No Apology For My Faith

On Prayer

2008-12-25T17:04:00.002-06:00

On a forum, I read this quote from C.S. Lewis that started me thinking:

"I have seen many striking answers to prayer and more than one that I thought miraculous. But they usually come at the beginning: before conversion, or soon after it. As the Christian life proceeds, they tend to be rarer. The refusals, to, are not only more frequent; they become more unmistakable, more emphatic."

I found this quote to be slightly enigmatic. Especially the last sentence that Lews quotes. What refusals? Our refusal to pray? No, it seems that Lewis was pointing out God's refusals to our prayers. But, this seems contradictory. Didn't Jesus say "ask and it will be given"? What was Lewis talking about?

I did find another source for the quote and I think the paragraph that followed that quote really gives some of the insight into what Lewis was thinking.

"Does God then forsake just those who serve Him best? Well, He who served Him best of all said, near His tortured death, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” When God becomes man, that Man, of all others, is least comforted by God, at His greatest need. There is a mystery here which, even if I had the power, I might not have the courage to explore. Meanwhile, little people like you and me, if our prayers are sometimes granted, beyond all hope and probability, had better not draw hasty conclusions to our own advantage. If we were stronger, we might be less tenderly treated. If we were braver, we might be sent, with far less help, to defend far more desperate posts in the great battle." ~~ From The Essential

I thought this additional quote from the source was beautiful:

"Prayer in the sense of petition, asking for things, is a small part of it; confession and penitence are its threshold, adoration its sanctuary, the presence and vision and enjoyment of God its bread and wine. In it God shows Himself to us. That He answers prayers is a corollary—not necessarily the most important one—from that revelation. What He does is learned from what He is."

The key is that I think Lewis was making a general observation in the quote. It does seem at times that "new" Christians have some special favor with God. Perhaps, even that special favor is part of the extension of Grace that brought them to the salvation experience and restored their relationship with God. Maybe that is why God wants us to evangelize -- to participate in that special time of prayer and God's working.

So often I think we pray for things wanting God to take action, meanwhile God looks at us and says "you could do that for yourself". Like any Father, God may hesitate to do for us what we could honestly do for ourselves. Why should God feed the poor when I can do that? Sure, I can't feed them all, but what about those that I can feed? What about providing comfort for someone in dire straits? God could comfort them -- or He could have me go and be the instrument of His will. I pray so often for His Will to be done -- does God listen and wonder when I will get busy?

Suffering

2008-08-05T20:48:00.001-05:00

Recently, I have really had a long bout with suffering -- not personally, but philosophically. A topic that has consumed much of my thinking is suffering -- how do we suffer and why. One recent story I heard about suffering was told by Ravi Zacharias in a talk I heard through his website. It dealt with the suffering of a woman who faced great suffering -- through violation of her self and the eventual death of her child. A deeply moving story that served to really darken my morning cutting grass and listening.

Part of what really bothered me about the talk was just how in our society, someone can face such suffering and seem so alone. I really don't think it is physical proximity of others that can change loneliness -- instead it is our own suffering and reactions to our suffering that define loneliness. Let me develop these thoughts a little more and see if it becomes clear.

I recently blogged about the will of God and one illustration I discussed was Christ in the center of the will of God. At the moment that Christ was crying out in Matthew 27:46 -- in a moment of loneliness from the Father -- he was recalling the words of the psalmist in Psalm 22.

In Psalm 22 we read when the psalmist wrote, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" In this lament of the psalmist we sense his loneliness. However, we cannot let his loneliness convey loss of faith. The psalmist is clear in one thing -- faith in God in hearing him cry out!

Follow me to the story of Job. How many times have we heard the story recounted where Job's wife says in 2:9, "...curse God and die". To a woman who had suffered with Job in the loss of their children -- we can still only have faith in one thing -- she had faith in God! Where is that found? Why would she even offer that cursing God would result in death if she did not believe God existed? Surely only a living God could respond to a cursing. The grief and suffering of Job and his wife did not remove their faith, only demonstrated it.

So, how does our reaction to suffering define our loneliness? Well, Job was suffering, yet we know from his testimony and that of his wife that they knew and loved God. Likewise we know the love of the Father by the Son. In their suffering, they called out to the one most in proximity to them that could enter into that suffering with them.

As each of us suffers -- it is to whom we call out that defines our sense of loneliness. To someone without a knowledge of the love of God, they have no one to share in the suffering with. That seems to embody loneliness. It is through our withholding ourselves from the only relationship which most completely fulfills our purpose that we can truly sense loneliness.

Do I trust in God -- or his provision for me? Is it the times that God has provided that I can trust in him? Or, is it when I no longer have his provision, only his love that I can truly cast off loneliness and revel in the relationship of the deepest spiritual calling of my soul?

