iTheology

Paula White Video

2008-09-29T00:35:00.001-04:00

I saw this on youtube and thought you might like to see it.

First of all, John 3:16. Secondly, we're "adopted" as sons and daughters. The first-born of many is a qualitative statement as much as it is and quantitative. That means he isn't just another random human who opened the way and now serves no purpose but par excellence model (Schleiermacher).

Supernatural Operation

2008-09-07T00:41:00.001-04:00

The human brain is the most complex thing on this planet. Atheists and theists fight over what the brain is. Is the "soul" just the brain's "consciousness"? Mystery is often attributed to the supernatural. The less people know about science, the more they attribute to the gods. So, this concept is often then used to disprove religion. For instance, there is an argument that near-death experiences which tell of a mysterious "white light" are proof of the after-life. Some scientific evidence seems to show that these may be due to a lack of oxygen. This lack of oxygen causes the brain to reduce it's activity to it's innermost parts (which also happen to be the more primitive parts of the brain). So the "white light" is simply the result of the brain closing down to the simplest state in order to still run. Okay, so should we chalk this up to another win for atheists? There's just one problem with this. On the same program where I heard all these things I'm discussing, there was a man who told a story that fits with this situation. He said that he had an "out-of-body" experience while being operated on. He said that he hovered over his body while it was being operated on. Okay, so you're probably thinking that he's crazy. Well, he remembers some things about the surgery that would seem impossible to know unless somehow his consciousness was able to exit his body.

First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.

He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.

So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.

Watch The Offering Plate: A Response

2008-08-15T23:54:00.005-04:00

The following is a comment I left on a blog on myspace. Two of the current top 10 blog posts on myspace are from atheists. Atheism has a strong following on the internet sort of like Ron Paul had. Neither carry over with much veracity. Atheism is pride taken to the extreme. It's for the elites with their post-graduate degrees and their high horses. It's for those who love themselves, their own works, and their own minds so blindly that they can't see how simple the message of Jesus is. How true he is. How good he is.

Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.

Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.

Rob Bell Response

2008-06-17T12:43:00.006-04:00

This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.

Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.

The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.

Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.

I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.

The Problem of Evil

2008-06-06T13:18:00.001-04:00

Ever since I learned about the problem of evil as a theology student it has plagued me. They call it the “heart of atheism.” Specifically, the death camps of WW2 have been used to “prove” or illustrate that there can be no God. Quickly, let me go over the problem of evil for those who aren’t familiar with it (technically). I write technically because you are familiar with it whether you know the technical term or not.

P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”

P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).

The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.

One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.

Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.

So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.

I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.

God: Chapter 6 (Reality)

2008-03-28T13:55:00.004-04:00

While I was trying to think of ideas for our new church website, I thought about godtube.com. I decided to check it out to see if maybe I should either embed a video on our site or provide a link over. I came across a video that looked like it might be a candidate. The production quality was pretty good. It was filmed in black and white, used an interesting but non-distracting song, and some video effects (e.g. slow motion). Anyway, the video shows a guy in front of a building realizing he is out of money. Simultaneously, this broke man sees a teen walk into the building with a backpack on. He follows him in and waits for him to go into the stairwell. When they meet, he pulls his gun and shoots the boy taking his pack. This is where the video turned to crap. The shooter runs out of the front of the building and sits on the bench that he was at before entering the building. So first of all, he feels no strong need to get out of the area apparently. That doesn’t even compare to what happens next. The guy digs into the bag to find what he has just stolen. He pulls out a Bible. He doesn’t just look past it; he opens it up and starts reading it. Apparently he knew to turn to the New Testament. Of course, he goes from shooter to convert in less than 20 seconds. At this point, he runs back into the building to help the person he just shot. And this is the state of Christian media. Disconnection from reality serves no one. Would this happen? Where is the honesty? In real life, the man would have not hung around. He would not have grabbed the Bible and turned to Matthew 5. I get the point. I get the message. I get the hope of the message. But its disconnect with reality leaves a void. I can’t listen to a Christian message that lives in an ivory tower. I can’t be moved by something that I can’t relate to. Why can’t Christian art, in terms of music, photography, and video, be real? I can only think of a few examples (e.g. Nooma, Switchfoot). Is that why Nooma is so popular? Are Christians starved for a message that lives in our actual context…that faces our real problems with real solutions? Do we want something other than a solution in a book which is covered in dust. Are unbelievers open to a message in a different format?

In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.

So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.

God: Chapter 5: (God of Healing)

2008-03-18T01:06:00.004-04:00

The following is an archeological possibility. That means that I don’t know if the interpretation I’m about to take is valid or not because the interpretation is based on this place actually being the place described in John. Obviously as you will see, I think it fits rather well.

In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.

Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.

As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)

So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.

God: Chapter 4 (The Lost Letter)

2008-03-10T12:47:00.002-04:00

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” (1st Corinthians 5:9, The Net Bible). The “first” letter to the Corinthians mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. Why? Was it not inspired? More importantly, what would we do if we found it and could authenticate it? Certainly the Church isn’t unified enough to agree, but some would add it to their Bible. I suppose most wouldn’t. But why? The argument would be that it wasn’t inspired because if it was, then we would have had it from the beginning. So that is an argument against it based on time. Well, suppose humanity goes on for another 20,000 years. What is 2,000 years in that time frame? So then does eschatology effect our view of Inspiration?

Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?

I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”

God: Chapter 3 (The Nooma Revolution)

2008-02-26T15:38:00.001-05:00

Recently, I’ve really gotten into a Christian video series known as “Nooma.” A pastor in Michigan named Rob Bell is continually producing this series. He is the anti-typical pastor…young and non-suited. Enter on stage left the criticism. As a person who spent five years of his life academically studying theology, I realize Bell’s theology is “off.” I realize he isn’t spouting the typical view of God. I realize his Christology is of the type known as “low-Christology.” That is, he tends to focus on the human side of Jesus. The reality of our Tradition is that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine. That is the “official view,” but it isn’t what you hear in church. What you get in church is this “lofty, otherworldly” figure. You get the divine. To talk about him as a human is borderline heresy. It’s liberalism. That’s where the church is wrong. We make him out to be a distant divinity. We make him the untouchable, exterior figure that does some good stuff for us and then waits on us to get to heaven. Jesus didn’t just come to “get us to heaven.” He wanted to show us heaven. This life isn’t just a “waiting period.” It doesn’t just believe a fact about Jesus so that we don’t burn for eternity. Christianity is more than a belief…it’s a lifestyle. It’s a worldview. It’s a way of living that says there is more. Relationship with the divine is both possible and necessary. Jesus is our example. A real example. He is what we should be and do NOW. With the help of the Spirit, Jesus carried out the work of the Father. This is, in theological language, called “Spirit Christology.” When I learned what that was in grad school, it revolutionized my way of thinking about Jesus. It made Jesus human. He was a baby that cried like the rest of us. He had his “dirty diapers.” He fell. He dropped things. He cried. He learned. He was truly tempted. He resisted through the power of the Spirit. He knew what others were thinking through the Spirit. He healed by the power of the Spirit. In essence, Jesus was divine, but we know he laid down the power of his divinity to truly be human. Let’s let him be this. Let’s use his relationship with the Spirit to see how we too can be more. When we deny what Paul says (Philippian 2) about the “emptying of himself,” we deny what he did. Jesus did what he did as a human. He did it through the power of the Spirit. So this is what the “high-Chrisologists” and the “low-Chrisologists” don’t get. Jesus was both. High Christology, on it’s own, makes Jesus such a divine being that he wasn’t really like us, and therefore, he couldn’t be a true example for us. Low Christology makes him such a human that he couldn’t really do what only the divine could do—save us. So the missing link is Spirit Christology. With his relationship with the Spirit (which we can have as well), Jesus could truly be a human that saves us.

But what is he “saving” us from? This is what the Nooma series wants to show us. It isn’t just “hell” as we so often make it about. “Hell” is literally an “otherworldly” concept. It doesn’t make sense in our modern world. It just seems like such a mythical view of eternity. I’m not saying it’s untrue; I’m just saying that it isn’t something that motivates the modern person. The atheist doesn’t believe hell exists so he laughs at you when you try to convince him that he needs to convert to avoid hell. Nooma shows us that Christianity isn’t just about the afterlife but the present one as well. This life is what motivates us. I want to be a Christian even if it isn’t true. I want whatever way I live my life to be the best way to live my life regardless of if there is another life to come. People today are so focused on this life that speaking about the unknown next life is literally irrelevant to them. Rob Bell gets this. He thinks, as do I, that Jesus’ life shows us a better way to live in this world. Loving your neighbor doesn’t just yield a reward in the afterlife. It does here. Forgiveness shows her profit here. Fear isn’t the motivator it once was. When people don’t like this focus on the here and now, they don’t just misunderstand Spirit Christology. They don’t understand “The Kingdom of God.” Jesus came to initiate heaven on earth. The miracles he performed were “proleptic.” That is, they were an early glimpse of what is to come. Already do we have the Kingdom in Jesus, but not yet is it fully realized. We still have poverty, death, sickness, war, etc. Jesus came to the poor, raised the dead, healed the sick, and taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus is the bridge to the divine, not just divinity itself. Our world isn’t perfect, so the kingdom hasn’t been perfected. Yet we’ve been given the blueprint.

Most people that have seen some of the Nooma series say that their favorite video is “08 Dust” (myself included).

