Heaven, Hell, and Christian Love

.

Just recently, a new book was released by popular evangelical icon Rob Bell,
entitled "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person
Who Ever Lived". I've read the book twice, and I've read other Christian
who have reviewed the book... In addition, I've listened to Rob Bell himself
discuss the book, and I've read other works by Mr. Bell and seen a number of his
YouTube videos (he's very good with modern technology and the tools of what has
come to be known as "Social Media"), so I think I have a good handle on his basic
perspective on our Faith... Indeed, the themes of most of the current crop of
post-modern Christian "pop-culture" figures are strikingly similar:
Read or listen to one and you're sufficiently introduced to them all...

His central thesis is that both the Love that God offers the world through Christ,
and therefore "heaven", can be experienced in the here and now (as well as in the
"afterlife"), and conjointly, that "hell" begins for us as the suffering and pain
we experience in our lives right now... He claims to believe in a literal Heaven
and a literal Hell, based on his understanding of the Bible, but that seems to be
more or less where adherence to traditional doctrine on these topics ends.

In my view, and as I understand the fundamentals of our Faith, I think Mr. Bell's
position on these topics is dangerously close to "it-means-whatever-works-for-you"
Post-Modernism, most especially as it concerns what the Love of God is really about;
indeed, the book seems, to me, to be a classic example of this new "Social Gospel"
that has become so prevalent in modern times... A watered-down substitute for
Scriptural themes that attempts to sponge away the "nasty" stuff in favor of
interpretations that are nicer to hear... But, as in so many other areas of life,
Error is most pernicious when it has a bit of Truth mixed into it...

Based on what the Bible says, clearly, in plain Enlish (no Theology degree, or
slick YouTube video, required), we understand that God DOES love the entire world,
every man, woman and child who has ever lived; it's also clear that God is not
willing that ANY perish (that is, to CHOOSE to REJECT the cleansing from Sin
through the blood of Jesus, and to DENY His Deity and Lordship); indeed the Bible
is utterly explicit that SIN is the problem between God and Man; but since -- as
the Bible explains -- we are free to choose or reject God, there will in fact be
some who reject Jesus, and God's Love... That choice MUST, at some point, become
permanent, and when it does -- when that Soul has lost all Hope and when all
Goodness and Truth and Beauty are removed from its existence, and when that Soul's
SIN Nature is fully, tragically perfected -- that Soul will BE Hell-ish
and will be IN Hell.

Since even the most evil person alive on this planet at least has EVIDENCE of the
Goodness and Truth and Beauty of God around him -- though he may take no notice --
he is NOT, in fact, yet in Hell, no matter how evil his heart is; Hell is not only
the complete and profound REMOVAL of any hint of God... It is a state which -- no
matter HOW badly the Soul suffers there -- is still (stunningly) preferred by
the damned Soul, and so will be, forever... Souls in Hell cannot be rescued
because they WILL not be rescued...

Mr. Bell speaks very infrequently about the Biblical theme of SIN; as for Love,
he is rather weak on what God's Love for us MEANS: Ultimately, God loves us just
like a Father loves his children: We "accept" them and "Love" them the way they
are, right now, but on a deeper and wider level, our "Love" for them leaves us
UNSATISFIED with them in their current state and desiring for them the very BEST
"grown-up" they can ultimately be; we view our role as Parents as the chief
"agents" or "coaches" to help them GET there...

...so God's Love for us begins there: What is the ultimate "ME" I can possibly be?
Well, a Glorified SAINT, in the end: Perfected by God, radiating His Glory,
reflecting that Glory back to Him in a way that only I -- as a unique creation of
God -- can do, and thoroughly enjoying the process of doing so forever and ever.
When God is finished with me, I will BE Heaven-ish and I will be IN Heaven...

But even the most sanctified person alive on this planet still has, at least,
some trace of the SIN Nature inside him, and evidence of evil all around him,
and so is NOT, in fact, IN Heaven just yet; indeed, the Love of God inside us is
intended to motivate us to reach out in Love to each other, desiring very
passionately to help those around us move on toward becoming the Glorified
SAINT that God wants to make of THEM, too...

Mr. Bell's views reflect a trend in some modern Christian circles to dilute these
very strong Biblical themes and to apply them to a much broader audience; it seems
that he seeks to lessen the "sting" of the end result of rejecting Jesus, and to
minimize the impact of the concept of SIN by focusing on a somewhat vague,
egalitarian sense of "love"...

We should be on our guard against any tendency in us toward "itching ears",
hearing what we want to hear instead of what we NEED to hear, the strong meat
of the Scriptures. Part of what we read there is that most Souls will
reject the truth of the Gospel, in contrast to Mr. Bell's fundamental
position that ALL will, eventually, be saved...

But the Scriptures are very clear on these topics; we must continue, as millions
of Christians have, down through the centuries, to submit ourselves to their
teachings, no matter how difficult they may seem to be.
May God grant us more grace.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate
and broad is the road that leads to destruction,
and many enter through it.

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads
to life, and only a few find it." -- MAT 7:13-14

.

Heaven Can Wait

.

This 1978 film -- starring Warren Beatty -- was a rather comedic look at
what can happen when a trip to Heaven is postponed by other things...

For some Christians -- certainly for the stereo-typical Evangelist -- Heaven
CAN'T wait; indeed, the pitch most often heard, and repeated even among those
who have no interest in Christianity -- goes something like this:

"Accept Jesus and go to Heaven!" And often the reverse is added or implied:
"Refuse Jesus and go to... well... That Other Place."

Other versions include these: "Do you know where you will go when you die?"...
"It's okay, Grandpa, Grandma is in Heaven"...

This, however, is just like saying that Newlyweds look forward to their
Honeymoon so that they can enjoy nice hotel accommodations, which is,
of course, ridiculous: Newlyweds look forward to the Honeymoon with tremendous
anticipation so that they can be togehter, so that they can
consumate their marriage vows in every sense of the word; it's meant to
be an incredibly beautiful and private and intimate time of Bonding, in body
as well as mind and spirit and soul... Sure, the hotel accommodations are a part
of that mystical, magical, joyful time, but that is a secondary condition;
clearly, the focus is Togetherness.

No wonder, then, that Scripture describes the relationship between Christ and
His Church not in terms of geography, but in terms of Relationship,
most specifically a MARRIAGE relationship.

When we die, and after we are finally and eternally PERFECTED by our Bridegroom
and presented to Him, our highest and greatest Hope is to enjoy TOGETHERNESS
with Him for all eternity, NOT primarily to co-habitate with Him in nice accommodations...

To the extent that any Christian grounds their Hope on GEOGRAPHY in the after-life,
they are in very great danger of missing the whole point of becoming a Christian
at all: The process of Transformation, from a creature beset by Sin and Self and
into a Saint, fully glorified by God, reflecting HIS Truth and Goodness and Beauty
forever, in a way that only they -- as a Unique soul created by God Himself -- can do
once Glorification (Perfection) has been accomplished.

That Transformation can -- and should! -- be going on already in the heart of every
Christian. If a Christian is single-mindedly focused on Geography in the
"sweet by-and-by", they are likely to miss out on the JOY of enjoying the first-fruits
of that Transformation process in the here-and-now...
.
.

How to Love God -- Part 1

.
.

It doesn't take a great deal of studying the Christian faith to understand
that the central Theme of Christianity is LOVE, beginning with God's
unfailing, unflappable, passionate love for us, and then as a response, on
our part, by first loving God Himself and then loving one another in the
same way that we love ourselves... As a foundation for leaning how
to love God, consider these things:

-- The very Nature of God is a 3-way community of Love
which we call the "Trinity", or, Tri-Unity (Three-in-One)

-- God created Humankind because Love seeks to share Itself;
it spills out, overflows, and spreads Truth and Beauty and
Goodness in every direction; so God made Man in order to
continue sharing LOVE, with free-will Souls who could love Him
in return... in a relationship of Love...

-- This is not some weak, foolish love that ignores the hard
questions: All the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were
foreshadows of the final sacrifice of the spotless Lamb of God,
an act that would settle forever the requirement for Justice
wherever there is Evil...

-- ... all because of God's profound, passionate, radical LOVE
for every human Soul that ever has or ever will exist... Each
of whom is a unique product of God's infinite, creative genius...

-- Isaiah 53 makes it clear that God has virtually NO INTEREST in
"religion" per se, but in Justice and Mercy, Self-Sacrifice and
Service to others...

-- To those who understand and accept that Love, God reveals, in
and through the Person of Jesus Christ, just two Commands:
LOVE Me, and LOVE those nearest to you even as you are
loving yourself.

-- Jesus Himself said that the HALLMARK of what would define
His disciples would be their LOVE for each other...

