed his life. Insanity is not contagious, but, sometimes, sanity is.

Silly Questions

Dave Barry once wrote that "a woman is someone who, when asked what is wrong, says, 'Nothing.' A man is someone who, when he asks a woman what is wrong, and she says, "Nothing," believes her.

Really, I think that it is not so much that we believe her. I know that on more than one occasion, I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get a woman who was obviously troubled, to tell me what was wrong, only to come to the conclusion that she wasn't going to tell me until she was ready. So, after exhausting all known methods for extracting information, I decided that is was best to go along with the game and pretend that nothing was bothering her. Apparently, women find it considerably more satisfying to lower the boom on someone who appears not to realize that she is upset. I'm not sure why that is, but that understanding can be a real timesaver.

God sometimes doesn't answer right away, either. Maybe that's where women get it, I don't know. Oftentimes, we pray to God, expecting a yes-or-no response, and the answer we get is, "Wait." And we ask, "For how long?" and we get no response. And a lot of times, when the solution (finally) arrives, we realize that God set the answer in motion before we even asked. Is that because He knew that we would, or just that time is meaningless to God? I'm not sure.

You've probably heard the story about the man who had a conversation with God and was asking silly questions:

"God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"How long is a million years to you?"

"A million years to me is like a second to you."

"Oh. (long pause) God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"How much is a million dollars to you?"

"A million dollars to me is like a penny to you."

"Oh. (long pause) God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"Can I have a penny?"

"Certainly, my son. Just give me a second..."

Money is certainly meaningless to God, and I suspect that time is, too. We know that He knew the end from the beginning; some say that it is because He controls everything, but I believe that He has given us freedom of choice. I believe that God knows everything that will ever happen because He is not constrained by the flow of time the way that we mere mortals are. He can see what is going to happen, without guessing, and without manipulating. Oh, don't misunderstand me, God does manipulate things sometimes, but only for the greater good--and, usually, because one of His children has asked Him to.

Solomon's Temple

(Image from www.mishkanministries.org/architectural_modles_kst.htm )

I have heard a lot of discussion about King Solomon's Temple; King David wanted to build a temple for God, but God refused him. Later King David told Solomon that it would be Solomon's responsibility to build the temple. There are multiple theories about why God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but most of them seem to be out in left field to me.

If you look at the text where David found out God didn't want him to build the temple, God starts out saying that He doesn't need a house (after all, why would a spiritual being need a physical house), and a lot of the rest of it actually sounds like Messianic prophesy. God certainly told David that after David's death, God would raise up one of David's sons and establish his kingdom; I have to wonder though, did God mean immediately after David's death? He says that He will establish that throne forever: Does that mean that Solomon's throne is established forever because we still remember King Solomon today? It seems to me that God is talking about Jesus, of the lineage of David, whose throne is established for evermore.

Now, if you look at the text where David assigns the task to Solomon, it reads very differently. David seems to think that it is because of the bloodshed during his reign that he was not allowed to build the temple. There was no mention of bloodshed before... Further, David says that God prophesied that Solomon, by name, would build the temple. There was no mention of Solomon's name before, and, quite frankly, it would have been meaningless if there had been; Solomon hadn't been born yet, David could have named any of his sons Solomon... God definitely told David that the temple would not be built until after David's death, but there's no mention of that when David spoke to Solomon. So what happened? Well, it's certainly possible that the writer of First Chronicles (Nathan?) simply left out some of what God told David. It's also possible (and more likely, IMHO) that David had thirty years to ponder what God had told him, and that he formed his own opinions about what God meant, and he paraphrased or embellished the instructions unintentionally. I have been asked if I thought David lied to Solomon: No, I don't think he lied, but I think what he said wasn't entirely true; lying implies intent to deceive, I don't believe that there was any such intent.

I also want to point out that a lot of people believe that when David talked about bloodshed, he was specifically referring to the death of Uriah the Hittite. I would tend to agree. All of the other blood that was shed during David's reign was the blood of enemies of God, or at least, enemies of Israel (if there was a difference). Uriah was one of David's mighty men: a hero of Israel. David had not yet met Bathsheba (Uriah's wife, for whom David had Uriah killed) at the time Nathan told David that God did not want David to build the temple. We know this because there are two places in the Bible where it talks about David sending Joab to besiege Rabbah at the time "...when Kings went forth/out to battle..." and both times, David tarried still at Jerusalem. The point, of course, being that David was not where he was supposed to be. The first time is in Second Samuel 11:1, the second being First Chronicles 20:1. Obviously, these are both references to the same battle, but in Second Samuel, the narrative goes on to spell out the whole story of David suffering from insomnia, and going up on the roof, and seeing Bathsheba (the original bathing beauty), and thinking that she could put him to sleep; not caring that her husband, Uriah was off at Rabbah, putting his life on the line for his nation, Israel. For some reason, First Chronicles doesn't mention Bathsheba or Uriah; perhaps an attempt to reduce redundancy. Amazingly, only two chapters later, David charges Solomon, his son by Bathsheba, to build the temple. That should make it clear that First Chronicles is somewhat abbreviated. In any case, there are also two places where it makes reference to God saying no to David when he was seeking to build a house for God: Second Samuel 7:5, and First Chronicles 17:4--both times, several chapters prior to his encounter with Bathsheba. So, even though David may have still felt guilty over the encounter when his son Solomon was old enough to assume the throne, it really had nothing to do with why God denied him the opportunity to build the temple.

The Ivory Soap Standard

Well, this will be my first post of the New Year. I really should have posted yesterday, but things got busy, and I'm not going to make excuses, but I do apologize.

On Sunday, December 23rd, the PK's (Preacher's Kids) at my church passed out 3X5 cards, and asked each of us to write down a prayer that had been answered in 2007. On December 31st (8 days later), they posted those responses, printed out on individual pieces of colored paper. They had entered all of this information into a computer, and loaded the printer with colored paper, and then printed these things out. Now, when I say PK's, I should explain, I'm not talking about the stereotypical teen-aged PK's that keep getting arrested for smoking dope or shoplifting, or maybe just always seem to be hanging with the wrong crowd. These are very responsible, twenty-something's who work full time, are active in the church, help plan events (sometimes are the driving force behind events). My point is, I don't know how they found time to even read all those 3X5 cards, much less enter all that into a computer, and then print them out. I teased them a little bit about some typo's that I found; in retrospect I don't think I should have. I found 4 typo's, I think that meets the Ivory Soap Standard: 99 44/100 %. Nobody's perfect. For them to have done what they did, to that degree of accuracy, in the amount of time that they did it, is pretty amazing.

I am also amazed at some of the needs that have been met in my church family in the past year. We don't have many people that grumble and complain (at least not to me), but there are things posted that I had no idea anyone in the church was facing, much less had gotten past. These were all posted anonymously, so I don't know who was healed of cancer this past year, but I know someone was, I read the sign. Someone else had many healings this past year; I don't know how many, nor do I know the nature of the healings, but I am impressed. Someone walked away from a head-on collision. Someone's cousin had successful brain surgery.

That may confuse some people: I talked about healings, and then I talked about surgery. I believe in healings, but I also believe in doctors. I believe that sometimes God gives an individual a talent for medicine. I don't even think that the surgeon has to acknowledge God as the source of his talent in order to perform well in the operating room; I do think that eventually he will have to answer for that if he doesn't.