This is the story about Jesus’ calling of the disciples. In the video, Bell discusses the Jewish system of education. Students were taught to memorize the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament). Those that achieved this and were talented were allowed to continue on to learn the rest of the Old Testament. Those that didn’t make the cut were supposed to learn the family trade. The ones who continued then learned the rest of the Old Testament to only be told whether or not they could continue on learning from their Rabbi. Were they good enough? Were they talented enough to become “like” their Rabbi (which means teacher)? Only the best of the best could do this. So now, consider this in light of the calling of the disciples. The disciples were out fishing. So that means they hadn’t made the cut. They weren’t the best of the best, yet a Rabbi came along and said “follow me.” The Rabbi chose them where they had previously been rejected. They weren’t good enough to serve God, but now a Rabbi tells them they are. Now a Rabbi says you can do what I do. “I can make you good enough.” When Jesus walks on the water, Peter says “Lord, if it be you, call me.” Jesus says for him to come and Peter does. Peter knows that if the Rabbi does it, and the Rabbi says “come,” then he must be able to do it this as well. And Peter does. He does walk on water until he doubts himself, or in reality, he doubts his call. The call came from Jesus/his Rabbi, therefore, he can. Rob Bell says that Peter doubts himself instead of doubting Jesus (because Jesus isn’t sinking). People attack Bell here because they say that faith is in God, not one’s self. What they don’t get it is that faith in one’s self is faith in God. Why? Because we are called. We are not called by man. We aren’t good enough for man (e.g. the Rabbi’s rejected them). We are “good enough” for God. Jesus teaches us that calling = equipping. If we are called or asked to do something, then we can by virtue of who called us. We deny God when we deny his calling on ourselves. “High-Christology” people, always want to stress the greatness of God, so they do this by belittling man’s role in anything in religion. They do this out of a pure heart, but they just don’t get it. We are the hands of God not because he can’t accomplish his goals without us but because he chose this. The triune God chose to die on the cross when he didn’t have to do this to save us. We know from philosophy that whatever God does in action, he can do in word (consider creation…“Let there be…”). So the death on a cross was a choice which carried a visible meaning to us. God chose to create by voice but to save creation by action. He chose the cross and then said “go make disciples of all nations.” So who saves? Clearly Jesus does, but he chose the church to spread the message. He chose humans to do the work. The message is both of the afterlife and the current life. He doesn’t just heal in heaven. He doesn’t just release from addiction in the next life. He doesn’t just love in the next life. He doesn’t just restore in the next life. The Kingdom of God theology teaches us that heaven has invaded earth now.

The Nooma series has a video called “Bullhorn.”

This is about a man who wants to spread the Gospel by yelling at people to “save” them. Is Christianity just about avoiding burning? Is it more than that? That is what the Nooma series is. What is this life about? The essence of Christianity is not hell.

This is my 2nd favorite Nooma video. “Rhythm” It will say in 2 minutes what has taken me this whole time. (By the way, I love this song.)

Nooma

God: Chapter 2 (1+1+1=1)

2008-02-22T22:59:00.004-05:00

When I led a session on the Trinity, I asked the class to draw the Trinity. The result of this request was looks of bewilderment and to this day it is brought up. I don’t really understand why. The reality was that the objective was achieved the moment I asked the task of them. #1. It showed the complexity of the issue. #2. It revealed misunderstandings about the Trinity. It’s funny, but it’s hard to draw or talk about the Trinity without conveying a heresy. How do you draw singularity and plurality at the same time?

Why not tri-theism? Why don’t we just bite the bullet and admit we’re tri-theists? Remember the last chapter where I discussed why monotheism is superior to polytheism? There is no such thing as polytheism. If God exists as we think of him, then he must be a single essence.

What does this matter? Why does God being 1 essence and 3 persons matter? Dr. Cross says that the Trinity is a model for the church. He bases his entire systematic theology on this concept. God exists in community. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “body of believers.” What if God himself were a mini “body of believers.” The Father is the sender. The Son is the sent one. The Spirit is the relationship between the two. The Spirit acts as informer and comforter. So to, for humans, does the Spirit act as informer (e.g. Spirit of Truth) and comforter (e.g. Paraclete meaning “called alongside of”). Some have described it like this: The Father is the fullness of the Godhead invisible, the Son is the fullness of the Godhead visible, and the Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead to the believer.

Some in the early church didn’t think there was a “Trinity.” In reality, it’s not like before Jesus’ ascension he said, “Now you guys need to believe that My Father, the Spirit that is coming and I are all in this conglomeration called a ‘Trinity.’” The Trinity matters because the denial of the Trinity is the denial of who Jesus was. Can someone be saved and not believe in the Trinity? Yes. Why do I say that so confidently? I say that because people don’t know what the Trinity is even now, yet they know Jesus as “savior.” Jesus’ mission was to save, not convince us of his ontology (being). Why it matters is because philosophically, a human cannot save us. A human cannot remove our sins. A human cannot do what only a divine being can do. Therefore, for us to be saved, Jesus must be divine. Those who attempt to rob Jesus of his divinity attempt to rob us of our salvation. So, it must be true that Jesus is divine for us to be saved, but it doesn’t require our intellectual understanding of this. It isn’t intellectual assent alone that saves us “for even the demons believe.” Jeremy Taylor shows us that it begins with this but matures itself leaving the residue of works. Mature faith reveals the Trinity. It exists in community. It overflows in a loving relationship. It expands from the individual to the community to the society (as does the Trinity). It makes disciples of all nations. It doesn’t say “the three of us are enough.” It expands because it desires to.

One final note, John Calvin burned a man at the stake for a heresy of the Trinity (Servetus). You might not want to believe that God was the Father, then the Son, and now is the Spirit (Sabellianism). I used to be completely baffled as to why people burned others at the stake. I was especially perplexed for John Calvin to do it as a Protestant who understood how many early Reformers were burned at the stake. It hit me one day why they did this with no problem of morality. Besides the fact that they believed the condemned’s actions were severely dangerous to the community, they believed this person was going to burn in hell forever. If the person is going to do this forever, what is a few more minutes? It served to be a deterrent of that belief system. So the justification was to prevent others from following that “wrong” path. They could see where it would lead not only on earth but in eternity. It was an “object lesson.”

God: Chapter 1 (“The Logos”)