Reading the Fifth Gospel

2008-07-03T08:53:00.002-05:00

Many people when asked what book of the bible should be read first are pointed to the Gospel of John. That is a good choice -- John presents the gospel in a straight forward manner and leads an unbeliever into the understanding of salvation. John tells us this himself. In John 20:31 we read, "...but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

However, there is another gospel that our friends have been reading that is the most powerful of all. As Irish evangelist Gypsy Smith once said, “There are five Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four.” Our friends see our lives and we have to wonder if what they see makes them hungry for what we proclaim.

During the intro to DC Talk's, "What if I Stumble" there is a voice over track. The words said are, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him with their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable."

So, that leaves me to wonder -- am I living the gospel I proclaim? When my friends see me, do they get my point without me saying it? When I watch a child eat an ice cream cone, I have little doubt that they are consuming something they love! Do my friends see me consumed by the one I proclaim to love?

So, rest assured that people will not bother to read the four gospels if they do not believe the testimony of the fifth -- which is us.

Further thoughts on the Will of God

2008-06-25T09:59:00.002-05:00

Since blogging on the will of God, I have developed some additional thoughts and heard some other great insights. I hope in sharing these it helps to crystallize what I said so horribly the first time.

God's will is really kind of simple. I think it all boils down to us allowing him to restore the relationship with him that was his intention all along. God so fervently seeks a relationship with us, that He has demonstrated just how far He is willing to go to restore it! All the way to the Cross -- then further still.

On the will of God, maybe no better example of being in God's will has ever been offered than Jesus on the cross. We are reminded of the word's of Christ when he hung on the cross as recorded in Matthew 27:46:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

At the very moment that Christ uttered those words -- he stood firmly in the center of God's will! That is not a trivial issue -- that may well be the central theme for all of us -- stand in God's will even when it hurts. Maybe it is even stand in his will until it hurts. For it is only through suffering that we truly make connections with the world.

“Suffering and joy teach us, if we allow them, how to make the leap of empathy, which transports us into the soul and heart of another person. ln those transparent moments we know other people's joys and sorrows, and we care about their concerns as if they were our own.” Fritz Williams

I believe the strength of the message of Christ is not how to avoid suffering, but how we can suffer with a hope. I only hope that I can suffer enough to find myself in the center of His will! Not in any trivial way -- no, I don't ask for God to give me pain, I am perfectly capable of generating enough of that on my own. I pray that God will so touch me that I understand that I suffer because I am -- and only through my suffering am I really moved.

Give me a heart that suffers for others, Oh God -- breathe into me a spirit that seeks to comfort others and thereby find comfort through Your Will.

Who's Will be Done

2008-02-28T13:51:00.004-06:00

'Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...'

How many times have I prayed that prayer? How many times have I considered what I am saying? Am I asking that God should hear my prayer and grant my request? Have I considered that I am asking not that God will satisfy a desire of mine, but that the will of the creator of the universe be done? How strange is that?

God did not seek my help in creating the universe. He did not ask for my advice when he made the heavens nor the earth. Why did Jesus teach us a prayer that would include the request that the will of the Father be done?

Perhaps Jesus was trying to impress upon man our uniqueness among all of creation: free will.

So, why do we pray that the will of the father be done? Because we stand as a singular impediment to the fulfillment of that will being realized. So what is the will of the Father? Do we seek to discover what that might be? Or are we so consumed with our own will that we try to impose that which we desire upon God as his will for us?

Jesus taught us so much more than a simple prayer which we so quickly recite from memory without hesitation and more sadly without thought. He taught us the secret of life: finding contentment in our role in the fulfillment of God's will.

Recently I was listening to an Apologetics.com episode entitled 'Thus sayeth the Lord'. One of the apologeticists, Lindsey Brooks, commented that the key difference between the bible and any other self help book is that while a book like Jim Cramer's 'Mad Money' might attempt to change our manner of thinking on investing: the bible goes beyond simply changing a singular view and transforms the entire scope of our being. I read 'Mad Money' and I have to begin to synthesize what it says and change my view of investing. The bible, on the other hand, is read and it goes so far beyond changing my view or focus on a particular subject. It seeks to transform my outlook on each and every facet of my life. It goes beyond how I look outward, it forces me to look into the mirror that reflects my soul.

I sat recently in the Sunday school class of Art and Annette Foster at Nashville First Church of the Nazarene and the lesson being taught was dealing with the glory of God. Associate Pastor Dale Benson's sermon had been drawn from Philippians 4. Annette, in presenting her summary of the book of Philippians had written several summary points on the white board. One word stood out, contentment.

Why would Paul say that word? Is he not aware that he himself wrote that 'I am to press on toward the goal before me'. Pressing on and being content, come on Paul, surely the two concepts are dichotomous and cannot both be my goal. Unless the goal I press toward cannot be something which I can attain within my own abilities.

A goal I cannot obtain? What a silly goal. I would never encourage an athlete to set a goal that they cannot attain. What would be the purpose in that? A goal should be obtainable. That is what I learned and what I teach. But, there is something I forget, the words that were spoken by Jesus as he prayed in the garden, 'Not my will, but your will.' As Jesus cried out in anguish from his knees in the garden, he returned to the simplicity of the prayer he taught us, to the fulfillment not of our will, but God's.