-- Paul wrote to the Corinthians that LOVE is the greatest of
the three Christian transcendentals; he went into great detail to
explain that even Faith and Hope are nothing compared to Love...

So it would seem patently clear that if we are "majoring on the majors and
minoring on the minors", we will understand that LOVE ought to be the
fundamental pillar around which we build our faith and our lives.


The best place to begin, then, is at the beginning:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your strength and with all your mind", and, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
(Luke 10:27, where Jesus quoted an aggregate of Old Testament sources)

So what does it mean? How do we love God?

Some believers would answer instantly, reflexively, along the lines of,
"Loving God means obeying Him." Well, there are some serious difficulties
with that answer:

Logical Circularity
We're to love God... fine, how? Obey Him. Great. Obedience means doing
what He has commanded; what has He commanded? First and foremost,
Love Him. Fine, so how do we do that? Well, obey Him.
And how do we do that...? (ad infinitum...)

You see the problem, I'm sure: If we answer the "how?" by saying that
loving God means (simply) "obeying" Him, we run into an endless cycle.
Furthermore, you can Obey without Loving, but you cannot Love without Obeying,
so it seems clear that obedience is predicated on Love, and the question
before us is how to Love God; in other words, we'll be obeying God WHEN we
have learned how to love Him, as PART of loving Him...

The next stage of that answer that some might give would be, "well, it means
obeying [all the other commands]"... But if God Himself has said [all the other
commands] boil down to just those TWO, we're right back where we started,
are we not? And didn't Jesus point out, to the Pharisees during His ministry,
the emptiness of following "the Law" without having a genuine love for God?
Jesus borrows a passage from Isaiah 29 and describes them this way:
"These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me"
(Mt. 15:8). It seems clear, then, that God isn't interested simply in
"obedience"; He wants LOVE, so loving God must mean something else...

The Heart
If I tell my son, "please clean the kitchen", and he does so, does that prove
that he loves me? If I tell my daughter to say "Thank You" when someone
pays her a compliment, does that prove that she is indeed thankful?

The obvious answer to both is "of course not." No, I want my son to
want to PLEASE his father by doing the things I ask; I want my daughter to
actually BE thankful when someone says something nice to her. The mere
ACT of cleaning, the mere WORDS "thank you", mean almost nothing to me
if their HEARTS are not in it... God isn't interested in mere "obedience",
He is interested in our hearts, and in our actually and truly and genuinely
LOVING Him, with our Hearts and Minds and Souls and Strengths...
In a word, COMPLETELY...


WOW.
So how do we do THAT?


It's no overstatement to say that I (as do many Christians, I'm sure) ponder
this thought constantly. I came across these helpful thoughts recently
as I've investigated this issue (click the bolded text to view)...

While I think the writer still misses the point, I was struck by the exploration
of the Greek words for "Love" that are used in these verses admonishing us
to love God... I know next to nothing about Greek, but I am impacted by the use
of this word "AGAPAO" ("ah-guh-PAH-oh"), a verb which, in many of its uses,
means "to be totally consumed with"... We are to be "totally consumed with"
God Himself, a Real Person... But how?

"Make Him Lord of your life"... These and other Christian catch-phrases don't
quite do it, I'm afraid; when you truly LOVE someone, you don't need to erect
philosophical banners over your life reminding you of that fact; you just
genuinely and truly and sincerely LOVE, and it comes out of you -- spills out --
all over the place, more and more naturally as the relationship grows...


OK, so how can we be actually and sincerely "totally consumed" with God,
a Person whom we have never seen, never met (not really), never heard
speak (not really), nor smelled, nor touched, and even have some difficulty
imagining?

Let's think on this for a bit,
and then go further in Part 2.

.
.

The Gospel is like Warm Water

.
These frigid days being experienced by nearly the entire Midwest
region of the country brings to mind an analogy of what the Gospel
is really like:

When you spend a lot of time outdoors in weather like this, you
of course get a sense that your hands are cold, but it's often a rather
vague sense, because your whole body -- including your hands -- has
acclimated to the cold and you're focused on whatever it is you're
doing (like putting out the trash or picking up those branches that
have fallen, or enjoying sledding with your kids)... You KNOW your hands
are cold, but you just kind of "accept" it as part of your condition...

But then you go inside and put your hands under the water faucet, with
the handle turned all the way to HOT... As the stream of water begins
to heat up, running over your hands, it actually HURTS at first; and actual
sharp PAINS shoot through your hands and you are tempted to pull away...

But you keep your hands under the water, and pain turns to tingling,
and tingling subsides into tepid, and tepid warms you up until your hands
begin to feel NORMAL again...

They turn back into a healthy shade of "pink", and you can even feel
that warmth spreading through your arms and even your whole body...

The Gospel is just like that: We don't perceive at first JUST HOW BADLY
we've frozen our souls; and the initial Treatment from a true understanding of
the Gospel brings PAIN at first; but the more we remain under its influence,
we sense our hearts warming, our minds opening up, our fears and frustrations
and prejudices and deep-seated Hate and Lust and Greed and Laziness being
exposed and soothed away... And we smile a grateful smile as we begin to enjoy
the warmth...

... and that thawed Heart begins to acknowledge God and the act of RESCUE
He is performing in us, a Rescue we didn't even know, really, that we needed
when we were galloping through the frozen Winter of the World and its paltry
and self-destructive amusements...

Letting that warmth change us forever, and sharing that warmth with others...
And someday experiencing COMPLETE warmth and eternal Enjoyments...
That's "The Rest of The Story", from the Christian's perspective.
.
.

The Other Half of Forgiveness

.
The Bible has a lot to say about Forgiveness and its central role
in the life of a Believer; Jesus Himself included it in the Lord's Prayer,
and He specifically told His disciples, "if you forgive men when they sin
against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not
forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Mathew 6:14,15

In my own spiritual journey, I've come to understand Forgiveness as an utterly
fundamental goal of the process of Sanctification in our lives,
along with Humility and Wisdom, and all three of those rooted and grounded in the
most supreme quality of all, LOVE Itself...

As I've pondered this, and read a great deal on it, I've come to understand that
there are really two halves to this idea of Forgiveness; most of us understand
the first, but perhaps few have contemplated the second:

Debt Relief
When we extend TRUE Forgiveness to someone, we are saying to them, "I permanently
waive any 'debt' that you owe to me for what you've said or done to me; I will not
attempt to 'get back at you' or otherwise and in any way try to 'punish' you or
make you feel 'guilty' for this offense."

Like so much of the Christian world view, this would seem to go totally contrary
to the World's perspective, which preaches that we have the "right" to exact
justice for harms we've suffered, to "get back" at someone, to "make them pay"
for what they've done... Sometimes, though, even the secular world understands
that this kind of retributive approach not only (a) eats away at one's soul, but
also (b) ignores the truth that we ALL sometimes do and/or say things that we, too,
need Forgiveness for...

This is a hard thing to do, most of the time -- to let go of our "right"
to "hit back" -- but it is fundamental to the Sanctification of our souls to
understand this requirement and to practice it daily. There is no way around it.

Restoration
Some years ago, someone I knew -- I'll call this person "Pat" -- unleashed a
furious tirade against me over some inconsequential circumstance, saying horrible
things and non-verbally communicating a good deal of hostility and malice toward me,
wild-eyed and waving arms... It was quite a sight...

The next morning, Pat came to me, teary-eyed, noting the bad behavior and expressing
remorse over it; for my part, I wanted to share, in that moment, how the behavior
had made me feel and what some of the real circumstances were that had apparently
"caused" the tirade... I didn't get 2 sentences out before Pat's expression changed
to a hardened, patronizing glare, and the rebuke I received was, "I've said I was
sorry, now YOU need to Forgive..."

It became immediately apparent that Pat's only goal was to be absolved of Guilt,
to have me apply salve to a stinging conscience, only so that Pat could feel
better... The "apology" really had nothing to do with me at all; I was only a
player in Pat's quest to obtain personal peace and a restored view of Self...

Well of course I had already forgiven Pat the night before, almost as soon as
it happened (as we become more and more aware of our OWN desperate need for
continual Forgiveness, it becomes easier and easier to Forgive others quickly
and sincerely)... But what Pat's reaction made me realize was that Pat had no
interest in RELATIONSHIP, either before or after the incident...

In many human relationships, and certainly in our relationship to God,
the "second half" of Forgiveness -- the GOAL of Forgiveness -- is the beginning
of RESTORATION of that relationship...

Restoration is the process (and sometimes it may be a long process) of building
back the Trust that was damaged by the behavior, to arrive once again at the level
of Intimacy that the relationship is intended to provide... God certainly FORGIVES
us when we sin, and He is even willing to expedite the Restoration process, I have
to believe, but we might do well to ask ourselves, when we ask for
"Forgiveness", do we really intend to then move on toward Restoration?
Is it relationship with God that we seek, or mere absolution of our own feelings
of Guilt?