2008-02-17T01:31:00.005-05:00

“In the beginning was the Word….” What if I started a book out with “In the beginning was the word”? It wouldn’t be read with the understanding of what it meant. That is, we read that line and start theologizing it. The first readers didn’t have a capital “Word” which symbolized “Jesus.” So did it mean John was saying that in the beginning was a literal word? That seems pretty crazy. Maybe this “word” was “alphabet.” Maybe this “word” was “supercalifragisexpialidocious.” No, probably not. The reality is the original reader knew “word” (logos) to be a symbolic word. It was used in philosophy to convey a sense of intangibility and otherworldliness. So what is this word? What is it trying to represent? Before we get there, we should know first that this English translation falls short of it’s Greek equivalent. In Greek there is no “the” in the line “In the beginning….” So let’s write it in English without the article. “In beginning was the word.” What is John trying to say? Well, we still don’t know what “word” is so all we know is that John is trying to convey that there was no specific beginning. The article “the,” if it were there, would be called a “definitive article.” It would the type of “the” which tries to send the “message of specifics.” Let’s say you and I co-own a dog, and I said “THE dog” jumped over the creek. You would know which dog I’m referring to. So if “the” were there, it would mean John would probably be saying this “word was” when time began. This word “was” when Genesis 1:1 happened. So “the beginning” referred to here is not Creation. In fact, the writer seems to be suggesting there was no time period when this “word” is mentioned. Time seems to be irrelevant in this word…almost existing outside of it. So what kind of thing is being referred to here if it can exist outside of time? I suppose we’re left with only a supernatural being. So this word is already exposed as a supernatural being by the lack of a single tiny word “the.”
You didn’t think this was enough material on the first third of that verse did you? We haven’t even looked at “was.” This word points to a past. Now remember the philosophical use of “logos”? It meant the logos was an “intangible thing” or an “otherworldly thing.” So this logos was. In verse 14, the logos “became flesh.” “Was” is no longer used. “To become” (egeneto) is used. So it doesn’t say this word “was” flesh but this word “became” flesh. The intangible became tangible. The otherworldly invaded this world. The immaterial became material. The timeless entered time.
“…And the word was with God….” Wait wait wait. We just learned this logos was supernatural. So how can there be 2 gods? If this logos isn’t God himself than he must just be a supernatural being like an angel. My other question is what does “with God” mean. Does it mean equality? Does it mean they’re buds who like to hang out? Why did John say in the first part of this sentence that the logos was there in the timeless beginning? How could this supernatural being be there when time didn’t exist? That would mean it wasn’t created. We already know that which isn’t created is God itself (via philosophy). This is getting complicated because we have a timeless being (1st third of John 1:1) that we learn is in some way separate from “God” (2nd third of John 1:1). Nothing is co-equal with God so what is going on here?
Well, let’s look at the Greek. The “with” is not the usual word that is translated as “with” (e.g. meta). The word used (pros) is usually translated as “to” which refers to a direct relationship. Like, “I give this “to you.” That wouldn’t make any sense in English though, so it isn’t written “…and the word was to God….” The reason it is translated as “with,” besides the fact that “to” wouldn’t make sense, is that “with” is what it is trying to convey. This word and God are distinguishable yet inter-related. The two have a relationship of intense closeness, yet by the very fact there is a relationship, the two are not the same. We say in our “Christian thought” that “two become one” in marriage. The two have such close relationship that they are united in various ways yet the very fact that they can be united makes them separate. So apparently we have 2 gods. Well, that is until we read the final third of the verse.
“…and the word was God.” So now we have a separate God but the same God. What is going on? John grew up monotheistic so we know he likely is not trying to suggest there are two gods. Maybe he is trying to say this is God manifest now. That Old Testament God was the past and this is the new experience of God. This is known as Sabellianism or technically that God is one person experienced as The Father first, then the Son/Word, then the Spirit. It also happens to be a heresy which John’s words are actually fighting against. Kai theos en ho logos. “…And God was the word.” This is how it is written in Greek, but it isn’t the order in which it is written in English. This is because we write the subject first. How do we know which is the subject: God or the logos? The article tells us this. The “the” (in the Greek above “ho”) tells us that the logos is the subject of the sentence and since we, unlike the Greeks, usually put the subject first, it must be written “…and the word was God.” We know from “and the word was with God…” that this logos is not the same person as God. So why here is John walking the line with Sabellianism (that the word is God)?
John is trying to avoid another misunderstanding which became very popular in the early church called Arianism (not Nazi Aryanism). This heresy taught that Jesus was a created being. A god-like being created to save humanity and could be worshipped because of his closeness with God and his work. To the Arians, he was of a “similar” “substance” as God. Why the quotes? Ever heard the phrase “it doesn’t make one iota’s difference”? Actually, you may not have, but my dad uses it all the time. In Greek, “similar” and “same” are separated by “one iota.” This one little letter is the difference in whether Jesus is actually God (uncreated being) or similar to God (created being). There is a significant problem with the idea that a created being can be a God. It’s really simple. Polytheistic cultures like the Greeks and Romans had multiple gods who controlled things. Mars was the God of war. So you offered Mars a sacrifice before going to war. I believe Neptune was the God of the sea. There were gods of love, peace, fertility, life, healing, death, harvests, marriage, etc. If there really is a god or gods then this/these god/gods should have certain characteristics. (This is a philosophical way of proving the superiority of monotheism over other theistic beliefs). “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived” (paraphrase of Anselm). God then is ultimate good, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and unlimited in by space-time (aka God personifies goodness, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and is omnipresent). If God is all-powerful, then he is the God of war and the god of fertility (because he can cause fertility). This same God controls the seas (e.g. Jesus walks on the water). This same God can heal (since he created us in the first place). The monotheistic God encompasses all the gods of the Romans into a single God who can do everything those gods can do, and more. Which is God: “Mars, God of war” or “God.” Which is God: a god who can do a single task or a god who can do every task? It’s simple philosophy that shows us that monotheism is far superior to polytheism.
So, Jesus could not be created by God because that then makes him a sub-god, which we know from the philosophy above, is no God at all. “…And the word was God” conveys that this logos is God himself. We know from “was with God,” though, that he is not the same person. So we have multiplicity of persons in the Godhead. The exact Greek that was used appears to be very intentional. It’s walking the tightrope of heresies to convey a new theology of God based on the new revelation of his Son. Keep John’s purpose in mind because we have to look at the “Jehovah’s Witness” translation of John 1 now.
Jehovah’s Witness theology translates the final third of John 1:1 as, “the logos was a god.” Why and how? Well, it isn’t because they’re evil and don’t any understanding of the Greek. It’s because they have too little understanding of the Greek. Technically, what was done is okay. What I mean is, if the Greek article comes before a noun, then typically it is definitive (THE, like I talked about earlier). It points to a specific person. If there is not definitive article, then an “a” can be supplied in English to show generality/plurality. So the lack of an article can and often does allow for the adding of “a.” So why is it incorrect to use it here?
If the article were before both nouns (God & Jesus) [would look like this “ho theos en ho logos” or “the God was the word”], then John would be saying that Jesus and God (Old Testament concept of “God”) were the same “person.” Basic Christian theology teaches a trinity of persons yet one substance. There is no single person in the godhead. Jesus is not all of the trinity. Jesus is not all of the Godhead. He is one of the three persons. If John had used an article before both nouns, this also would allow for the interchangeability of subject and direct object. Basically, “the God was the word” and “the word was God” would both be appropriate translations. This helps one see how John had a purpose in not using the second article. It prevents this interchangeability. We know later from v.14 that “the word became flesh.” The Father did not. “God” did not (“God,” here would mean the Old Testament concept of God which I contend means “Father”).
Some have suggested that the lack of the article before “God” conveys “divine essence” more so than personhood. Remember, the trinity (GOD) is both 3 persons and 1 essence. Consider that with this: Greek often uses word order to convey emphasis. The first word in a clause is the most important (“theos en ho logos” “God was the word”). That means “God” or “divine essence” as we just learned, is the emphasis. The logos WAS divine is the meaning. Furthermore, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right with “a God,” then how would John construct the sentence to fit the traditional interpretation? In other words, how would he write it if he wanted to write it the way that “the rest of us” interpret it? Here is how: the way he did. He could only write it that they way it was. Two articles = the heresy of Sabellianism. Zero articles = no subject and therefore, it wouldn’t even be a sentence. It would be like me trying to write a sentence without a subject. It had to be written the way it was.
So, in the context, it does not make much sense to translate it “a God” despite being technically possible. For one, we’ve already seen that there can be no such thing as a lesser God. There is either one God or no God but multiple gods is an impossibility. Also, it would require John to drop his monotheistic roots which simply didn’t happen with Jews. They were drilled from the time they could understand words (Deut. 6:4) “The LORD Our God is ONE.” Thirdly, the JW’s translation is the result of “sophomore syndrome.” That is, they have a little bit of knowledge but only enough to use it foolishly (soph- meaning “wisdom” + mor- meaning “fool”). The JW”s don’t name who their translators are and the ones that have come out have been revealed to have no more than two years of Greek education. I, myself, had two years of Greek, and I can tell you that I could only handle the easiest book of the New Testament (I John). For example, after my first year of Greek, we finally got to look at actual passages from the New Testament. I was excited at the prospect because of how much time and effort I had devoted to it. So the teacher told us to translate Luke 1:1-4 and come back the next day. That sounds like no big deal because it’s only four verses but four verses is easily over an hour of work. So, when we came back the next day, the teacher tallied up how many new words (meaning we hadn’t learn these yet in our vocabulary from the first year) were in these four verses. I believe it was around 15 and one of the words was 16 letters long. None of us could actual do the sentences because we didn’t know the words we were supposed to be translating. So if we couldn’t translate four verses, how could they translate the entire New Testament?

Knowing the Unknowable

2007-11-22T00:48:00.000-05:00

Every year I declare that I’m not going to watch the new season of MTV’s The Real World. Every year I fail…except for the Las Vegas seasons. Now, why the Las Vegas seasons? I have no idea. I loved Vegas when I went there, so that baffles me. Anyway, the latest season is in Sydney, Australia. I think the following is true: they allowed America to vote for who would make up the cast. Funny thing, America didn’t vote in any gay or bi people. MTV must have been shocked that the majority of Americans don’t think 1 out of 7 is a representative percentage. Good lord I’m talented at not getting to the point.

Okay, there is a man named Isaac on the show. He used to do acid when he was a teenager. He is off it now, but he has side effects that have stayed with him. I didn’t even know this about him until this last episode. Well something happened that got me thinking. He woke up one morning and said he saw a black bird. By “saw” he meant HE saw it and no one else could see it. He has visions occasionally which he attributes to having been on acid. He didn’t have the visions before he got into drugs. Anyway, he doesn’t talk about it because it obviously makes him look crazy. Well seeing the black bird wasn’t just a reminder of his past. He had seen a black bird before. Four times to be exact. Each time he saw the bird it was a sign that someone he knew died. So, to see the bird freaked him out. He called home and had someone call around for him. His mood changed dramatically. I don’t know if it was that day or the next, but someone from home called him and told him that his Grandpa had just died.

Now here is my question: how would an atheist explain that? The little I know about atheism teaches that there is no such thing as the spiritual world. Would it have to be chalked up as a 6th sense? Maybe that would avoid the spiritual route, but it seems that a 6th sense of knowledge would be mental. What I mean is that you would just know it. It wouldn’t require a bird flying in your mind. It wouldn’t need to communicate through signs. My way of viewing what happened to him is that the acid altered his brain in such a way that he can sometimes view parts of the spiritual world. I get that what I just wrote is pretty mystical and primitive, but there is something more to our world than just the physical. That is the part that the atheist would have a problem with.

Have you ever known something before it happened? I have, and the occasions range from the funny to weird to downright impossible. I don’t know what to think of this, but I have a funny example. Before I write it, I should preface it with this: I think this was probably just a weird coincidence.

When I was about 10 years old, I lived in Branford, Florida. After church one night, we had some people over. My mom was talking to one of the church members when she said something that I couldn’t understand. She said it in a weird way, so of course, I made fun of it by saying what I thought she said. So, I said, “Fred, the chickens are coming.” I didn’t just say it. I added an accent, and I kept repeating it over and over. Less than one week later we came home to find like 5 or 6 chickens in our yard. They hung around our yard for about a week. Never before and never since have I lived anywhere where a chicken came onto my property. I don’t know what to make of that. Like I said, it was probably just random coincidence.