Our prayer should be that we conform to the will of God. That God will send His spirit not to accompany us but to indwell us. Not to influence us but to consume us. We must subject ourselves to the proposition that God's will is greater than ours and in His will being satisfied, ours will be made whole.

1 Peter 3:15 -- Apologetics vs Ministries

2008-02-14T17:45:00.001-06:00

During a recent Sunday School session, we were dealing with the verse 1 Peter 3:15. Specifically the portion that speaks of always being ready to give a defense of the faith for anyone who asks.

The statement we were dealing with was the interpretation of the word "apologia" -- or more accurately, whether a rational defense was what was being required. The example drawn up was not dissimilar to a discussion on here previously -- reaching people through other methods such as dealing with emotional or physical needs.

Personally, I am a firm believer in the discipline of apologetics. However, it can never be a complete response. I think sometimes we confuse theology or doctrine with ministry. I think what many point out about reaching the lost, feeding the hungry, or providing shelter for the sheep is the fulfillment of the ministry of the church. We should not confuse the discussions of doctrines with the ministries of the church.

When a person with needs presented themselves to Christ, he did not share parables or question their hearts. Instead he met their needs. The woman with the "issue of blood", the lame man lowered through the roof, the blind man, the demon possessed man all had their needs fulfilled before Christ even spoke to them. He did not share the doctrines -- he shared the gospel, his very presence. Those are two very different approaches.

If we don't first deal with the needs of those who are in need, then why should our doctrines even be of a concern to them? Pat Williams in his book "How To Be Like Jesus" gave some excellent advice on how to be like Jesus. First, we must be good listeners so that we can hear the worlds problems. Then we must be willing to help the person in having their needs met. Then, our witness has a basis. Without that basis, our theology and doctrines are irrelevant to them. Our theology is only important in that context in being the motivator behind our actions. It is the motivation that separates us from how the world would try to meet that goal. Jesus lived his theology, we are challenged to do the same.

So, back to 1 Peter 3:15 -- what about the person that asks? If they ask, then I believe we are commanded to give a rational, respectful, relevant explanation for the faith that is within us. The question is, do they ask for help, or an explanation. We should be prepared to meet both questions.

So, we should live out our faith in a simple manner. It should not be so mysterious that they will not see it (or witness it). It should be a simple life of love for God and our fellow man. That should be based on a maturing theology that takes us from the understanding of the need in our life, to be able to share the hope that is within us. A simple faith and a maturing theology should be our goal.
__________________

Can Homosexuals be Christians?

2007-12-07T11:00:00.001-06:00

Let me first do some background. What is a homosexual? Can we use this definition as a starting point: Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and/or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex?

I want to beg some leeway on this -- I am going to approach this from the more conservative side of the issue. I am going to begin this from the position that homosexual behavior is not approved of in the bible. I am going to cite these verses:

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10

So, let us assume that the interpretation of the conservative church is not in grave error and homosexuality is a sin.

By correspondence, this would make the sentence read: Can a sinner become a Christian? If we also go by the conservative most popularly held beliefs, we would say that all are sinners and except for the Grace of God could not become Christians (let us define Christians as those who would confess an experience of salvation and would acknowledge the work of grace in their lives).

I think the answer to the primary question is "Yes". A homosexual can become a Christian. Now, we have made the assumption based on some biblical passages that homosexuality is a sin -- that is the practice of sexual relations with a member of the same sex is a sin. So, it would seem the next logical extension of the question would be could a practicing homosexual be Christian? If we refer back, we are acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin, yet all have sinned, some through homosexuality, some through other sins. In 1 Corinthians 6, we find that those who commit other sins will not inherit the kingdom of God -- namely drunkards, nor idolaters.

So, based on 1 Corinthians 6, the question posed could also be modified "Can a drunk become a Christian?" Correct? Both are called out, both are scripturally exempted from the inheritance. My point is, both are sins. We say that God does not tolerate sin, but, we then begin to classify sins into convenient little piles. I think in Roman Catholic doctrine there is even convenient little titles given such as venial sin, which is lesser sin. But, we say that God hates all sin. And don't even bring up the "hate the sin, love the sinner" -- that makes absolutely no sense outside of the church. You use that with an unbeliever; you might as well be saying "Hate purple, love purple unicorns."

So, can a drunkard become a Christian? I think most would say, “Surely!” God would welcome a drunkard into the kingdom and Grace is available freely to him. So, can a homosexual become a Christian? I think God would extend grace freely to him, but, would we recognize it? Or, have we defined some sins as worse than others. Are we hypocrites to decide that the sin in our life is forgivable, but, not in another’s? How about a child abuser? How about a thief? Who do we recognize as receiving grace and who do we want to exclude from our little social clubs? Sorry, we do not have that right. As grace has been extended to us, we must accept that all sin is forgivable (only blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is called out as unforgivable).