Thanks be to God that Jesus took on the Guilt and then the Punishment
for our sins, and one day (as part of the completion of our Sanctification)
our Sinfulness will be ripped away (and I believe it's going to be painful), but
for now, we can enjoy Forgiveness when we ask God for it sincerely, and we can even
begin, just a little bit, to enjoy something like Relationship to Him, in this life,
if perhaps shrouded in mystery, for now...
.
.

Why Illegal Immigration is a Big Deal

.
.
There has been lots of news coverage of Arizona and its new
Illegal Immigration law for the past few months, and it seems,
if FaceBook and the Blogosphere are any indication, that there
are a good many Red Herring opinions and views being tossed
about in the public square... Here's my own attempt to put the
issue in the light of Common Sense (not so common in today's
highly-charged political environment)...

Let's say you own a large apartment complex. You've invested
a great deal of your time and money in this real estate venture,
and for a long time everything went well: Your Tenants are,
for the most part, just what you'd hope for: They all have
jobs, they obey the by-laws they signed when they first came
to you, they keep their units in good condition, and (perhaps
most importantly) they pay the Rent on time.

In addition to providing them a nice place to live, you're
successful enough in this venture to provide -- using a small
portion of their Rent and other Dues -- a pool, a clubhouse,
and even Group Rate insurance for the complex as a whole.
The local police and fire services are good, there are 2
"Urgent Care" facilities nearby that welcome your Tenants,
and the entire complex has gained a reputation as being one
of the nicest places to live in your city.

Then trouble develops in this paradise: You find that some
of the newer Tenants are sneaking in their relatives, and units
that (by law and in practical terms) are meant for 6 people are
now occupied by 12; some are violating your "No Pets" policy
by harboring dogs and cats, and your visits to some of their
units smell of urine and dog-hair; you find ample evidence of
children in the sections clearly designated as "adults only",
and you even suspect drug activity going on here and there.

Then things get worse: Local police have begun to be called
on a regular basis because you are discovering break-ins in the
middle of the night to a number of your units, many of which are
encouraged and abetted by the Tenants themselves!

At great cost to you, you erect a Privacy fence around your
entire complex, and you post "No Trespassing" signs aplenty,
but to your dismay you find intruders climbing the fence, or
cutting their way through it, not only in the middle of the night
but more often now right in broad daylight!

Squatters are now frequently busting their way into vacant units,
your "good" Tenants are either moving out or cowering in their
units out of fear -- as guns and violence are now more prevalent
than ever -- and the situation is CLEARLY out of control as more
and more invaders flood into the complex...

NOW,

Just how LONG could you be in business in a situation like that?
Would there not be an immediate need to address this crisis and
put a stop to this? Can you agree that continued invasions and
lawlessness along these lines will ultimately DESTROY this complex?

Nobody is saying that the squatters -- the invaders -- are not
human beings, and perhaps SOME of them are trespassing ILLEGALLY
into your complex because they want to work for some of your Tenants;
but how can you tell which is which? And isn't it TRUE that you
want A) only those who are SUPPOSED to be there (have signed a contract
with you and can pay the rent) to be there? and B) if they want
to "work" inside the complex, they should AT LEAST come through
the FRONT GATE and do things in an HONEST and LEGAL way???

I simply cannot understand the mindset that LOOKS THE OTHER WAY
as throngs of Illegals flood into this country, consume resources,
and (at worst) are bent, many of them, on carrying out their
nefarious intentions. Does NATIONAL SECURITY not mean anything??
Does the physical safety and security of LEGAL Americans along
our southern border not MATTER to the bleeding-hearts who see these
Illegals as poor, hungry "victims" who only seek to "work"?
Is there any naivte so profound as this?

And instead of protecting its CITIZENS, the current administration
is SUING Arizona for trying to enforce a FEDERAL law that has been
on the books for 70 years. It seems the leadership of the country
has completely lost its mind.

I don't know what the end of all this will be, but as the
destruction of America accelerates, one can only shake ones head
in disbelief and dismay. NOTHING is being done about the problem
and more Washington "committees" and "meetings" on so-called
"Immigration Reform" will never stop a single bullet. It's time
for real Leadership again in this country.

One more point:

Some are saying, "We're a nation of immigrants", which of course
is true; but there is Immigration that helps, enriches, expands,
and contributes to our melting-pot nation; THIS situation is
NOT that kind of Immigration, and it's a disgrace to those who
endured so much, for so long, to at last reach our shores LEGALLY
to call it such.
.
.

The Faith of an Atheist

.
.
In talking to the average atheist, you are likely to hear them making statements
such as, "I have no religion; I am not religious", or "my world view has nothing
to do with 'faith', it's all based on science and reason." These, or some
variation of these, are themes in their discussions.

But when there are very good counter arguments, or scientific data, or any sort of
patent lack of certainty in any given discipline about which they've already
drawn conclusions (or accepted as fact the ones fed to them), wouldn't something like
"faith" be required to continue to retain those conclusions in spite of evidence
to the contrary?

Indeed, isn't the response of "well, science will figure out the answer someday"
an absolute Faith statement? Of course it is.

So it seems, like it or not, that atheists exercise faith every bit as much
as Theists do, only with a different anchor. Consider these examples of the
blind faith of atheism:

Cosmology

Cosmologists have identified more than two dozen constants in the laws of Physics
that are required, and required in precisely the right amounts, with infinitesimally
allowable degrees of variation with each one, to allow for the existence of Planet
Earth and for its complex Life forms.

The odds that ANY of these would be so finely tuned are very small indeed, and the
odds that ALL of them would be in precise relation to each other are so small that
we can rationally assert that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Planet Earth and its complex
Life forms could have come about by mere Chance.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html#RezFp675GVHF

AND YET, a typical atheist will thunder and rail against any hint of
Intelligent Design, insulting its supporters, because of their blind faith in a
god-LESS Cosmology and a god-LESS Darwinian approach to origins.

Metaphysics

Here is what Richard Dawkins -- a modern-day atheist preacher -- has to say:

"An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural,
physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind
the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles -- except
in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is
something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now
imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it
within the natural." -- from "The God Delusion"

AND SO, Dawkins proclaims his faith that against-all-odds, and despite
things "we don't yet understand", Naturalism will someday explain everything...

Wired Magazine

... and yet, other atheists maintain that this kind of wild hope -- zealous Faith --
is precisely the problem:

In an article in the latest issue of "Wired" (known for, among other things, its
antagonism toward Creationism, Religion, and all things Conservative), a staff
writer (probably unwittingly) lent support to a fundamental Intelligent Design
principle: Irreducible Complexity, which is the idea that the basic building blocks
of Life are composed of highly complex and interconnected systems, *machines*,
which, if broken apart, would cause those systems to cease to function.

Speaking of science, this writer says scientists continue to foolishly pursue
something like a "Theory of Everything", touting the latest tool or gizmo or theory
to do far, far more than it is capable of:

"Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced...
and we're told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of
everything... But the tool always disappoints, doesn't it?
We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that
we can't reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots...
Scientists...should anticipate that the Universe is always more
networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can
reveal."

He goes on to say,

"Thanks to [recent advances in Neuroscience, there is now a] mandate
to forgo the measurement of local spikes in blood flow in favor of
teasing apart the vast electrical loom of the cortex. God and Love are
nowhere to be found -- and most of the time we have no idea what we're
looking at. But that confusion is a good sign. The brain isn't simple;
our pictures of the brain shouldn't be, either."

He finishes by noting that Reality is more like a Cloud than a Clock:

"Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, once divided
the world into two categories: Clocks and Clouds. Clocks are neat,
orderly systems that can be solved through reduction; Clouds are
an epistemic mess, 'highly irregular disorderly, and more or less
unpredictable'.

The mistake of modern science is to pretend that everything is a Clock,
which is why we get seduced again and again by the false promises of
brain scanners and gene sequencers. We want to believe we will understand
Nature if we find the exact right tool to cut its joints. But that
approach is doomed to failure. We live in a Universe not of Clocks
but of Clouds."

STILL, atheists believe so fervently in the lofty and vaunted
capabilities of science that they will not abandon that faith even in the
face of constant, less-than-stellar outcomes...

Neuroscience

Jerry Fodor, a Philosopher and Cognitive Scientist at Rutgers University, continues
this theme:

"We don't know what makes some cognitive states conscious.
(Indeed, we don't know what makes any mental state, cognitive
or otherwise, conscious, or why any mental state, cognitive or
otherwise, bothers with being conscious.) Also, we don't know
much about how cognitive states and processes are implemented by
neural states and processes."