For summer, I always came home from college. I tried to work every year. One year I came home and didn’t know where I wanted to work. I can’t remember which year this was. Anyway, I felt like I was being a bum by not working, so I decided I would go back to work at Southern Dunes. For whatever reason before I ever even went up there, I felt like I shouldn’t go. For some reason I felt a pull that that was not the place I should be at. I thought that that feeling didn’t make any sense, and I was just being lazy. One day I just forced myself into going up there to talk to my old bosses to see if I could work for just a couple months. It seemed like it would work out, but I needed to talk to a specific person who wasn’t there at that time. Later that night we had church. When I walked into the foyer of the church, a person standing in the foyer looked at me and said, “You shouldn’t have gone there.” I don’t remember what my response was, but I knew exactly what he/she was talking about. Now how did I know? Even more so, how did he/she know? Discernment is real. This person wasn’t psychic and neither am I. God tells us things sometimes that we could never know on our own. I think about that sometimes and wonder what the big deal was. Why was working at Southern Dunes, that summer, not a good idea? The only thing I can think of is that maybe I would have gotten into an accident. But you know, when you go down that road, you could just as easily say God could prevent the accident. I don’t know what that deal was about.

This past Sunday, my dad announced service for that night. By the end of the morning service, he said that he didn’t know why, but he felt like he shouldn’t have church that night. He doesn’t just call off church especially for no reason. The reason was “no reason” only in the sense that he didn’t understand it. The one telling him did.

I had another incident in my life where I knew something that was impossible to know. I’ve never told anyone, and I’m not about to here.

There is a spiritual world. There are things that are impossible to be known, by normal means, but can be known by the spiritual.

Time, Part 6: Chemical Time

2007-11-15T21:00:00.000-05:00

A wise man once said, "Keep it simple stupid." I have not done that with any of my entries on "time." So, I'll try that with this one. "Chemical Time" is a made up term I'm using to describe the way humans view time differently. The question was asked, does time pass quicker for some and slower for others? The answer is yes, but this isn't due to genetics. It's due to chemical released in the brain. Let me discuss some experiments to illustrate this point.

A group of seniors were randomly stopped on the street and asked if they would participate in a science experiment. That experiment called for them to count to 60 seconds. The point of the exercise was to see how close they would come. Would they generally be go over 60 seconds or under? I think if we had to guess, we'd say that they would go over. Well, we'd be right. On average, the older crowd took too long (about 67 seconds). Now, let's flip this to the teenagers. The exact opposite was true. They counted to fast and were under 60 seconds. Why? Why did we already have a hunch how this would turn out? We know that old people drive slowly. They walk slowly. Everything tends to be slower. Is it just energy level? Could energy level be apart of the reason?

Let's look at another experiment. Ever heard of near-death experiences where time slowed down for the person? This is a difficult thing to test obviously because it requires someone being near death. An idea that was used was to place a watch-like contraption on a man's wrist and drop him from a long distance into a net. The man knows he will be fine, but the fear of falling overrides rationality. So it could work. The trick was that the contraption on his wrist would have a flashing number on it. The speed at which it flashed was so fast that it was unreadable to the human eye. The scientist wanted to see if it could be read while in mid-fall. Beforehand, the contraption was shown to the camera at its normal flash rate. I could not read it. So what was the result? The man read one of the two numbers correctly. So it "sort-of" worked. He got the first number right but missed the 2nd. I can tell you as someone who saw it beforehand, the only way to get even one number right was to guess correctly. It was simply too fast to see it. They tried it again and got the exact same result. He got a different first number right but missed the 2nd. I can't explain the miss of the 2nd number, but again, to even get one right seems to suggest that the myth of time slowing down is not actually a myth. When you're in a near-death experience, the brain releases chemicals like adrenaline which seems to slow down your ability to process information. This makes sense because in such an important moment, the ability to react quicker would result in survival more often than not.

The final experiment I want to tell you about involves some mice trained to hit a button at exactly 14-second intervals in order to receive food. The mice were trained to do this and could do so almost flawlessly. Here is the kicker. For this experiment, the trained mice were given shots of different stimulants. The first was given crack. The second was given marijuana. In humans, crack speeds up a person's actions while marijuana tends to slow them down. This is true of the mice as well. Instead of hitting the 14-second interval just like they used to, both were off. The one on crack hit the button too soon. The one on marijuana hit it too late.

What does all this suggest? The way we view time is different based upon what is going on in our heads. Time is truly relative. When you get behind a old person driving slowly, it's because his view of time and yours is different. In his mind, he is traveling as fast as you. How strange is that? What I mean is that he feels he is driving normally…so do you. I guess the good news kiddies is that you're gonna grow up fast and die slowly. That is, you become an adult quickly. Go through life normally. When you're older, time slows down for you to enjoy what you have left. At least that is the game plan. Ready…Break.

ps, This is the last planned entry I have for this series, but I guess I could come across something later.

pss, Go buy the new Angels & Airwaves cd and thank me later.

Secret Crowds

2007-11-08T13:55:00.000-05:00

I know this will likely mean nothing to most, but I want to write about another Angels & Airwaves song. I wrote a while back about a lyric from the first cd in which the line was, “I wanna have the same last dream again, the one where I wake up and I’m alive.”

Here it is (with an anecdote edited out) if you need some context:
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Alive
I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which is absolutely, incredibly good). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery [and I would add now, hopeful progress]. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a 2nd chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?

I wrote just two more entries after this before Celeste died. I think about that when I listen to that song. She subscribed to my blog, so I believe she read it. Words are powerful. I know that little things said in a classroom are sometimes remembered for the rest of someone’s life. Celeste never said a word to me about that entry, but it could have effected her. I hope it did.

Well, I didn’t expect to go down this road. I was simply trying to setup why I was going to talk about “Secret Crowds” (another Angels & Airwaves song off their new cd). So here, I finally go:

"If I had my own world, I'd build you an empire." This is the opening line of "Secret Crowds." Immediately, that seems so "music lyric-esque." My meaning there is this: it comes across as another lyric that makes no sense. His point is this, he'd like the world to be different. What if you had the power to create a world? What would it look like? I believe God created our world, but chose to give free-will. That is where things took a dive.

The way I view the song is if God himself were singing it. I see it as what he intended for us and what we will receive in the end. I see the empire as "The Kingdom of God." The theology of the Kingdom of God is very interesting to me. I believe in a form of eschatology (study of the end times) in which the Kingdom of God (discussed in the Gospels) is already, but not yet here. It's like Jesus came to save us, but what does save us mean? Well, it has to do with the restoration of our world but this is inclusive of everything (plants, animals, humans). The lion will lay down with the lamb. Jesus brought the Kingdom of God with him. Healings are a sign of this Kingdom. Some get healed (already) but some do not (not yet). In the afterlife, we believe there will be no more sickness and death. Didn't Jesus spread that as he preached? He healed people and gave both spiritual and physical life to people. He didn't do this every where. Already here, but not yet fully realized. This is the Kingdom of God. It desires "that no man shall perish." God built us an empire. We chose this for ourselves. Salvation is about the restoration of this decision. (I just realized that I wrote all of that and I've only gotten past the first lyric.)

Here are the lyrics:
(If I had my own world)
(I'd build you an empire)

If I had my own world
I'd fill it with wealth and desire
A glorious past to admire
And voices of kids out walking dogs,
Birds, planes, trees and cars

If I had my own world
I'd love it for all that's inside it
There'd be no more wars, death or riots
There'd be no more police, packed parking lots,
Guns, bombs sounding off

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the far lands
To spread love like violence

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies

Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Inventing the first clean and usable,
God's greatest miracle

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder

Another lyric I want to talk about is, "Watch our words spread hope like fire." It reminded me of Hebrews 12:29, "For Our God is a consuming fire." That is a reference to a verse in Deuteronomy, but I think the Deuteronomy verse references back to the burning bush. The fire consumed the bush but did not burn it up. Fire is used in a way in Christianity that I find interesting. It illustrates fervor and intensity but without destruction. It's the perfect metaphor for the song because in this new "perfect world" he is describing, fire needs to not be destructive. It has all the power it used to but for positive purposes. Hope should be infectious. Hope should spread from one to another. There are a lot of hopeless people, but it's the responsibility of the church to spread hope. Spread it with the speed, intensity, and purity of fire.

The next line I liked was, "Secret crowds rise up and gather. Hear your voices sing back louder." I interpret here, the secret crowds as the "invisible church." That is a theological term for those in the church who are actually "saved." The Protestants developed this idea because they split off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was The Church. What the Protestants showed was that the church isn't a physical building nor a physical group of people. Joe Shmoe could walk in the building, but that doesn't make him a believer. It's the belief that makes one apart of the Church. The Greek has a couple words for church—ecclesia and koinonia. The ecclesia were the "called out ones." These are the people chosen by God to be saved. (I'm not going into Predestination or opposing views, frankly the New Testament has both views in juxtaposition). The koinonia are the group of believers who fellowship together. They share commonality. The line I quoted has both versions of the Church. It has the "secret crowds" which is the ecclesia (the people called out from among others). Then it talks about singing back louder. What is a choir? It is a group of people singing together "on the same page." So basically, I see this world that he is describing as including the Church. It's as if God wants to change this world, so he's asking his "secret crowd" or the "called out ones" to rise up and do their part. Use your words to spread the Gospel (aka good news). Remember, he wants the good news to spread like fire.