Now, for the heart of the matter – what if a homosexual becomes a Christian, but remains a homosexual? What if the drunkard or thief after professing the salvation experience does not change? Now, we get into the issue of repentant or non-repentant. Let’s look at it from another side. What if the sin was living in a lifestyle of wicked fornication? Our scriptures say fornicators are not going to inherit the kingdom. So, while a heterosexual lifestyle may not in itself be bad, improperly practiced, it is no different than homosexuality to God. So, what if a person who identifies themselves as homosexual, refrains from sexual intimacy with the same sex?

What bothers me most – maybe my way of avoiding the questions – is that we want to characterize sins. We all come to Christ as sinners. Only He was without sin. Why don’t we expend our energies in focusing on the example, instead of deciding who can or should be Christians. Ultimately, I think there are going to be some people in heaven that will surprise me, and who may be surprised by me.

Literalism and the Bible

2007-11-07T09:15:00.000-06:00

Previously, I was a very strict literalist when it came to the bible. I used the slippery slope argument that if one part was not real and factual, we would end up having a pick and choose theology. However, my study of history and how people/events are passed down has shown me that in fact, while a particular may not be in itself truth, the whole can be. This fits very nicely with the "full inspiration" of the scripture -- and is why proof-texting is so weak.

In the matter of creation, we have stories that were orally passed from one generation to the next. It is a very convenient method to break creation into periods of "days" for the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun have always marked a period that could be recognized as a day. (For those true science-minded, I realize the sun neither rises nor sets, and that some portions of the earth might have the equivalent of six-month days...but, I hope you get my drift). Picking apart the language of the choice of the word day makes no sense. I will use another story as a backdrop for this:

Is the person in the Da Vinci's Last Supper painting a man or a woman? Is it John or Mary as some hypothesize. We could study the facial features, we could study the pose -- the result? Who cares. Da Vinci was not there! He is not an eye witness painting an artists sketch as in some courtroom. He frankly could have painted any features/details in that he wanted. What we see is how the artist pictured it in his mind.

So, back to creation. The story of creation was passed down orally for many generations before it was written. So, to make the account more easily committed to memory and able to be retold, a certain poetic license had to be exercised. Which came first light or darkness? I contend light -- look at the sun, darkness occurs when the sun is obscured. Without something to obscure the sun from view, we would naturally have light... But, I digress. Man was created on the first day? Ummm, no. The second? Again no, so frankly how do we know if God created the heavens or the earth first? Well, only because as the story was passed down, it was determined that it was significant to place them in that order... Let's assume it was how God related it to Adam, and how he related it to his descendants -- it is important not how it was done, but, how it was recorded -- that is the truth we are to take away.

Did it really take God six days? Why not six seconds? Well, there was no truly accurate measurement for a second (maybe they used 1-Mississippi or something). So, it became a definable period of time for the story -- 1 day (later determined to be one revolution of the earth -- funny, when it was discovered that the earth rotated around its own axis as well as the sun, math did not change, but was confirmed! -- this contradicts those who say that science would fall if the earth was discovered to not be old).

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we must recognize the bible as a record. It is accurate in that it was meant to record the relationship between God and man. The interesting thing is that many have through the years doubted the bible. Some would hold up certain passages and say, "See not true." It might be verses about a place or an event. Yet, discoveries are made that consistently show the bible to be an accurate record of a people.

Do I have a point? Not sure. I have journeyed from literalism to a deeper view of the bible. Is it simply a photograph that catches the sun and the figures represented? Or, is it a beautiful poem that captures the heart of God and his yearning to be closer to us -- his creation? James Thomas Flexner wrote in "Washington: The Indispensable Man" that once the myth of Washington was removed, we would more fully appreciate the man that Washington was and his true greatness. How much more so this is true of God!

When we see how God has so jealously sought to have a relationship with us -- with me; I am awed that the creator of the universe has so sought my worship! When I realize that the story of the bible is not man struggling to be close to God, but, God seeking his creation's fellowship -- I understand that the story is so much deeper than did the earth come into being in 144 hours, or was it for me to fall to my knees upon to worship My Creator

Was Christ ever Angry?

2007-03-07T23:24:00.000-06:00

I have also been interested in what is said, and what is written. Many times people will point to these verses and say that Jesus was angry. I really don't get that impression (and boy, did I ever use these verses myself to justify my own right to be angry sometimes).

Here are the verses in particular:

Quote:

12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

13And He said to them, "It is written,'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN."

14And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant

So lets investigate it a little more:

Verse 12 simply reports the facts of the event. We read the word anger or angry in the actions, but they are not in the prose. We assume that if Christ did those things, it would have been in anger why? Because we would have done it in anger. So we transfer our emotion to Christ and give it that intepretation. For the record, the Greek words there have two different connotations -- one implies with anger, the other implies without -- I am not a Greek scholar, so I don't really understand which context it was in -- but, the possibility of without anger does exist in the specific Greek root word being used.

Verse 13 records Jesus' words -- pretty strong words...but, are they really? He was quoting scripture!