"We don't even know whether they are (though many of us are
prepared to assume so faut de mieux). And we don't know how
cognition develops (if it does) or how it evolved (if it did),
and so forth, very extensively."

"In fact, we have every reason to expect that there are many
things about cognition that we don't even know that we don't
know, such is our benighted condition."

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-149898429/mind-works-we-still.html

SO, in direct contrast to scientific data, and despite not knowing much
about how the physiology works in some key areas, the atheist resolutely
clings to his faith in No-God and in the promise of "science".
This is perfectly understandable, of course; just don't let an atheist tell you
his world view has nothing to do with faith.
.
.

The Wedding Dress

.
.
In today's pluralistic, morality-means-whatever-you-want-it-to-mean
culture, there are quite a lot of us who still believe that Sin is
at the heart of the world's troubles. Good ol' fashioned word, "sin",
and its use sometimes draws snickers from modern and post-modern folks
who'd rather talk about "positive energy" or "balance" and so forth...

I've heard some people pose variations of a common question on sin:
"Why are you Christians always so hung up with this 'sin' thing?
Don't you see that human beings have both good and bad in them?"

Well of course clear thinking requires that we first define our terms;
I'd like to focus on the meaning of "Good" (moral Goodness) here by
asking a simple question: "Good" compared to WHAT?

Christians believe that God does in fact have a Standard -- Himself --
by which all of us are to measure what "Good" looks like; and by that
standard an honest and humble soul will find him/herself woefully deficient;
there is no sense in talking about "goodness" unless some absolute
Standard of "goodness" exists...

To spark our imaginations about how horribly short of God's standard
we all fall, consider this idea:

A young lady plans to be married. Her mother brings down from the attic
a box, dusts it off, and from it she presents to her daughter the most
beautiful, pure white wedding dress that the girl has ever seen. It's made
mostly of silk, a simple but classic style, and is stunningly white and pure.
"My mother wore this at her wedding, and I at mine," the mother shares.
The daughter is moved deeply, and plans are made to tailor it only just
a bit to fit the daughter for her wedding day.

That day comes, and while the mother and daughter are sharing a few
moments together as they get ready for the ceremony, they laugh at old
memories, talk about the future, and even enjoy a glass of wine together.
Then the unthinkable happens: A near-spill of the wine, but just enough
to plant a purple STAIN right on the front of the dress, in plain view...

There is a scramble for soda water and other treatments, and some frantic
attempts to sponge away the stain... No good... It's right there, clear
as can be, for everyone to see. No other dress is available, and the church
is already full of people, all expecting the service to start in a few minutes.
Attempts to cover the stain are awkward at best, and the only option is to
go through the ceremony with this stain on the dress...

Now, you might say, "Well hey, what's the big deal, the dress is still
MOSTLY white, right?? Come on, why should she focus on the 'negative'?
There's good AND bad about the dress, right? Don't be such an old
fuddy-duddy, with those old-fasioned ideas about 'white dresses' and all..."

A ridiculous response, of course: The fact is that the PURITY of the
dress has been spoiled, and the WONDER and BEAUTY of a virgin in a pure
white clean beautiful wedding gown, in which to be presented to her new
husband, has been RUINED... The bride is probably devastated, for a
number of reasons, and all she can think about is that obvious purple blight
on the front of an otherwise-gorgeous gown. She's embarrassed, in front
of a whole church full of people...

Sin is the same way: God has in mind for each of us the beautiful, pure,
glorious SOUL He made each of us to be; we have STAINED ourselves by our own
SIN, ruining what He had in mind for us when He made us.
Even the smallest stain ruins the gown, and some kind of amazing remediation
is needed to set things right again. Simply put, Christians believe that the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is God's remediation for sin.

So it's no good talking about "Good" unless you see that term in its proper light;
only God Himself can, through the finished work of Jesus, make any of us pure again.
Anything less is Man-made religion, a cheap substitute, and those who do not
submit to that Cleansing will someday be horribly and eternally embarrassed and
ashamed of their stains when presented to the Creator of True Goodness.
.
.

Lessons for Liberals, Part 1: Match Stick economics

.
I don't claim to be a business expert, but having reached mid-life, and having
watched and listened and read a bit on economics, I think I can say that I have
an "every man's" understanding of basic business principles.

Obama said during his campaign that his administration would "rebuild the economy
from the top down"; now he is focused on a "jobs" bill and setting up town hall
meetings to talk about "job creation". His multi-BILLION dollar "bail-outs" were
supposed to "stimulate" the economy, but nobody knows for sure what that even means,
let alone whether or not it "worked"... Most of that money cannot even be accounted
for, and the Banks -- who were supposed to "lend" it to small businesses -- are
steadfastly REFUSING to disclose what they did with the billions they received of
TAXPAYER dollars...

Spending our way out of a Recession is, to anyone who applies even a modest amount
of common sense, not only bad economic policy, but also serves to DEEPEN the
Debt sinkhole the country is already in. You don't keep digging...

All of this (and so much more of what Obama and his "progressive" pals are doing
with TAXPAYER money) is what I call "Match Stick Economics": Take a match
and strike it, and for a few seconds you have flame, and bright light, and the
appearance of getting a fire started. But of course it burns out, shortly,
and not only are you right back where you started from, but you now have FEWER
resources (one less match) for starting a REAL fire, one that could go on burning
and providing REAL warmth and comfort.

This is why economies are NOT built "from the top down", but rather from the Bottom
UP. It's so simple even a middle-schooler can understand it; here is a basic
evolution of how a successful business usually works:

Entrepreneur "Hank" gets an idea... He scrapes together some initial finances and
buys the first round of materials to make a few units of his idea (let's call them
"widgets")... He pitches his widgets to a few folks around him... They love Hank's
widgets and ask for more, and they tell their friends to buy some, too... Hank
starts working nights and weekends, cranking out widgets to fill his orders...
Soon he needs more capital to keep buying the materials he needs, so he borrows
money (lenders will eventually get their money back with interest, perhaps even a
stake in the company)... Armed with fresh capital, Hank buys twice as much material
and now gets his kids involved in the widget-production process... Soon Hank has
so many orders coming in that he has to hire another worker, who is paid wages plus
some very moderate benefits... Sales increase, and now Hank has to move his
operations from his garage to a low rent Commercial Real Estate location (maybe some
old warehouse)... Word of Hank's widgets spreads like wildfire, and before long,
Hank has 28 employees, a bigger space, better machines to triple his widget output,
and now he is focusing more of his time on book-keeping, advertising, and human
resources (even paying his wife now, as an employee, to help with these duties).

At some point, "Hank Enterprises" is incorporated, investors are calling Hank on a
fairly regular basis, and as Hank re-invests in his own business, borrows carefully
based on Growth projections, and adapts to changes in Demand, well, old Hank
begins to do very very well for himself: Not quite a "millionaire" yet, but well
on his way, and nearly FOUR DOZEN workers now know "Hank Enterprises" as the place
where they have a JOB.

THIS kind of economic strategy is BOTTOM-UP strategy, and thanks to
his hard work and success, Hank is one of several hundred million Americans whose
Tax dollars can actually HELP his State and the Federal government. He's helping
to build and maintain a REAL "fire", not just ignite a Match Stick for 3 seconds;
his is a fire that provides REAL warmth as long as he works hard, and plays it
smart, to maintain it and keep its embers glowing.

Now that Hank has earned his way into a certain Tax bracket, what in the world
SENSE would it make for the State and especially the Fed to PUNISH Hank
by slapping him with outrageous Taxes? How in the world is it FAIR that
Hank's hard-earned Wealth should be ripped from his hands and redistributed to
other Americans via these massive Federal give-away programs?? Why should
HANK (who lives in Jersey) have to PAY for an appendectomy for an illegal immigrant
who sneaked across the border into Arizona??

Listen up Liberals and Socialists and "Progressives": When the government
PUNISHES the "Hanks" of the world with high Taxes, fees, fines, limits, regulations,
and redistribution of wealth, it KILLS economic growth! You will never get a
Job from a POOR person! Giving multi-billion dollar "bail-outs" to a few, and
letting the Federal Reserve dictate the money supply, is BAD for Business and
therefore BAD for the economy. You don't build economies from the "top down", but
from the Bottom-UP, doing everything you can do to help the "Hanks" of the country
Thrive and Grow and Expand and HIRE MORE PEOPLE as a result.

The soak the rich, spend like there's no tomorrow States are in
REAL TROUBLE right now: California, Oregon, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, and many others
are experiencing Budget shortfalls that may land them in Bankruptcy within the year;
these same "economic" policies -- which Joe Biden called "the patriotic duty" of
wealthy Americans (to pay more Taxes) -- are the HALLMARK of the "progressive" and
liberal socialist ideologies... And they are KILLING Hank -- and the nation's
economy -- who will likely be forced to move his operations to Texas, leaving his
employees in Jersey JOBLESS.