The next 2 lines go:
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies

Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you

Doesn't that sound like, "I have come that you might have life more abundantly"? This new life can exist with friends, families, and even in the midst of enemies. The new world God says he will create is a world in which death is gone. Peace does not know worry. He says that you can go if you want to. It's about hearing and then receiving. "I know that you have it within you."

Later he says, "Let me feel you, carry you higher. Watch our words spread hope like fire" I didn't know the line at first, so I thought he said, "Let me heal you, carry you higher." Think of Jesus healing people and then they get up and walk. They get off the dirty ground that they've been on for most if not all of their life. They stand and walk. It's "higher" physically but also spiritually. I know he doesn't actually say "heal" but my entire point is the interpretation of the song. Their lyrics lend themselves to this…this "epic" or "higher" way of thinking. Healings are apart of the Kingdom of God. God's wish is for good. Jesus' work was this restoration. It was the beginning of the Kingdom of God that will break through. Spread hope like fire.

Time, Part 5: Mitochondria

2007-11-05T21:12:00.000-05:00

Remember my intro where I said I was going to travel down the science route but I was likely to stumble over my words? Well, I'm sure you've noticed that already. Today I'm going to write again about something that I don't understand. Your bodies have life-giving material called mitochondria. I don't know where it comes from or even what it is. What matters is that it powers our existence. It keeps us alive. According to one of the shows that I watched regarding time, humans aren't programmed to die. That is, aging isn't written into our DNA. Aging is a result of destruction, not genetics. Your DNA doesn't read a line of code which eventually comes to the point of your death. Mitochondria continually makes new our cells. However, there is something working against this. Our daily actions continually cause damage to our bodies. What we eat is often not good for us. We brake bones or put stress on our bodies. It's the continual destruction of our bodies that outweighs the construction of mitochondria. We can't keep pace. Something is aiding this process. This something is known as "free radicals." No, not "New Radicals," the one-hit-wonder band with the song "You Get What You Give." But, thank you for bringing that up. I just downloaded it from iTunes a week ago. Great song. Anyway, free radicals are produced in our bodies just like Mitochondria. These free radicals go around destroying cells. (I don't begin to understand why they are there.) What matters is this: we know that they are there and there may be a way to reduce them. If we can find a way to cut the amount of free radicals down, then we might be able to slow down or even stop the aging process. (By the way, we're working on this in rats, and we're making progress.) Obviously, this doesn't help with accidents or war, etc. As medicine continues to understand more and more, we may be able to prolong life. From the program, it appeared that this could help even with diseases. So, I'm guessing something like cancer wouldn't be able to be a quick killer. That part, though, wasn't discussed much. The main thing they focused on was to say the "125 year" limit could become a memory due to the possibilities of blocking free radicals.

What would this mean to life? Our time on earth would change. I can't even come close to discussing all the ways that would change our lives but consider this one: How about knowing your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Grandfather. You better remember his birthday this year or you'll get it. Anyway, what I found so interesting about the show was the amount of years it was suggested we could live. Can you guess? One thousand. Now, where have I heard that before? Think back to the Bible. Remember those stories in Genesis about how there was a time when people lived 900+ years? How do we rationalize that? Why did they live so long? Why don't we? Why does it appear people will live 1,000 years in Revelation? (I'm not going into the question of whether the 1,000 years is literal or not). I just found it interesting that the host of the show said "1,000" years and Revelation seems to say the same thing.

Time, Part 4: The Double Slit Experiment

2007-10-30T14:24:00.000-04:00

It’s been a while since I last wrote, but I just haven’t had “the time.” Oh, man that was a good one!

Okay, let me start with a correction. In a previous part, I talked about “muons” but I called them “neuons.” I also said that they were particles that came from distant locations in space. Well, actually they are particles that meet our atmosphere. In this place where space meets our atmosphere, muons are born. I still don’t understand them, but I know that they’re only supposed to last for 2/10s of a seconds. We find them on the land, so it’s the distance from the top of the atmosphere to land that is the great distance they cover in so little time.

The Double Slit Experiment

Newton gave us the 3 laws of motion that we thought were universal. However, what seemed so fundamental breaks down at the “quantum” level. The “tiny world” doesn’t have to follow the same rules as our common sense world. This is quite strange. It used to be that we thought of our world as being three-dimensional. Only recently did we begin to think of it in terms of being 4 dimensions. On the molecular level (or quantum), though, it’s thought that our world is as much as 11 dimensions (string theory). My point, for this discussion, is to illustrate that the “small” world operates much differently than ours (not to go into string theory). The quantum world is foreign. I’ve kept a video on my page for a long time which is of a science experiment that has some strange results. Now would be a good time for you to watch it. It’s called the “Double Slit Experiment.” It’s a good thing certain people aren’t reading this right now because they would be making a joke. I’ll abstain.

First of all, this is very strange. It is essentially saying that matter, on the quantum level, can exist in two places at the same time. It can de-localize. If our world is far stranger than we first thought, then some of the strange possibilities of time travel may in fact be possible. To exist in two locations at the same time is impossible right? Marty McFly. Remember him? Well, he exists as his teenage self yet also as his older self when they travel to the future. It’s just so strange to think about time travel that we just automatically say it’s impossible. We would make that same assumption regarding this experiment if it were not already seen that strange things do happen. Could a person de-localize? Could a person exist in two places “at the same time”? Think about that phrase “at the same time.” In the movies, Marty and Doc go to the future and go to Marty’s home. Old and young Marty exist in the same time period but not the same place (other 3 dimensions). That is to say, young and old Marty don’t exist in the same space-time (all 4 dimensions). They don’t both stand in the same spot. One is in one room and the other is hiding. So what the question “Could a person exist in two places at the same time?” really forgets is that time is another location that you’re leaving out when you say “places.” Of course, he can’t stand in the same spot as the other Marty as if he is entering his body. However, he could, theoretically, be in the same house and say hello to himself because he isn’t violating all 4 dimensions.

I think I’m making that complicated to follow. Think of it this way. You go to firehouse subs every weekday at noon. You stand right in front of the cashier and order exactly at noon. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Wednesday? No, cause you’re there blocking me. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Saturday? Yes, because I’m not violating the time dimension. Can I stand exactly where you stand every weekday and pay on a Wednesday at 11:57am? Yes, because even though I’m violating three of the dimensions you need, I’m not violating all of them (time). You need to stand in front of the cashier (3 dimensions) and pay at noon (includes the 4th dimension). When Marty goes forward in time, he violates the time dimension, but not the other 3 dimensions. So common sense only prevents all 4 from being violated simultaneously. Think about the quantum experiment. It’s like on the quantum level that a particle can exist in two locations without even traveling in time. Young and old Marty “split” in a sense in to two people because of time travel. In the experiment, there is no time travel that can explain the “split.” That is what makes it even more weird.

Bottom line: I don’t get it. If our world really is that complicated, though, how can we just assume that time travel is impossible? I get the Grandfather Paradox and problems of causality. For that reason, I don’t think it is possible. However, it could be.

Time, Part 3: The 4th Dimension & The Grandfather Paradox

2007-10-26T12:48:00.000-04:00

What does 3D mean? It refers to the three dimensions, but what is a dimension? Dictionary.com says it is “a property of space; extension in a given direction.” So consider this straight line:

_____________________________________________________

That line travels in a single dimension. If our whole world was just 1 dimension, then we could travel left and right and that would be it. We couldn’t pass anyone. There would be no “up” to go over the top of the other person. Okay, what is the next dimension?

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Either that is the up-down dimension, or that is a bunch of I’s. You decide. The final dimension is what people really mean when they say something is 3D. The text you see now is 2D. If it could pop out at you, then it would be 3D. It’s the difference between Zelda on Nintendo and Zelda on N64. So why talk about this? Well, the next dimension is time. Objects can move along in time just like the other dimensions. Well, sort of. We can, at this point, only go in one direction with time. Have you ever heard that real estate is about location, location, location? Well, that is true, but it is true in “space-time” (which is another way of speaking about location in terms of the 4 dimensions rather than just the 3). If my family had bought some nice real estate on Bates Road in Haines City back in the year 2000, it would have taken just a few years for that investment to pay off. However, if we had bought it in 1950, it would have taken way too long to pay off. What is wrong here? The location is fine, as we know now. Well, the location would not have been fine in 1950 because location involves time, not just the other 3 dimensions. As time went by (moved), it became a good investment. “Space-time” is thinking of our world in terms of length, width, height, and time.
So if all the other dimensions can be traveled back and forth, why not time? Well, many “scientists say” (yes, I see the irony), that we theoretically can. It’s just a matter of speed. The faster an object travels, the slower time appears to go by for those observing. However, for the person going fast, time carries on as normal. You wouldn’t notice anything different, but if you could travel near the speed of light, then you would gain time (apparently to others). This begs the question, wouldn’t you still age the same? If that is true, then you may have “traveled back in time” to those around you, but it seems your “body age” would remain the same. So, you didn’t reverse time for yourself. To people on earth, you went forward in time (because now you have gray hair). To you, they went back in time (because they didn’t age like you). There is another way to time travel by using worms holes…but I don’t think we’re going there.
This whole concept of time being relative is apart of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There are particles called (I think it is spelled this way) neuons. They don’t exist for very long. I forgot where they came from (again, I’m just a dude, not a scientist). They travel nearly at the speed of light. These neuons are so distant that they should dissipate before ever reaching the earth. So how do we know about them? We know about them because they do make it here. How is that possible? Well, they travel so fast that time, in a sense, slows down for them. Relatively, time slows for them to get here despite the fact that there shouldn’t be enough time. If time were constant, it wouldn’t work. If time were relative, then this would explain why it works. This is part of why time is not thought to be constant anymore. It is a dimension that can be traveled “left (past) or right (future).” Well, so the theory goes.
Okay, that had to be the worst explanation of the relativity of time in the history of mankind. However, when I’m in my 90’s and time travel becomes practical, I’ll just go back and rewrite it. You won’t even know that I wrote it so poorly.
While we’re on this subject, though, we should look at why there are massive problems with time travel. The major problem with traveling back in time is “causality.” This problem is often illustrated with the “Grandfather Paradox.” This states that time travel shouldn’t be possible because otherwise you could travel back in time and shoot your Grandfather before you were ever conceived. If you did this, did you do it? If you kill your Grandfather, then don’t you automatically disappear? If you disappear, then who shot your Grandfather? See the problem? Your Grandfather then, doesn’t die and then does have you. You then, in turn, do go try and kill him. The circle of impossibilities continues. This is part of why some scientists believe in “parallel universes.” These are basically every single possible world that coexists with ours but in another universe. It is what that old show “Sliders” was based on. I don’t want to go into parallel universes (nor do I believe in them). The problem of causality is so strong, that time travel is probably impossible even if the science appears to allow for it currently.