Mark records the act with a slightly different passage:

Quote:

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

19When evening came, they went out of the city.

Here it says not only was he quoting scripture, but, did so as he taught them! Think for second...how many teachers begin with an angry tirade would ever get your attention!

To read anger into the actions, you must assume he rampaged through the temple, stopped, calmed himself and people sat to listen to him teach, then irritated the chief priests by evening! That would be a tall order for a man. If he scattered the people in a rage from the temple, how many do you think would have welcomed his teaching? And the Chief Priests and teachers began to conspire against him not because he rampaged through the temple -- but, because of his teaching. Which one would really inspire more hatred?

Was Jesus ever angry? Not sure. What my intention was is to divorce ourselves from our own interpretation based on our feelings -- and really investigate Christ for who/what he is. Quit reading with tradition, and really look at what is written -- those stories are far richer!

Wishes for the Season

2006-12-19T23:22:00.001-06:00

We are all blessed in this season of holidays. Whether one is Christian, Jew, or atheist -- we should each take this time to reflect upon those people that we have as family.

One does not have to be of any religion to understand love. My prayer is that each of us will take this season to express to those we love and hold dear, just how much we value them. While expressions of love should never be confined to any moment or season, let us take this season to ensure that we let those who walk through life with us as friends and family know just how much we consider ourselves blessed to be travelers with them.

For those who celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa -- may this season be one in which your festivals are joyful. For those who do not recognize a religious holiday, may your season with family be full of love and joy.

During this season, each of us should strive to let those who make a difference in our lives know we appreciate them. And, we should each strive to make a difference in someone else's life. And, if we can each spare a moment of time or a handful of coins, let each of us help to bring joy to those who might otherwise be without.

And last, may each of us remember those who serve our country. May we cast aside political labels and appreciate each person for their service to this nation. May we remember the soldier separated from friends and family who serves in distant lands. Those men and women who serve our Nation -- who protect our lands, and preserve our freedom. May we remember husbands/wives/children who will celebrate this season with a loved one far from home. Who each day cast an eye to the news hoping to catch a glimpse of a loved one serving, while hoping at the same time they don't see them among the casualties.

To each and all, may you have a blessed holiday, and may we each enjoy the company of family and friends.

Billie Goodson
December 20, 2006

Atheism and Honesty

2006-07-18T15:30:00.000-05:00

Isn't it amusing that someone would bring up the spector of "dishonest christian sources" in a thread on a public forum? In discussions about the religion of our founding fathers, I often run across atheist who are attempting to revise history and change the faith of our founding fathers. They do this most often through using quotations from the founders our of context, or using incomplete references. Here are a few of my favorites.

From http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

Late in life he [John Adams] wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

Mr. Adams did most assuredly write that. However, he went on in the next sentence to add:

"But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."
-- See the original document at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg

Another favorite is quoting from a letter from Nelly Custis-Lewis, the adopted daughter of Washington that lived 20 years with our first president. The site PositiveAtheism offers:

Custis: Never Witnessed Devotions
"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them."
-- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22

Funny, Nellie also says:

"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

Same letter -- I wonder why that gets left out?

In short ... one is left to wonder who is dishonest. Sometimes you hear the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" -- but, I am not sure Christianity plays the kettle or the pot in this.

Reflections

2006-07-18T15:29:00.003-05:00

Reflections

Monuments. What are they and why are we drawn to them? Why must we observe the monuments of yesterday, if not to learn for tomorrow? I love history, and the study of it. One person even said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures. So monuments provide for those of us today, a marker for yesterday’s successes and failures.

For 10 years, we lived in the Washington D.C area. Having done my undergraduate work in History, the D.C area was the first place I lived as an adult that was truly “historical.” Sure, Mobile and Huntsville, Alabama both have local history and some national significance if you dig enough. But, Washington D.C, the place where our burgeoning nation would teethe on the concept of “government for the people, by the people,” was a hotbed of history. I remember the first time I drove into the city and was confronted with the sight of our Nation’s capital building, standing majestically against the skyline. It was almost indescribable to finally behold with my own eyes that which I had read so much about before.

Invariably, any visitor to the capital city will have certain sights etched in their memories. Maybe it’s the National Archives which contains the Declaration of Independence witnessed by 56 men brave men who challenged the world’s strongest empire when they affixed their names to the treatise that would proclaim “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Perhaps it is the Lincoln Memorial, where the man who spoke over the site of one of America’s greatest battlefields that “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract" sits in granite immortalized.

For me, the most visually moving monument is the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. I visited it once alone, a private journey.

On a fall day, many years later, I would accompany my family to that hallowed monument.

Once criticized for its simplicity, no other monument ever had the dramatic effect on me that this one offered. I have walked Gettysburg and Appomattox. I have seen the remains of Hitler’s power in Germany. I have stood on soil where Americans have bled and died. Yet, somehow, this haunting memorial to 58,245 of America’s sons deeply moved me.

As moving as the monument was when I saw it alone, I was not prepared for the reaction my father would have at the Wall.