Match Stick economics, pitched by an out-of-control government led by a highly
inexperienced president, will never save America. Only REAL, common-sense,
help-the-small-guy policies (which will, to a very great degree, mean government
gets out of Hank's WAY) will turn this Titanic around.
.
.

A Domestic Enemy of the Constitution?

.
Every single member of Congress swears THIS OATH not only upon taking office
but apparently every few years, as well... This same oath is sworn by all members
of the Armed Forces as they are accepted into the military...

It's eerily relevant to ask, in these times, what would a DOMESTIC "enemy
of the Constitution" look like? Is it possible that that person could be the
president himself? An "enemy" would, I suppose, be anyone who at best simply IGNORES
the Constitution as the supreme guide to any and every decision, and, at worst, actively seeks
to thwart it guidance and usher in an era of "Change" in which
the leadership does whatever it chooses, including speeding the country as quickly
as possible to Socialism and even Communism (step-siblings, of course).

Take note, an ENEMY of the Constitution likely wouldn't fare very well invading the
country with tanks and airplanes and battleships; there would be no flag-waving
battalions of foreign soldiers storming our shores; those would clearly be "Foreign" enemies. A DOMESTIC Enemy of the Constitution would come from inside America herself, a WOLF dressed in Sheep's clothing, delivering nice-sounding speeches with
a smooth tongue, dressing up a Socialist agenda to look like America's "hope"...

On this one-year anniversary of Obama's reign of power, I would submit here that we
have had SEVERAL Enemies of the Constitution in the Oval Office, the two most
notable being FDR and then Obama himself; there have been others, including GW Bush
and his "Patriot Acts" and his ILLEGAL Invasion of Iraq... But perhaps no other
Enemy of the Constitution prior to Obama has been so eager to do so much, so fast,
with so little regard for the Constitution, as the current president; perhaps no
other president has studied Socialist manifestos for so long, gathered to himself
so tight a group of Socialist radicals, and then fooled, bamboozled, and zombi-fied
so many voters than this one.

You see, the CONSTITUTION is the only line in the sand that the American
people HAVE to protect them from Tyranny, Totalitarianism, and, yes, the
RADICAL SOCIALIST AGENDA. Ignore THAT foundational document -- the document written
by the Founders of our country whose primary AIM was to prevent bloated, abusive
government -- and Congress and the Administration can do absolutely whatever they
choose. THAT DOCUMENT is the only weapon any American citizen HAS in the fight to
keep Government off our backs and out of our bank accounts.

Any clear, unbiased reading of the Constitution will show that this Administration,
and this Congress, are far, far LEFT of the designs and intentions of the Founding
Fathers. And as the people are beginning to wake up and realize this -- as we've
seen now in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia -- then the fight to unseat
these Enemies of the Constitution will become more and more pronounced.

Will the fight become a military one? Will a commander in some segment of America's
military take his Oath seriously enough to use the military means at his disposal to
DEFY this Enemy of the Constitution? Worse yet, will there be fighting in the
streets, as a new wave of Federal marshals fan out across the country to enforce
Socialist mandates, and Freedom-loving Americans bring out their guns and resist?
This country was born in blood, and Apathy has brought us again to the point where
this is indeed a serious question.

With God as my witness, I sincerely hope not. "The pen is mightier than the sword",
and may it be so, now... Here are my predictions for the next couple of years:
We will see more Massachusetts-style defeats of Democratic AND Republican
"Progressives"; we will see STATES standing up to this Enemy of the Constitution,
suing the Fed over their mandates; and as a result we will -- finally, 145 years
after the Civil War -- see States taking back MUCH of the power yielded to the Fed
ever since then...

Hopefully, the TRUE America is making a comeback; but if it happens it will only be
because the appropriate Supremacy has been given back to
The Constitution of the United States of America.
.
.

Jesus and the health care bill

.
Over the past few months, a number of people I know who could be classified
as "Liberals" have raised the question of the Christian perspective on the
current health care bill, noting that "Christian compassion" and a sense of
"Christian charity" should compel Christians everywhere to support this bill
as a way of fulfilling the Christian mandate to care for the needy...

I could not disagree more; here is my response to any Liberal who takes this view:

It's a PERSONAL thing
Example after example, in Scripture, of God's model for charitable giving
shows that His intention is that Charity should be a PERSONAL thing, coming
from the heart and extended to those directly around us. There is absolutely
no mandate in Scripture to manipulate Governments to forcibly extract taxes
from citizens in order to direct those funds to the needy... And any attempt
to correlate Christian Charity with Government Programs simply demonstrates
both a profound misunderstanding of scriptural principles on Giving and Serving
as well as a complete disregard for America's Constitution, which LIMITS the
powers of the Federal government, most especially when it comes to taxes...
WE are to care for the needy, WE are to work for Justice, with our own hands
and backs and voices and resources, NOT to write to our Senators to vote for
an abusive TAX bill that masquerades as a "health care bill"...


Please don't feed the Animals (teach a man to fish)
Supposedly the Liberals' motivation is "compassion" for these needy, those who
do not have any health care coverage at all... But if this is true, which approach
is truly the more compassionate, to GIVE a man a fish, or to TEACH a man to fish?
What is more "compassionate" for America's citizens, to FORCE us all into
complete dependence on Big Government, or for Big Government to get out of the way
so that we can learn to fish, learn to rely on ourselves? Which approach is a
more long-term solution, and therefore more "compassionate"?


Waste, Fraud and Abuse
The Bible also teaches us to be shrewd, to make wise decisions, to take a
mature and thoughtful approach to big decisions, especially those that
involve Money... If I give money to a Charitable organization, and then find out
that the management of this organization has been blowing its contributions
mostly on things like trips to Vegas, or prostitutes, or big homes for its staffers,
etc., would it be "uncharitable" of my neighbor, who hears about this, NOT to give
his money to this organization? Do you honestly think the Bible would still
compel him to give his money to this organization despite these demonstrated
reports of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse?

So it is with the current Administration and this health care debacle:
Obama, Reid and Pelosi have clearly demonstrated their complete disregard for any kind of financial prudence... They have spent billions of federal dollars with virtually no accountability (the GAO chief says they have "no idea" where
50 billion dollars of Bailout 1 went...)... The massive and out-of-control Spending has been done under the alarmist banner of, "if we don't do this the world will end!!"...
And all of this driven by their determination that the Government should control as much of the private sector as possible...

This is the "charitable organization" that is compelled by the Bible to now force
health care on its citizens??? You cannot be serious... I'm amazed that this even
needs to be said, but the Bible in no way condones Waste, Fraud, and Abuse,
even for "charitable" reasons... Indeed, one famous example is the bitter hatred the people of Israel had, in Jesus' day, for what they called
"Publicans", or "tax collectors", who were Jews working for the occupying
Roman government and who were famous for extorting high taxes from the Jews
while sucking up to the Romans...

I think there is plenty of Scriptural basis to say that Government, and its Tax
schemes, is the complete OPPOSITE of the methods and means by which Christians are to
care for the needy...


Fools for Jesus?
It's very important here to make one critical point that keeps being
overshadowed in these health care discussions: Nearly everyone AGREES that it
would be a very good thing to make sure that everyone has access to affordable,
quality health care; we just disagree about the who, the how, and the how much.
Sensible thinking requires that any big project, with a big budget, any
substantial Venture, needs to be carefully and thoughtfully planned out,
guided by three big questions:

How will the venture be structured?
Who will control it?
How much will it cost (and you could add, Where will the money come from?)

There is nothing in Scripture that encourages us to be foolish, even when it comes to
Charity... Again, I'm surprised that this point even needs to be made...
Nothing in Scripture approves of individuals, or government, acting like Fools, and
to the extent that Government foolishness oppresses the individual, Scripture
certainly condemns it...


The Hypocrisy thing
This is perhaps the most disgraceful part of a Liberal's attempt to tie
Scripture to government programs... The appeal of such an approach is a kind of
Christian-ized "moral imperative" thing, a kind of, "we ought to do this because
the Bible wants us to care for the needy"... Well the Bible also clearly
and thunderously condemns homo-sex, so where is the call to make that
activity illegal, to manipulate Government to allow or disallow Scriptural imperatives?
The Bible clearly holds the life of the Unborn as precious in the sight of God,
so how does that square with the so-called "pro-choice" position??

How can anyone invoke Scripture to support personal Political views on certain
issues, and competely ignore Scriptural positions on other issues? Either we
manipulate Government to carry out Christian agendas or we do NOT, but we cannot
pick-and-choose which issues to tie to Scriptural compulsions and which not to...