Time, Part 2: The Prime Mover

2007-10-24T15:31:00.001-04:00

I left you with an extremely brief explanation of the Big Bang. Let’s go back. This tiny, infinitely dense item spontaneously expanded. There are three important questions. 1.What is it? 2.Where did it come from? 3.And finally, how could matter the size of the entire universe be packed into that small of an area? 1. It is the primitive universe packed into an immensely dense ball. The way it fits into this ball is intense pressure. Where this pressure comes from is unknown but may be like a black hole. In a black hole, the larger the mass, the greater the intensity of the gravitational pull. Gravity is the attraction of objects to mass (i.e. mass to mass). So infinite mass would have infinite gravity causing huge pressure on itself (or so the idea goes).

I think I sort of answered numbers one and three above but let’s consider number two. Where did this come from? Another way to ask that is, “why does this matter exist?” Science’s way to answer the question why is only Newton’s 3rd law or “cause and effect.” Cause and effect either breaks down with the origin of this atom (because where did it come from…what is it’s cause?). Some say it is the result of the last Big Bang where things expanded and then contracted back on itself leading to “our” eventual Big Bang (meaning Big Bang’s have happened before and will happen again). This answer, though, only delays the question’s answer. Where did the first atom come from to explode? Where does matter come from? Either something has always existed or things appeared out of nothing.

Something has always existed, whether its some form of mass or energy or God is debatable. Nothing + Nothing = Nothing (0+0=0). There is an idea within Christianity that teaches “creatio ex nihilo” (creation out of nothing). This says that the substance from which everything exists is out of just God’s spoken word. God didn’t cut a piece of himself off and then create (panentheism). Christianity has an answer for where the original things came from. This problem has been known for centuries. Whatever got things started has been known as “first cause” or if you believe it was a being it can be called “The Prime Mover.” Either you admit a God created things or you’re saying that things have always existed. Which is easier to say: God has always existed or matter has always existed? The choice is obvious to me.

So could “let there be…” actually be the Big Bang? Could God have chosen to create this way? I think he actually did. However, the Big Bang theory is just the current idea. Who knows if it will be “correct” in thirty years? As of right now, I think it is what God did. The fact that it took billions of years to get to where we are now is not a problem. God exists outside of time (except in the Incarnation), so it’s not like he was sitting around staring at his watch yelling, “Are we there yet?” If you think that God just created it as it is now, then how does light get to us from billions of light years away? A light year is the distance light (which travels at theoretically the fastest speed possible) travels in a year. If something is a billion light years away, then it takes a billion years to get to our eyes. So if we see it, then it had the time to get here. The only way around this, is to say well God created things in motion or mid-process. (I’ve talked about this before. It’s my idea that just like Adam was created fully-grown [meaning he didn’t experience childhood yet his body appeared to have been normal and gone through those processes], so too was the earth created. So the earth was created mid-process meaning it had oil, oceans, mountains, etc. These are all things that the earth brings about naturally, but if made “brand new” like a baby, then it wouldn’t have these things). So for scientists to say the earth is billions of years old only makes sense just like if they had examined Adam, he would have looked 20 years old (or whatever he was). So if you argue that that is also true for why light has had time to get here, then fine. But if you don’t, and you insist that everything is literally 10,000 years old and there was no “mid-process” work going on, then light shouldn’t have had time to get here from distant stars.
The universe isn’t constant. It had a beginning, and isn’t it interesting that we already knew that?
So why such a large universe then? God really only needed the sun, moon, earth, and stars. The sun was needed for light and warmth. The moon effects our tides, provides light at night by reflecting the sun’s light, and we don’t know what future benefit it will provide. The earth was needed for reasons I can’t explain, but maybe Captain Obvious could help you with that one. Finally, the stars aided navigation and provided some light at night. So, I believe the universe is as large as it is because it’s a demonstration of who God is. Just like humans tell us a lot about who God is, so to does the rest of his creation. The universe is unimaginably large. It shows us that every time we think we’ve got things figured out, we learn that God is bigger and greater than we thought. We may even get to explore the universe in the next life. After all, we’ll have the time.

Time, Part 1: Science vs Theology & The Big Bang Theory

2007-10-23T15:24:00.000-04:00

A teacher once said, after struggling over his material, “Where should I begin?” A wise person in the room called out, “at the beginning.” That wise person’s name was Captain Obvious. So today, we shall start “at the beginning.” But there is a significance to this that must not be overlooked. There was a beginning. Theology teaches “in the beginning.” Science teaches there was a beginning to our world. In theology, it’s God’s spoken words; in science it’s the Big Bang theory.

Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.

The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)

So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.

Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….

Time: Introduction

2007-10-23T15:22:00.000-04:00

I’ve decided to do a new series. Time is one of my favorite subjects. I’ve always found it interesting. I promise, there will be no crazy conspiracies in this one. At church, we’re studying a book called “Driven by Eternity.” The series has been good so far, but it’s not really what inspired me to write about time. That is about time in relation to heaven and hell. This is about time in relation to the past, our current world and theoretical possibilities. Recently, the science channel (yes, I love the science channel), had 4 hour long shows on time. I like science a lot. Anytime I watch science shows, I’m continually thinking about what they’re saying in terms of Christianity. Well, that is exactly what this series will be about. It isn’t science. It isn’t theology. It is somewhere in between. I have nothing more than a high school education regarding science, so you know…uh…I’m not an expert. What I will do is discuss some of the major problems and interesting things about time. By the way, did you know that “science” comes form Latin meaning “I know”? It is also why, based on that definition, theology used to be called “The Queen of the sciences.” Theology was supposed to be about knowing God. Isn’t that ironic?

Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?

Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.

Bridezilla

2007-10-18T22:28:00.001-04:00

Why is it that women are completely irrational and illogical. Or maybe more accurately, why is that they hit a switch and turn into this? I was flipping the channels tonight and came across Bridezilla. The woman on there was crazy. All sense of perspective and logic had deserted her. She got angry at her fiance because he was having fun at his bachelor party and she wasn't having fun yet at her bachlerette party. Bridezilla's perspective = Her bridesmaids didn't call her! Reality = Her phone was dead. Bridezilla = They were horrible and she wasn't going to go out no matter what. Reality = She later went out and danced. Bridezilla = Her boyfriend was a jerk for not calling her to see how her day was going. Reality = He didn't call the moment her day went south and he was having fun at his party (which involved no strippers). She later gets ahold of him and of course is angry. He left his party and came over to her hotel room where she yelled about her day which, of course, was his fault. He, of course, did what every guy would do and say stuff about how simple the issue was...how ludicrous it was for her to be upset over the situation. He told her all the ways to solve the problem and continued to not understand why he was to blame.

Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?

This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.

I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"

So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.

153

2007-08-09T23:48:00.000-04:00

I’ve done 2 blogs on numerology. Why not go ahead and make it 3…”The Lord’s Holy Number.” Insert scary music here or maybe just the “intense chipmunk” video. Have you seen that? Youtube it. Anyway, what I’m about to talk about I’ve already discussed with a friend, so sorry friend but this is going to be repetitive…and yes I’m trying my material out on you first.

153. Simple number…I think not.

John 21:11 – “Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.”

This is the story that comes after Peter’s denials of Christ. Peter went back to his old job of being a fisherman because he had denied the Christ just like Jesus said he would. I thought it was interesting that he named the exact amount of fish he caught. Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side and what was worthless all day turned into a full net. There is a lot to be taken from the story. For instance, you could say that working on our own without guidance is futile. With God's direction, we will "see a harvest." Another way to look at it is why did he name the exact amount? Bragging fisherman? Is he trying to tell us that this was a miracle because the typical nets at that time couldn't hold that many fish (“even with so many the net was not torn”)? Does 153 stand for something? Fish is ixthus in Greek. The early Christians used IXTHUS as an "anagram" (I think that's what it's called). It's in the catacombs of Rome.