My father was a private person. He was of the breed that kept his emotions in check. That is not to say he never was upset or happy. He just never allowed others to see his emotions too deeply. He confronted the world with a sarcastic wit and was always ready to smile at himself and others. He served his nation proudly for over 20 years, going to defend the Republic of South Vietnam two times as a member of the 5^th Special Forces Group, and was honored to wear the Green Beret of America’s Special Forces. He served with distinction in what has been described by one source as the most successful Special Operations unit in the Vietnam theater of war.

Touring the Wall, a different side of my father was revealed. Together, we walked the path beside the panels that reflect the names. We stood together at the books that document the names on the wall. My father would recall a name, I would look it up. Each time I found a name and pointed it out, I could see him reflect on the memories of his brother in arms. When we didn’t find a name, he would nod his head, as if to say “he came home.”

My sister and I would talk later in the day about the reaction of my father at the Memorial. Dad was different that day. The crusty veneer that he presented to the world was cracked.

I still struggle with what I saw that day. I did not see the man my father had always appeared to be. I saw a man that felt the burden of seeing so many of his friends names' inscribed in the granite walls, brothers that saw their days end in a land far from home.

There are many that may say that America had no right to be there, and the war was wrong. I will not argue the politics, but, the fact that American men bled and died there is not changed. Whether the government was right in sending them, these men -- these soldiers, adhered to the oath they took upon entering the service of their country. Their's was not the argument of right or wrong, but of doing what those duly elected to office over them had ordered them to do. They answered the call of their country, and some paid the ultimate price for their loyalty.

My father passed away a few years later. On January 27, 2005 he breathed his last on this earth. As I spoke with my mother in preparation for his funeral, she shared with me that my father, two months prior to his death had “made his peace with God.” During the last year of his life he had become a devoted reader of the Bible. He was not an atheist prior to that, instead, my father had a knowledge of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. But, it was only a knowledge of who Jesus is, not an acceptance of what Jesus is.

When Jesus walked the earth, he was questioned by men as to who he was. The only time it seems during his life it was acknowledged who he was, it was by demons. They understood the person and the holiness of He who confronted them. Isn’t it amazing that only the demons of Satan understood that in front of them stood the 'Son of Man'.

Many people know who Jesus is, yet they don’t appreciate that He was more than just a character in a story. He was not just the son of Mary; He was the only Son of God. He was to serve as God’s attempt to reclaim his creation. God would continually strive to reunite with his creation and He would, at the Cross, complete the act of reclaiming his children.

My dad reached that knowledge prior to his death. He reached out and claimed the promises that God makes available. While his passing brought great sorrow, I know that one day, I will see him again. When my time on earth has passed, I will be welcomed into heaven and my father will be in the welcoming committee.

While preparing for the funeral, we went through many of my dad’s papers trying to gather required information for his decorations and awards. This brought back many memories of discussions with my father concerning his service and time in combat. My mind went back to that day when we stood at the Wall and beheld the monument to America’s dead. His reaction on seeing names on the Wall, and then knowing some of his friends returned home from Southeast Asia. It made me wonder. Is there a Wall in heaven?

What would a wall in heaven mean? Maybe the names of those who heard the gospel, but never grasped the availability of salvation’s eternal promise would appear there -- those who knew the good fight, but never fought it. Those who felt the tugging of the Holy Spirit, yet, turned away. Maybe those names would be marked on a Wall in heaven.

Seventy black granite panels bear the names of a generation’s sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers that bled and died in the jungles of that Southeast Asia land. I wonder how many panels would be in Heaven’s Wall? How long would we walk the paths laid out by the Wall, reading the names of friends and family, and wonder why they never grasped the calling of the Creator? Maybe, I would stand there with my father, and we could search the names for friends and family, and the share the joy of failing to find a name. And, we could stand with Jesus to see him smile that knowing smile for each friend’s name that we didn’t find, and I would know his thoughts, “That one is here with us, he is home.”

A Theory By Any Other Name

2006-07-18T15:27:00.000-05:00

A Theory by any other name.................

It is with some amount of humor that I read a recent editorial appearing in the Florida Today entitled “Concerning the teaching of the theory of evolution”. The author, appropriately anonymous, has seemed to confuse fact with fiction quite deliriously. The term "theory' does not denote a fact, but instead, somewhat less than fact. When I took science, oh so many years ago, I was taught that theories were unscientifically unproven. If they were proven, they would no longer qualify as "theory." Maybe that has changed with "enlightenment" of today's education. I tend to doubt that.

But, enough, let us move to the second paragraph of the offered prose. The writer’s statement that "evolution as the only scientifically valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" is somewhat laughable. I am sure this person considers themselves enlightened, probably even educated. I was taught that education was the acquiring of knowledge. This person need not acquire any, they have instead allowed others to think and have accepted it without the possibility of debate.