That's called Hypocrisy.

And if the true reason to support this health care mess is "compassion", where is
the outrage over the TRILLIONS this Administration is wasting, and will continue
to waste? Where is the horror over the national DEBT, demonstrated to be roughly
200% worse at this point than during any past Administration? If we truly care about the poor, the needy, the under-privileged, the "disenfranchised", where is the indignation over the complete devastation this Administration is foisting on the country's finances,
money that could be used to help with the social programs some think we need?
We should be calling for their heads...

But this too is Hypocrisy.

It is disingenuous to link any kind of Scriptural imperative to the utter chaos
coming out of Washington these days; a clear, honest, informed understanding of the
whole message of the Bible (not just a bit here and a bit there, twisted to make it say
what we want it to say) shows that there are virtually no grounds at all for Government-run, Tax-funded "charities". I think Jesus would be (is) outraged at this "health care" catastrophe, primarily because it will make the plight of the needy worse, and it will prove to be a significant injustice to millions of Americans...
.
.

Only Two Religions

.
There are really only two major divisions of Religion in the world:
One acknowledges and reveres some kind of God or "higher power" or
"great Spirit", a supernatural Force that transcends humanity and
has certain "intentions"or a Will for how humans ought to live
(some religions of this type affirm multiple gods, but the
concept is still the same: HE is -- or THEY are -- far, far above us
and should be worshiped and feared and obeyed)...

The second disavows any kind of "god" in favor of a MAN-centered
view, focused mainly on "spirituality" or "inner peace" or "balance",
or even one's "path" in life, not because some "god" wants it that way
but because walking one's "path" is (they believe) the way to achieve
true and deep "fulfillment" in this life...

Today's neo-Atheists, Reductionists, Materialists, and Naturalists
DO have -- contrary to what they try to insist -- a "religion",
if "religion" is defined as any organized system of beliefs which is
followed assiduously, and which functions as the framework for one's
entire World View... This type tends to elevate Science or "human
potential" to god-like status, and they revere these pursuits every bit
as much as Theists revere their Deities...

We can believe whatever we choose, of course, from "the Great Pumpkin"
to Jehovah and every supernatural -- or natural -- icon in between.
But for those who THINK, and who therefore are more interested in TRUTH
above all other motivations, when it comes to World Views, the picture
changes quite a bit:

A MAN-centered World View cannot be viewed as "equal to" a Theistic
World View; that is a confusion of Premise and Conclusion. The proper
comparison of a "non-god" religion to a "God(s)-centered" religion would be,
"I believe the more RATIONAL position is that there is in fact NO god,
THEREFORE, all that remains, for this life (which ends at death) is to find
my 'higher purpose', my 'path' while I live." The comparison is between
Theism and Atheism, not between Theism and MAN-centered "spirituality"
or even "Science"...

So, to me, the most important question of Life is not about "fulfillment"
or "destiny" or finding one's "path"; the most important question is a
two-fold inquiry: (a) Is there a God (or gods), and (if yes),
(b) what is His (Their) Will for me? If the answer to (a) is "NO"
(on purely Rational grounds), then it would seem to me that we are free
to believe whatever we choose, and the subject of TRUTH becomes irrelevant.
But if the answer to (a) is "YES", then (b) becomes the most important
pursuit of our lives.

I for one simply don't have any interest in discussions on World Views or
"religion" that don't begin from this base, because I want the TRUTH
above all else. Arguments along any other lines seem to me to be just
a chasing after the wind, an abyss of Subjectivity, and not very interesting...
.
.

The Kitchen Door

.
For decades our old house used to have a door between the dining room
and the kitchen, one of those swings-both-ways doors, though it was
almost always propped open... This door had (as most kitchen doors
do) a certain kind of hinge mechanism that would return the door to
its DEFAULT position -- closed -- any time it was left to itself and
not pushed on (or propped open)...

It struck me this morning that the Christian is in a similar state, as we
walk through this life looking forward to Christ's coming: If we are not
vigilant, if we do not DAILY struggle against the sin nature still hanging
around inside us -- and which will remain there until we are finally
perfected by God -- if we are not actively involved in the spiritual disciplines,
we will naturally return to our Default position, which is, at the least,
Apathy, and at worst, Rebellion.

Romans 7 and Ephesians 6 give us a good view of what that struggle
looks like and how to prepare ourselves for it, and Hebrews 12 talks about
continuing in that struggle, day after day, with PERSEVERANCE, so that in the end
we may reap what the author calls a "harvest of Righteousness".

Don't ever be taken in by, or hypnotized by, any "modern" version of the
Christian faith that jettisons the reality of SIN in favor of focusing on
"God's Love"... Indeed, it is the very wonder of a God who loves us in spite of
our sin that provides the strength we need along the journey...

So let us continue to work out our own salvation -- to PUSH against the door --
even as we humbly acknowledge, moment by moment, the work of God inside us.
HIS door is ALWAYS open.
.
.

The Audacity of Arrogance

.
Well, just when I thought the craziness of Obama-zombie-ism couldn't
get any more dramatic, we all woke up to the news this morning that
Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The NPP Committee's own statement on why its Prize was awarded to Obama
was vague; their reasoning really boiled down to what they believe to be
a positive change in "global MOOD" that (they think) Obama has affected...

Here are the questions many people -- surprisingly, including many of
Obama's own supporters -- are asking today: Why him? SHOW US his
body of work, his lists of accomplishments, that would warrant an award
like this... DETAIL for us the YEARS he has spent working on behalf of
humanity... DESCRIBE for us the specific impact he has had for Peace
in the international community... EXPLAIN to us the personal suffering
and sacrifice he has endured, over the years, that would
justify this kind of recognition...

To use an expression from the 80's, where's the beef???

Because short of that, the awarding of this Prize to Obama makes an
absolute mockery out of this recognition; it is a slap in the face
to anyone who has actually DESERVED this award and has received it after
tremendous, legitimate achievement and/or personal sacrifice...

HERE is my pick for who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize this year: In the face of grave personal danger from the oppressive and despotic regime of Ahmadinejad, this young Philosophy student attended a pro-Democracy rally in Iran a few months ago, and was gunned down in the street by government-hired militia.

Since then, her death has inspired a great many Iranians, and those who support
Democracy in Iran, to work toward FREEDOM in that theocratic nation... We hope
that they are successful and that Neda will not have died in vain...

So over against these thoughts, only megalomaniacal self-aggrandizement
can explain why Obama, with virtually NO qualifications, would not respectfully
REFUSE this award on the grounds that compared to past Awardees, he has
no right to accept it... Only the most blatant Arrogance would allow the world
to fawn over him with recognition meant for TRUE humanitarians who have
demonstrated their worthiness to the world over the years.

If there was ever any question that Obama lacks the dignity and honor
and humility that ought to distinguish the presidency, this stunning and
unbelievable news should settle it.
.
.

The State of our Souls, the Simplicity of our Sin

.
During the Scripture reading at church yesterday, I was struck by a particular
phrase: "...because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever
their sins have been." This may not be the precise interpretation of that phrase,
but it occurred to me that any sin, ALL sin, boils down to those two things:

Uncleanness
By the mere fact of being human, our very souls are in a state of Uncleanness.
The implied question -- "compared to what?" -- has an obvious answer: God Himself.
In view of His complete and utter Holiness and Purity, we are filthy and wretched
paupers, draped in the rags of our own corruption. Any true and legitimate view
of Almighty God must begin here.

Rebellion
As if merely being full of impurities were not enough, we then rebel, in countless
ways, against the authority and sovereignty of God, putting word and deed to the
root of all sin, Idolatry (worshiping anything but GOD as our god(s)...) Whether
it is pleasure, or pride, or other false gods, anything short of a pervasive and
persistent attitude of, "be it done unto me according to Your will", offered to
God from a spiritual, face-down position in dust and ashes, is, quite simply,
Rebellion. God as "part of my life" instead of "God as the supreme Center of
my life", and any failure to seek His will above ALL ELSE -- any failure to be
completely poured out before Him -- is Rebellion. All of our sin comes down
to this simple word.

This phrase -- "uncleanness and rebellion" -- struck me as pretty much covering
the whole gamut of our true condition, the condition which made the atoning
sacrifice of Christ necessary. Indeed, this phrase comes from Leviticus 16, and
the entire chapter discusses the visceral, brutal, savage procedures that Aaron
was instructed to use, to make atonement for Israel: Slaughtered animals, blood
all over the place and flung here and there using his finger, and then the
sending of a "scapegoat" into the desert, and the wearing of clean linens...

... all because of our uncleanness and rebellion.