I = Iesous = Jesus (pronounced “E A soos”) Sounds a little like Spanish "Jesus."
X = Christos = Christ
Th = Theos = God
U = Uios = Son
S = Semerion = Savior

We use fish all the time to symbolize Christianity. My church's official email address is "fishermansnet@...". Anybody have a Jesus fish? Some of them come with Greek letters…the same that I listed above. Look at some strange properties of 153:

If you add 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17=153
You may remember my 6.6.06 blog which said that if you do this same thing with the numbers of a roulette wheel, you’ll end up with 666 (1 through 36). Basically 1 through 17 = 153

I found this one on my own. Ready for this:
153 x 1 = 153 which adds up to 9 (1+5+3=9)
153 x 2 = 306 which adds up to 9 (3+0+6=9)
153 x 3 = 459 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (4+5+9=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 4 = 612 which adds up to 9 (6+1+2=9)
153 x 5 = 765 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (7+6+5=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 6 = 918 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (9+1+8=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 7 = 1071 which adds up to 9 (1+0+7+1=9)
153 x 8 = 1224 which adds up to 9 (1+2+2+4=9)
153 x 9 = 1377 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (1+3+7+7=9)
153 x 10 = 1530 which adds up to 9

I’m tired of trying to see how long it will work. 10 times is pretty good. We’re pretty familiar with the fact that “9” does this (e.g. 9x2 or 9x10) but why/how does 153 work?

Oh remember when I used the above figure and stopped at 17 and how lately I’ve been talking about 9? 17 x 9 = 153

153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 (This is really written as 1 cubed + 3 cubed + 5 cubed =153)

I don’t know how much of this is true and how much is wikipeidiology but check this out:

“The precision of the number of fish has long been considered peculiar, and many scholars, throughout history, have argued that 153 has some deeper significance. Jerome, for example, claimed that the Greeks had identified that there were exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (modern marine biology puts the figure as something over 29,000, though the disciples were fishing in the Sea of Tibeias, which actually is a lake)....In the time of Pythagoras, 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction known, at the time, to the true value of the square root of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). The ratio of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the Hellenic world as the measure of the fish.
The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars….”
Reference from "Catch of fish" (as of 7/9/07)

To investigate this further try:

http://www.shyamsundergupta.com/c153.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish

I don't know. Numerology is weird. I just like to think about it. You didn't happen to notice that I used exactly 153 lines to write this did you?...or did I?

Globalism, Part 15: Miracles

2007-07-23T21:22:00.000-04:00

David Hume is famous for his writings on miracles. He presents many arguments as to why miracles don’t happen. He asks for proof based on empirical science. Most often, the only proof is eyewitness testimony. Well, he quickly dismantles the validity of eyewitnesses. Actually, he is quite right that eyewitness testimony isn’t a very strong proof. However, if you’ve known somebody their whole life and know that they were blind and now they see, isn’t that a pretty good witness? I guess, my point is that eyewitness testimony’s value could be properly evaluated in continuum format. Basically, how credible is the source? How much did the source witness both before, during, and after the event, etc.

My point in all of this is that I think our world is going to turn on David Hume. He wrote during the Enlightenment when man was “becoming” God himself. He no longer explained everything by “God.” What happened in the natural world happened because the world is orderly of its own accord. This leads to evolution and the death of God movement. I think our world, during the 21st Century, is going to return to the belief in miracles. However, it won’t be through the old system. What I think is going to happen is a synthesis of the religious miracle and the scientific. That is, science is going to discover “the way” people are healed. Ever wonder how miracles happen in other religions, cults? David Hume used this as a reason as to why miracles don’t happen. If your individual religion teaches that it is the only one to know God, and God is the one who causes miracles, then other religions shouldn’t have miracles. Basically, I believe science is genuinely going to pick up on a power. What ancient people understood has been thrown aside as “mysticism” by the scientific community. In the future, miracles will be embraced by science.

Oprah’s “The Secret.” Star Wars’ “The Force.” Pseudo-Christianity’s “Positive Confession Movement.” These are all examples of the use of a “force” to bring about miracles/positive things. All humans have access to the power of what was thought to be “supernatural.” How so? Well, the Christian viewpoint is that we have access to a God who can, via prayer, decide to suspend his natural laws for the sake of the individual and for his greater purpose. To the witch, he/she has the ability to chant a mantra and conjure up the powers of “the earth.” This is known as “black magic.” The Positive Confession Movement within our own churches is actually sorcery. To try to force God to do something based on his word is sorcery. Be careful in how you use God’s word. Don’t take a verse out of context and “speak” it out and say “God will do this or he will be a liar, and God cannot lie, so he will do.” The Devil tried this maneuver in Matthew 4:6-7. He used Scripture as a reason for Jesus to “force” God to do something.

“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:6-7

You aren’t God and you don’t use “rayma” words to make God do anything. He is sovereign. As far as miracles becoming scientific, that is just an idea/prediction of mine. I truly believe science and religion are going to merge in the coming years. Right now they are polar opposites. Science is all about methodology and repetition. Think about sorcery with its steps including specific chants for specific results. Sounds like the scientific method to me. Think about that passage in revelation about the beast being healed of a deadly wound and it shocks the world. Is this beast and the false prophet going to know about this “scientific truth”? I hope you realize that I’m still saying that miracles come from the supernatural. I’m just saying that they can come from God or from demonic forces. This explains how a miracle can happen outside of Christianity. I just believe that the scientific community of the 21st Century is going to pick up on this possibility, but misunderstand it as science when it is actually black magic. Think about the rise of eastern philosophies regarding wellness. Consider yoga and terms such as “aura” and “energies.” “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” (Matt. 24:24)

The Positive Confession Movement within Christianity teaches that prayer using the word creates the miracle. God gives us the ability, and we must “have enough faith to call it out.” Don’t you see how prayer has been converted into a “chant”? God is not to be put into a box and turned into an equation where if we do A and B we will get C. God gives by grace and sovereignty, not because you did A and B.

Globalism, Part 14: The Georgia Guidestones

2007-06-19T00:09:00.000-04:00

Before I get started, I’d just like to tell you that I saw something interesting on tv today. Apparently the EU “nations” are meeting this week to try to make a “European Treaty.” I didn’t know they were at war? Well, “European Treaty” is euphemism for “we couldn’t get the people to vote the way we wanted them to when we offered the EU Constitution, so let’s do what we want and give it another name—The European Treaty.” “They’ll never know…well at least they’ll never be able to vote against it.” Oh, and if you think the EU powergrab isn’t a good idea, then you’re a terrorist. Remember, resisting the NWO is like saying you hate peace. Ask the Italian President.

Good news for Americans, though. We’ve got a website for our future NAU. It’s www.spp.gov. Stop calling it the NAU though because that makes you a fanatical conspiracy theorist. The 3 governments are just uniting on issues they agree on for security and prosperity.

Time to get to the main course. Chances are very good you’ve never heard of the Georgia Guidestones. Somebody told me about them tonight, and apparently it’s real. It’s an American version of Stonehenge. Take a look at the pictures below. You’ll see that they’re quite large. An undisclosed, unknown group placed the monuments. The only person identified was R.C. Christian, but this was a false name. He also wrote a book with a little more explanation of the monuments. They chose Elbert County Georgia because of its elevation. A hole was cut out of one of the rocks so that the North Star could be seen. This is obviously in line with the occult practice of aligning the “heavens” for religious purposes.

Ready to hear what was listed on these stones?

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

Notice that these are 10 Commandments? It’s the New Age 10 Commandments. They’re written in 8 living languages with parts in 4 dead languages. 8 + 4 = 12…hmm, 12 has no significance right?

Unbelievable. To check my sources, try Radio Liberty and TheGeorgiaGuidestones.com

Globalism, Part 13: The European Union

2007-05-30T20:22:00.000-04:00

The European Union (hereafter, “the EU”) began in 1992. It started as an attempt at “fair trade.” This is an economical issue of which I am not familiar. Basically, the more “united” countries are in trade agreements, then the less things cost. That is partly due to the reduction in exportation costs. If the US and Canada agreed to not tax each other for goods crossing the border, then automatically the costs shift downward. Well, the EU moved past this economic agreement into political territory. They adopted a single currency—The Euro. They also adopted a single flag. Technically, this is the flag of the Council of Europe, but it was appropriated by the EU. Arsène Heitz designed the flag with certain symbolism in mind. The flag is composed of 12 stars. Why 12? There are more than 12 members of the EU. It was chosen as a symbol of completion, perfection, and order. The stars are aligned in a perfect circle to display unity (called the “circle of stars”). For a differing view on the "circle of stars" try this link. (The original 13 colonies of the US had a similar alignment of stars on their flag.) Heitz chose 12, also due to its symbolism. This was either the symbolism of a painting of the Virgin Mary with 12 stars above her head as a halo or it was taken from the book of Revelation. Rev 12:1-2, 5 “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth...She gave birth to a son a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron rod scepter. And her child was snatched up to God, and to his throne” (NIV). Why does this matter? Well, I’ve heard it said that the “Europa” riding the beast is actually the “Virgin Mary.”