Has anybody ever done the math to figure out how long it would take for all of the different species/phylum/etc to come about? Actually, there is a mathematical look at that question of evolution probability. To summarize, the probability can be expressed as 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Oh, speaking of a 200 part organism, even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." [1]

Then again we are talking about time. Oh, thats right, the theory of evolution is not bound by time. If things don't fit, just change the time scale. For years, carbon-14 dating was held as a standard. However, anyone with a computer can do a search on carbon-14 dating and find as many people explaining the inaccuracies of the method as there are items for sale at EBay.

The author went on to point out a ruling by the Supreme Court that occurred in 1987 that forbid the teaching of creation. It is interesting to note, there is no ruling that specifically forbids the teaching of creationism. One needs to read the Supreme Court decision to grasp what was being contemplated by the Court. Justice Brenna, in writing the majority opinion stated; “In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

What the court decided in this case was not that creationism could not be taught, but that it could not be required to be taught to complement the theory of evolution. This prevents the Christian principle of creationism from being forced upon a school system simply because the theory of evolution is being taught. To make it simple, its like saying you have to offer Coke if you offer Pepsi, and the court ruled that you could in fact only offer one, the other could not be required. Justice Brennan in writing for the majority, did not include any language that could be construed as prohibiting the teaching of creationism.

That brings us to another fine point that lacks support. The Separation of Church and State, contrary to some opinions is not contained within the Constitution. This is no more within the Constitution than the three wise men were at the manger. Don’t confuse popular notions with fact. The concept of Separation of Church and State is factually traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. Our founders were careful to establish that the government should not force upon the people a religion, and now some would have the government force there to be no religion. While some may not see the difference, it is very clear to the educated what that distinction implies.

I find it humorous that someone that would claim to be educated would accept the opinion of some in science without question. But, I assume that is how some felt when they looked upon the scientific statements that stated the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or any number of popular theories that have been dis-proven with time. As a Christian, I have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution. It is only when the teaching neglects to notice the word “theory” that I have problems. If you choose to believe in evolution, then I have no objection. If I choose to believe in Creationism, why should you have a problem with that? Does my belief threaten yours? If my belief is correct, that will be revealed in time, if yours is correct, I guess we will never know. My belief has a better eternity payoff.

Did Christianity Steal from Mithra

2006-07-18T15:14:00.001-05:00

In response to a recent query for a forumteer on our local newspaper's forum to provide proof that Christianity stole from Mithracism, a website was provided as definitive proof of the claim. The site was a link to Acharya S' article providing proof of the claim.

What follows is my response to the article.

"It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... Swami Prajnanananda"

Is the assertation that the swami above is some mithraic theologian? It is doubtful. The first sentence gives it away...."It is said" -- by whom? When? Where? This discourse would not past muster in any fifth grade class. Sorry, this convinces me of nothing -- truth be known, I am glad paper was not wasted in its production. There appears to be a problem in this forum. Some people are want to make allegations and accusations, then seem to struggle to produce any credible proof as to what they say. I don't know is it just me that tends to not believe everything people say that they cannot support?

Just for giggles, I refute the previous argument referenced by Dan Foster with my own link -- http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm I guess this is how the freethinkers argue, post to other people's research. I guess it does make it simpler. However, I think it promotes a laziness that shows how easily a mind can be convinced of anything. This technique would be the sand, not the solid Rock. Jesus said to not build on the sand....there was a reason.

I have read the link posted and I will share with you some of the contents: ===================
Claim: Jesus and Mithra were both born of a virgin

Article Statement: "Like the vast majority of the ancient gods, Mithra was never a "real person." In actuality he was originally represented by non-human forms, following the Persian abhorrence of "idols," as related by Herodotus, until being personified or anthropomorphized after his migration to Asia Minor."

Analysis: Hmm, article says never a real person...but, the claim is born of a virgin. Sorry, someone with less intelligence will need to explain how that can happen. In my experience, one would have to be a real person to have been born...help me out here.

====================

Claim: Both were born on December 25

Analysis: Well, he wasn't a real person, so again, when was he born? Or not born...sorry, getting lost again in how Mithra, who was not a "real person" was born...maybe it was an easter egg treasure.

=====================

Claim: The sacrifice of Christ was taken from Mithra Article text: "Mithra's slaying of the Bull was an act that became as central to Mithraism as was the crucifixion to Christianity. The bull represented rebirth, fertility and fecundity, with his blood corresponding to the wine of the mysteries. The sacrifice of the bull was reenacted in the Mithraic baptism, a mystery rite in which the initiates were splattered with the blood. The initiate was then said to have been "born again."

and...

"The Mithra-Bull motif, in which the god seeks out, grabs the bull by the horns and then mounts it, resembles the Zen Buddhist story regarding the sage in search of his "bull," which represents himself. Indeed, in slaying the Heavenly Bull, Mithra is essentially sacrificing himself, in order to save the world: The bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Christ, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra himself is the bull, the god thus sacrificing himself, which is a close approximation to the Christian idea. That Mithra is himself the bull is further evident from Robert Graves's assertion that the "Persian Mithras was also eaten in bull form.""