Join me today and take a few moments to pause what you're doing, and just imagine
the scene... Imagine yourself lying flat on your face, trembling uncontrollably,
petitioning a Holy and Pure God -- the God of the Universe -- to look upon the
cross of Christ and sponge away your Uncleanness and forgive your Rebellion.
.
.

It's not actually ABOUT Healthcare

.
I was having a few beers with a buddy the other night, and he made
a statement that kind of surprised me: "I just don't understand all
the acrimony and passion over this Healthcare debate!" he said; "Why
is just about everyone I talk to all up in arms about it?"

I think his perspective -- he's a medical professional, by the way --
is that Healthcare should excite about as much passion as filling out
a job application or changing you oil; he views it as a technical,
procedural matter, I think, and not so much a political time-bomb...

Well of course all I had to do was bring up the subject of Costs, and
soon he was just as passionate as everyone else; he's a very smart guy,
so I think what he really meant was that he hasn't had much time to
think about the topic...

But that got me thinking, and I realized something this week that I
probably knew but never considered directly:

This "Healthcare debate" isn't primarily ABOUT Healthcare.

It's REALLY about these issues, in my opinion and from everything I've
heard or seen or read on the matter in the past 4 weeks:

1. For better or for worse, Obama is THE MAN for an entire generation
of Young voters and for much of the previous generation of Liberals who
have been licking their wounds ever since Reagan kicked Carter's arse in
the 1980 elections; Reagan was their nemesis, elder Bush was a weaker
but similar "threat", Clinton wasn't as radical as they had hoped and
so they didn't get no satisfaction on his watch, and the younger Bush
gave them plenty of fodder for their political cannons... So NOW they
have THEIR guy (sort of an "anti-Reagan"), and they'll be DAMNED if they
aren't going to milk this thing for all it's worth... Obama can do no
wrong, in their eyes, and whether Obamacare makes SENSE or not, whether
it will CRUSH competition or not, whether it represent GROSS government
intrusion into -- infringement on, usurpation of -- personal Freedoms,
or whether it will lead to FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON, they don't care,
because Obama can do no wrong. Hence my "Obama-zombie" moniker for them.

2. There has rarely been such a clear, obvious, omnipresent Expose of
the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative
ideology than what we've seen played out in this country since January 20.
At its very core, the Liberal mind believes GOVERNMENT can and should take
care of virtually ANY need (and many wants) of the Citizen that it can possibly
touch, and of course "control" must be gained to do so, and dissenters must
be first ostracized and then penalized. The Conservative mind says that LESS
government is better, Citizens must do as much FOR THEMSELVES as possible,
FREEDOM (even FROM government!) is worth DYING for, and that the government
answers to the CITIZEN, not the other way around. Healthcare is perhaps the
single biggest front on which these two ideologies go head-to-head, right out
in the streets, citizen-to-citizen... Liberals think Conservatives are cold
and have no compassion, Conservatives think Liberals lack common sense and
have their heads in the sand... But THAT is why the debate rages on.

Perhaps nobody said it better than political satirist P.J. O'Rourke:
Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys
to teenage boys.

Amen brother.
.

TAP ya FOOT

.
Put in your earbuds, turn up the volume, and read on...

So imagine this:

You and some close friends, all of whom are musicians, make plans to go out
one evening to enjoy a fancy dinner at a local white-tablecloth establishment,
and then to head to the jazz district to listen to some great music. The dinner
was outstanding: The food was perfect, the wine was sublime, and the conversation
was interesting and spirited, and you - dressed for the occasion in your best
casual-yet-stylish attire - have a warm and cheerful contentment wash over you
as you and your party sip coffee with desert...

A short bit later, you all arrive at the jazz club and take the table reserved
for you near the stage: The place is full, and you watch the band getting ready
to start its second set; as the waitress brings you your drinks (yours is a
smooth Sambuca, perfect for after dinner), the band leader steps up to the mic
and greets the crowd: "Good evening folks... Thanks for coming out tonight...
We're [some band name] in from Atlanta... We'll be here through Thursday
of this week, so come back again and see us... We hope you enjoy the music."

Now, picturing yourself in that scene, play these tunes

	Jeff Lorber Don't Hold Back from the recording, "Heard That"
	Brian Culbertson Always Remember from the recording, "Bring Back the Funk"
	Wayman Tisdale In The Zone from the recording, "Best of Wayman Tisdale"

Having heard these great tunes, how can you NOT TAP ya FOOT when you
listen to these contemporary jazz artists?

As a Christian, I believe that ALL Goodness and Truth and Beauty is a revelation
of God Himself, who is -- together with His Son, Jesus Christ, and His omnnipresent
Holy Spirit -- the very essence of Goodness Truth and Beauty. Jazz is music that
lifts the spirit and brightens the eyes as you appreciate the precision of its
syncopation, the inter-play of its harmonies and melodies, and the playfulness of
its improvisation.

I think God smiles at me when I smile as I listen.
.
.

No, I have not read the Plan

.
I was at an outdoor event over the weekend and an Obama supporter
came up to me clutching a clipboard and asking me to sign a petition
to help promote Obamacare... As soon as I saw her Obama sticker,
I blurted out, "NO Obamacare!" Somewhat taken aback by my forthrightness,
she asked me, "Have you read the plan?"

"Absolutely not", I said, to which she replied, "Don't you think
everyone should have health coverage? Do you want your health care
costs to continue to rise? Don't you think the current system is
broken?" My answer was the same to all three questions: "Who says
the GOVERNMENT should address these concerns? The LAST people on
the planet to whom we should turn on health care is THIS president,
and THIS Congress, and at THIS time in history. When SANITY and
Sound Judgment have returned to D.C., and when world markets have
stabilized, and when we have Tort reform, and when we finally have
fiscal Accountability curtailing Big Government and its Big Checkbook,
then and only then MAYBE we can CAREFULLY and THOUGHTFULLY
address Health Care. But not one blessed moment sooner."

She apparently wasn't prepared to hear anything but glowing affirmation
for her efforts that day, because she quickly moved away to someone else.

To the criticism that I cannot criticize Obama's health care plan
unless I've read it, I have this simple reply: If the town drunk
came to the town council with a plan to clean up the city, would he
get a hearing? If a local gang approached the town's police chief
with a plan to reduce the crime rate in the area, would they be
taken seriously at all? Well the answer is obvious (or at least it
should be): NO, because they have no credibility.

I have not read one solitary sentence of Obamacare, and I won't, for
the same reason: With his trillion-dollar spending (much of which has
simply VANISHED, according to the CBO) and with his radical
left-wing, socialist/communist associations, and a number of other
very disturbing Realities about Barack Obama, I don't HAVE to read
his plan, because he has no credibility.

And the glazed-eyed, infatuated-cheerleader, Obama Zombie Effect (OZE)
has dulled the minds of quite a few whose comments appear in the media
(and surely many that don't)... Former president Carter calls
anyone who opposes Obamacare a "racist"??? And how about this one:
Julian Epstein, former Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee,
said the Obamacare requirement for every person to carry health
coverage -- or be FINED! -- is no different from requirements to obtain
auto insurance. "It's called personal responsibility," he said.

Does he not see the dissimilarity there? You can just NOT drive, if you
don't have car insurance, and there is no FINE; but you can't stop being
YOU, and if you don't PAY for some Plan, you're FINED (starting at $750).

Seems like anybody even remotely connected to Obama these days has gone
completely off the rails, saying and doing things that has the average
sensible Voter (and TAX PAYER) out in the streets scratching our heads
and saying "HUH???"

These sure are some Looney-Tunes times we're living in!
.
.

Some thoughts on Abortion

.
Certainly one of the most divisive issues in modern times, abortion needs very little
introduction; this post is an attempt to address the weaknesses of some typical
pro-abortion positions on the subject. The Pro-Life position is pretty clear:
The life of a child, a unique human individual, begins at conception, when brand-new
DNA is established and the first evidences of a Baby become apparent... By the time
a woman and her doctor discover that she is pregnant, this new child already has the
foundations of a brain, a spinal cord, and a nervous system; the baby's heart is
also beating. This, it would seem clear, is a distinct, unique, individual
Human Being.

The pro-abortion proponents would argue otherwise; but how strong
are their typical arguments?


The LEGAL aspect

This is perhaps the weakest argument the pro-Abortion people toss out there:
Ever since "Roe vs. Wade" in 1973 -- in which the Supreme Court had neither
the authority nor the qualifications to rule as it did, and has therefore been
deemed by many legal experts as "bad law" -- the abortionists have insisted that
this "choice" is their legal, "constitutional" right... Well not only was it a
flimsy legal decision, but consider the broader perspective on the "legal" angle:
It was not that long ago when it was "legal" for a diner to serve only "whites",
or to have "whites only" restrooms, or for "black" people to have to take a seat
at the back of a bus; but enough people expressed enough moral outrage for a long
enough period of time, so that the courts were impacted and the laws were changed,
and what was once "legal" became illegal. So hiding behind the skirts of
a very weak Supreme Court ruling does nothing to strengthen their case, since Law is
established by people and can be changed based on their collective will.

A quick word about "viability": A "viable" fetus is supposedly one that could
potentially survive outside the womb of the mother, one that is not completely
dependent on her body for its own survival; but here again, could we not easily
list MANY situations in which other people are not "viable"? Is a person on
life support "viable", by this definition? And truthfully, when have we EVER heard
of a woman who was determined to abort her child but changed her mind when
her doctor demonstrated to her that her baby WAS in fact "viable"? This is a
smoke-screen, merely a legal word used to try to sterilize a life-destroying act...


The CHOICE aspect

The basic premise here is that a woman's body -- and more broadly, her reproductive
decisions -- is a very private matter between herself and her doctor (and, rarely,
the biological father), and that the government has no business at all telling a
woman what she can or cannot do with her body... But the weakness in this argument
is also easily seen: If "choice" is the primary consideration in highly
personal medical and family matters, why limit it only to pregnancy?

What if a couple gives birth to a profoundly retarded boy, with grotesque, severe
physical deformities, such that the first year or so of the child's life is utterly
unbearable to the parents, who are drained financially, emotionally, and physically...
What if at the end of that first year they simply CANNOT take it anymore... Should
they have a "choice" to quietly euthanize this boy? Why should the GOVERNMENT have
any business meddling with their highly personal medical/family matter??
If "choice" is the PRIMARY consideration (and the pro-Abortion people try
to pitch "freedom of choice" as some sorth of soothing, "who-wouldn't-want-that?"
type position), then why should it be limited to one side of the birth canal
and not the other? How DARE anyone who supports a "choice" to destroy a little boy
or girl turn around and tell this couple they cannot "choose" to arrange their
lives in a similar fashion and for similar reasons??


The PERSONHOOD aspect

This is the only real argument anybody should ever be having about abortion:
Is the fetus a HUMAN BEING -- a PERSON -- or not? Because if it is a Person, then
plain common sense will read the Constitution as guaranteeing Life as an
inalienable Right, protecting that Person, and the "choice" to destroy another
Person seems -- again, as common sense -- to be repugnant to any civilized society.

So how do we define Personhood? The heart beating, as distinct from the mother's?
A unique nervous system? A unique DNA structure? Eyeballs? Hands? Feet?
Genital organs? Brain waves? These are all present very early in the pregnancy.
What about the other end of the timeline: Does a fetus "become" a Person as its
head is in the birth canal? The head out but the torso still in? The whole body
all the way out? Do C-sections count? Accordingly, there is an broad lack of
clarity on the Personhood issue (for some!) and the pro-abortion people most
often REFUSE to address this issue directly: They'd rather scream and kick and
thunderously proclaim their "legal" right to "choose" (again, very weak arguments),
condemning anyone who sees the fetus as a PERSON. It is very rare to meet a
pro-abortionist who is willing or even able to walk through these issues calmly
and intelligently; instead they vehemently lash out at anyone who attempts to
confront them with even the slight possibility that this is a Baby, a Child,
a Human Being, a Person... Because if it is, then abortion is murder,
and they know it.


The RADICAL Result

And what we have seen happen in our society since Roe v. Wade has been just the
sort of out-of-control INSANITY that a sensible person might expect from
such a horrible and tragic decision: Millions of abortions every year,
mostly for the convenience of the mother; doctors who are trying to kill the baby
one minute but then are forced by law to try to save the baby if the delivery
happens anyway and the baby is born alive (burns, scars, and other wounds, inflicted
just moments before, notwithstanding)... We even have the pro-abortion clan demanding
it be "legal" for a doctor to cut open a baby's skull and suck out the brains AS IT IS BEING DELIVERED, simply because the mother doesn't want the baby
(the so-called "partial-birth abortion")... It doesn't take very long to go down the
slippery slope of "a few" abortions to "many" to "hell-bent on destroying babies
any time, anywhere we choose"... Indeed, stories of complete and radical disregard
for human life, like this one, are a predictable result of the pro-abortion agenda.



I continue to be dumbfounded that any seemingly sane, seemingly civilized adult
would actually believe that it should be "legal" and acceptable to KILL the Unborn,
the most innocent and vulnerable Persons on the planet. Perhaps I should say,
instead, "dumbfounded" only to a point, because I agree with the Bible when it says
that "the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things".
I take solace in the fact that murdered Babies go straight into the arms of a Father
who loves them perfectly and eternally, and with Whom they will be safe forever;
and I tremble a bit as I consider the fearsome Judgment that God will pass on those
who commit these murders as well as those who help others do so.

May God help all of us, in all areas of our lives, to approach Him with our faces
to the ground, willing and honest enough to know and do His will.
.
.

The Gospel Up Close: Marriage and Family

.
As something of a "skeptical", thinker-type Christian, I (like many Christians)
often find it very difficult to grasp or appreciate most of the typical Christian
dialogue around what our Faith is supposed to look like, sound like, feel like,
etc... Everything for me, literally, begins as Philosophy, starting with the broader
perspective -- the WHY -- and narrowing down to the specific "how" and "what"...

So in order to move beyond a Faith that is largely a "philosophical abstraction"
and closer to a dynamic, experiential Reality, I spend much of my time
listening to and reading great material from those who I believe understand the
Gospel on a very deep level, and who are skilled at helping others see
the practical realities of a Life with Christ...

So ponder this for a bit:
If you REALLY want to enter into a very deep understanding of the true Gospel,
get married and have kids:

Marriage
I've written on this Blog about the need for "soul-sanding", and how the primary
aim for every Christian is to become a Saint; that is, to finally, someday, once
and for all, be made perfectly complete, shining bits of Gold and Silver in the
crown of God's Glory (and each of us has a unique place there).

But in order to BECOME that, we must be CHANGED, from what we are (in our fallen,
sinful state) into what He has made us to be. This requires a great deal of pain
and suffering, and the spiritual disciplines we participate in are intended to
melt us down, burn away the impurities, mold us, shape us, polish us up, and
produce a Saint.

And there is no "smeltering" process (that I can think of) that is more immediate,
more personal, and more effective than a Marriage relationship: It is here where
we can learn, often through a tremendous amount of pain and frustration and
difficulty, how to be HUMBLE, how to FORGIVE, how to be PATIENT and LONG-SUFFERING;
how to give up Grudges; how to PUT THE OTHER PERSON FIRST; and how to focus on the
BLESSEDNESS of another Human Soul (their Ultimate Good - to become
a Saint, too!), instead of ourselves (primarily). Marriage is God's institution
for LOVE between a Man and a Woman; LOVE is passionate about practicing
GIVING, HELPING, NURTURING, and BUILDING-UP. LOVE is central to the
Christian Faith, and we cannot claim to love God (the first and greatest
Commandment) if our entire manner of living is not centered around Love.

Marriage is the "crucible" in which this process can occur; and I can't think of
a more realistic, pragmatic, effective scenario than Marriage in which the
work of Sanctification can happen. Marriage enables us to practice
(all of our married lives) both the first AND the second Great Commandments;
indeed, in my opinion, if you want to love God, you love what HE loves:
OTHER PEOPLE! So we love GOD BY loving other people... And who BEST
to begin with than our spouses!

Children
God loves me in precisely the same way I love my kids (only perfectly, infinitely):
I am not always happy with their behavior, and I even have to "punish" them
sometimes; but my LOVE for them never ever changes, not one bit: No matter WHAT
they may do, I love them with a white-hot, passionate, radical love, because
they are my kids, and because it thrills me to do so (it's FUN!), and
because I want to see them grow up into mature adults with God-pleasing Character.

I want to enjoy watching them go out into the world and use their skills and
talents and abilities to be a BLESSING to those around them, and to give God the
glory for it. And of course my highest and deepest desire for them is that they
submit to the work of Sanctification, too, and one day become Saints, themselves...

Is it hard to understand, then, how God views me as HIS kid? Doesn't it make
perfect sense to realize that God loves me in exactly this same way, and doesn't
that realization fill our hearts with Joy and with a longing to finally, someday,
look into His face and hear His voice and experience His pleasure with us?
As C.S. Lewis said, "If the Master is satisfied with the creature, the creature
may be satisfied with itself". Perhaps we need to hear this much more often:
God loves us as His dear Children, the way a Father (and a Mother) loves his kids...

So take some time to mull over these ideas. Doing so has, for me, been a very
meaningful way of moving beyond Philosophy into an on-going splash-fest in
the Water of Life.
.
.