Analysis: So Mithra killed the Bull as a sacrfice...but, Mithra was the bull, so he sacrificed himself? Ok....glad we got that clarified....
============================

Claim: Iconography of Christianity and adapation of Mithraic Icons From the Article: "Cumont also argued that the images of "heaven, earth, ocean, sun, moon, planets, the zodiacal signs, the winds, the seasons, and the like, found on Christian sarcophagi and in mosaics and miniatures areadaptations of Mithraic models.""

Analysis: Oh, without Mithras, or before Mithras, there was no sun, heaven, earth, moon, planets...etc? Sorry, these are common elements that have existed...well, since creation. To claim these as a "creation" of Mithras is really a stretch....

==============================

Claim: Mithras predates Christianity

From the Article: "Mithra as the Mediator is unquestionably a concept that predated Christianity by centuries, and the deliberate reference to Christ as the Mediator at Hebrews 9:15 is an evident move to usurp Mithra's position."

Analysis: This is the most obvious collapse of the whole story to me. Jesus is the Messiah, not simply because he claimed it to be so...in fulfilling the personage of the Messiah, Jesus was fulfilling prophecies that date back centuries. Jesus, or the Messiah to be more specific, is not a 1st Century out of the dark creation. He is a fulfillment of the old testament scriptures that date back centuries. Sorry, only someone clueless to Christianity could make the assumption the author makes in her piece. Only an acolyte of hers would accept this as valid.
=====================

It is clear from a cursury examination of the argument presented that it is at best a fairy-tale, and at worst a plea to the masses of the ignorant for more money.
=====================

Along another vein, the author states in her work one source, a Sir Weigall. In her text she identifies him as: "Christian apologist Sir Weigall". Who is this Christian Apologist. There is an Egyptologist that was also a Sir Weigall, but, there is no assertation in the portions of his biography that I could find that would identify him as a christian or an apologist. This seems clearly an attempt to present a person under false pretenses to add credibility to the claims being made. Sorry, as they would say on Mythbusters == B U S T E D

Continued Analysis of Foster's Evidence Dan Foster in response to my request for a scholarly source for the claim that Christianity stole from Mithraic legend was limited to a single posting from Acharya S on her website http://www.truthbeknown.com/ , linked to the specific page of mithra.htm. An interesting side note to the scholarly credentials of the author. If one visits the into page to her site, http://www.truthbeknown.com,/ you are presented testimonials from what would have to be described as individuals she places in high esteem. Remember, this is her site, not the site of some other person, so she chose the content. One would have to suppose, although I guess it could be argued -- pointlessly, that these are the best testimonials that could be gathered. Three names were listed as the source of the testimonials. I thought it might be interesting to determine the bona fides that these people were bringing with their testimonial. My findings were interesting:

===============

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era." ~ John Kaminski

High Praise indeed. Wow, what a testament. Who is this John Kaminski that has heaped this high honor on the author? Well, I googled him (scientific research as determined by our departed friend Andrew). The result was interesting. Seems Mr. Kaminski is an accomplished writer.

Let us look at the brief listing of titles authored by our laureate:

"THE DAY AMERICA DIED" -- from this insightful article, we can learn -- Arab terrorists didn’t hijack the planes. -- The Twin Towers didn’t collapse, they exploded. -- Fake cellphone calls and bogus box cutters.

"The Perfect Enemy" -- reveals that the al-Qaeda terror network is a fictional creation of the bloodthirsty maniacs who have seized control of the United States of America and now threaten the health and well-being of everyone in the world.

"The Universe Is A Laughing Woman" --Our planet has become a toxic landfill because men's rituals obscure reality.

Wow, this guy should be required reading in all of our schools.....
========================

Then there is the second testimonal

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves--indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence." ~~ Barbara Walker

Ms. Walker presents to us some of her most scholarly works -- "Knitting from the Top", or "Quest for Quimper" (Quimper is aparently a style of pottery). To be fair, she has also published "Feminist Fairy Tales" and has a deck of Tarot cards that can be ordered through Amazon.
========================

The third source was a little more problematic. The testimonial offered:

"Amidst global chaos, Acharya S is the voice of reason." ~~ Joan D'Arc

Catchy name...but, no, not that Joan. So who is this D'Arc? Googled it, no clear source at quick read. But, I did notice something when researching John Kaminski...who should have a testimonial on his site but Ms. D'Arc. Here is how she was quoted:

"In a voice almost too bold to contemplate, John Kaminski turns our attention toward the unspeakable: religious bigotry, vile stupidity in high places, and a bottomless pit of hatred in the world. Reading his essays will spin your head; you will be turned on a dime to his way of thinking." — Joan d'Arc, Paranoia magazine

Paranoia Magazine can be found at http://www.paranoiamagazine.com./ I will let the reader draw their own conclusions.

PS: If his work causes her to "turn on a dime" then there will surely be 9 cents change.

========================
So, you as the reader decide --- I asked for scholarly work, this is the evidence we have before us. No other view has been expressed. You decide.