Europe itself is named after the Greek mythological figure "Europa." Legend says that she rode the bull form of Zeus into the ocean at which time he raped her. Sounds like what I want my continent named after! Well, a woman riding a bull...hmm where else have I heard that? Oh yeah, Revelation. In Revelation, the "harlot" rides the "beast" and this is connected with the evil Babylonian Empire. The EU even has a statue of this woman riding a beast at their parliament building in Brussels. Okay, so let's go into this "Babylon" connection. The EU built one of their parliamentary buildings in Strasbourg, France. The building was designed after the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11. There is a famous painting of the Tower of Babel, and it is this painting which allowed the EU to create a similar building. The point by the EU is that they see the Tower of Babel as a perfect symbol of unity. The Tower of Babel was built at a time when there was a single language and people were all working together. Sounds great! The problem was that the people believed they didn’t need God. They also thought that if they could build the tower high enough, they could reach heaven, and therefore reach God. It is secular humanism at its highest. It was an attempt to throw of God and become Gods ourselves. Check out the pictures below to see what I’m discussing. You’ll see a poster put out by the European Council which reads: “Europe: many tongues, one voice.” Notice on the Strasbourg building how they left the building unfinished just like the painting. They even used protrusions from the building to make it appear as if the building has scaffolding around it.

Tower of Babel Painting

Strasbourg Parliament Building

European Council Poster

German Phonecard

Brussels Parliament Statue

Stamp

Deal with this information however you want. Believe it’s just a wacko conspiracy or just harmless if you want to, but I really believe the EU is power hungry. I believe that is why the US is trying to catch up with the NAU. The EU, is way ahead of us on this path to globalism. They even tried to pass an EU constitution. 2 countries rejected it, but once this passes, that will be the end of national sovereignty in Europe. Google any of this stuff to fact check me or try these links 1 and 2.

Globalism, Part 12: Satan's Gospel + The Mormon Connection

2007-05-23T11:41:00.000-04:00

The below was taken from ConspiracyArchive.com. I know from the title of the website that you’re probably thinking, sounds totally legit! Illegitimate websites don’t give citation. This one does. The Author is Alice Bailey (theosophy) and the rest of the citation information is listed after the quote.

“Once the key to Genesis is in our hands it is the scientific and symbolic Kabbala which unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the "Lord God" are identical ...

Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...

When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God...
In this case it is but natural ... to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind.

For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ...

Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active ... "Centrifugal Energy of the Universe" in a cosmic sense ... Fitly is he ... and his adherents ... consigned to the "sea of fire," because it is the Sun ... the fount of life in our system, where they are petrified ... and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan ..."
- The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, page 414, Vol II, pgs. 234, 235, 243, 245

Now do you see why the Lucis Trust was originally named “Lucifer Trust”? The NAM “flips the script” as they say. It turns the Devil into a positive figure. How so? It makes his work in the Garden of Eden a good thing. He brought us knowledge. Knowledge is always good. Nevermind that whole issue of the loss of experiential knowledge mankind had with God. The Fall forever damaged relationship between humanity and God. Not until the final resurrection will mankind finally be restored. Why did I drag in the Mormons into this? They believe also that the eating of the fruit was a good thing. Satan was sent for this purpose. Read the following from a prominent writer within Mormonism.

“The opportunity of winning the victor's reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced. Adam said: 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.' Eve was glad and declared: 'Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."
James Talmage - The Articles of Faith, p. 62 or this link.

Orthodox (from beginning) Christianity has condemned sin. Adam and Eve’s sin was our sin. It’s called “Original Sin.” There is a lot that could be said on Original Sin, but I’ll keep it short. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. It has permeated throughout history. It is the cause, in general, of sickness, evil both natural and moral, death, lack of understanding, etc (basically everything bad). All are born with this sinful nature, except Jesus. He avoided this (depending on which theological position you take) because of being born of the Spirit. Jesus, in a sense, was born like Adam without the overwhelming nature of sin. Both had a choice. Adam made the wrong one whereas Jesus made the right one (See Romans 5 for more on this Adam/Christ Parallel). You’re only chance of free choice (regarding sin) isn’t actually at birth but at the new birth. (This is the position of Augustine/Luther/Calvin that your free will was lost at the Fall). Even after re-birth, sin still plays a role (very much has been written on post-salvific sin, so I’m not getting in that debate). The bottom-line is this: sin is not to be celebrated. The NAM and Mormonism both do this. Mormonism sees it as a gaining of knowledge but forgets about the loss of relational knowledge. God became distant.

After posting this and re-reading it, I noticed a few more connections between the Alice Bailey quotes and Mormonism that I overlooked. Mormonism, pits Jesus and Satan as “spiritual brothers" (look under section titled “Devil, the”) of God the Father (aka to them Elohim). Go back and look at some of the quotes from Bailey. Alice Bailey uses "Elohim" and "Jehovah" rather than just saying God. Who else makes this divide? Mormons. They see "Elohim" as "God the Father" and "Jehovah" as Jesus of the Old Testament. So it is Jehovah who creates and his Adversary Satan brings in knowledge. They are partners in this world. Elohim is “God” in Hebrew, and Jehovah is the revealed “name” of God which is rendered as LORD in English. I put quotes around “name” because “Jehovah” isn’t really a name. It means “I am that I am” or “I am” or “To Be.” There is no other true God so God doesn’t need a name so that we can know which “god” we’re talking about. Humans need names so that we can know who is who. God is the only God. (Just my interpretation of the whole “I AM” situation.) Anyway, the point is that I’ve found more connections between theosophy and Mormonism.

Look at this Alice Bailey quote again:
"For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ..."

Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan both offered God Elohim a plan for salvation. Mormons teach that Jesus' plan was accepted and Satan was angry and jealous. The Fall is salvific. It is not Jesus' plan but Satan's! Satan's plan of salvation is celebrated by the NAM and Mormons! Satan is as Alice Bailey puts it, "...the ever loving 'Messenger'...." This connection is nearly unbelievable.

A note to any Mormon who reads this:
I do not wish to offend you, but I realize that the above will. However, I can only say what I believe to be true. To me, Christianity needed nothing "added" like the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in general. Judaism was different because it was always looking for the Messiah. The Messiah came in Christ, and he fulfilled Judaism in himself. He is it. There is no need for anything or anyone else. Mormonism isn't a "Reformation." It is a different religion. The Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin argues, was a Resotoration of the Apostolic Church. It tried to get back to biblical theology rather than 1,500 years of additives, councils, proclamations, and "infallible" popes who disagreed with the "infallible" pope before them.

Globalism, Part 11: THE GREAT INVOCATION

2007-05-22T14:30:00.000-04:00

The broadcast I’ve discussed so much ended with the “world prayer” which is also known as “The Great Invocation.” Essentially, the Great Invocation is an inclusive “world prayer” (even for atheists). I would really rather not have it on my site, so take a look at it in an external site.
At the top of this link is “The Great Invocation.” To the right you will see a strange triangle. At the bottom of the link, you will see why the triangle matters. Not enough info on the triangles? Try this too. Anyone else pick up on the symbolism’s attempt to connect with the Trinity? The Great Invocation has been spoken at the UN as THE world prayer. Let me again quote the “New Agers” as they explain the Great Invocation. Pay careful attention to how they admit that this “prayer” will be taken in different ways. That is, to the dumb public, they will see the word “Christ” and say, “Hey a new “Lord’s Prayer.” Sounds great! The “enlightened mind” knows better, according to them. The following is from the Lucis Trust:

“DEEPER MEANING OF THE GREAT INVOCATION
The Great Invocation if given widespread distribution, can be to the new world religion what the Lord's Prayer has been to Christianity and the 23rd Psalm has been to the spiritually minded Jew. There are three approaches to this great Prayer or Invocation:

1. That of the general public.
2. That of the esotericists, or of the aspirants and the disciples of the world.
3. That of the Members of the Hierarchy.

First, the general public will regard it as a prayer to God Transcendent. They will not recognise Him yet as immanent in His creation; they will send it forth on the wings of hope -- hope for light and love and peace, for which they ceaselessly long. They will also regard it as a prayer for the enlightenment of all rulers and leaders in all groups who are handling world matters; as a prayer for the inflow of love and understanding among men, so that they may live in peace with one another; as a demand for the working out of the will of God -- a will of which they can know nothing and which ever seems to them so inscrutable and so all-inclusive that their normal reaction is patience and a willingness to refrain from questioning; as a prayer for the strengthening of human responsibility in order that the recognised evils of today -- which so distress and trouble mankind -- may be done away with and some vague source of evil may be harnessed. They will regard it finally as a prayer that some equally vague primeval condition of blissful happiness may be restored and all unhappiness and pain disappear from the earth. This is, for them, entirely good and helpful and all that is immediately possible.

Secondly, esotericists, aspirants and spiritually minded people will have a deeper and more understanding approach. To them it will convey the recognition of the world of causes and of Those Who stand subjectively behind world affairs, the spiritual Directors of our life. They stand ready to strengthen those with true vision, ready to indicate not only the reason for events in the various departments of human living, but also to make those revelations which will enable humanity to move forward out of darkness into light. With this fundamental attitude, the necessity for a widespread expression of these underlying facts will be apparent and an era of spiritual propaganda, engineered by disciples and carried forward by esotericists,will mature. This era began in 1875 when the fact of the existence of the Masters of the Wisdom was proclaimed. It has been carried forward in spite of misrepresentation, attack upon the concept, and scorn. Recognition of the substantial nature of the available evidence and the appearance of an intuitive response by occult students and many of the intelligentsia throughout the world has been helpful.

A new type of mystic is coming to be recognised; he differs from the mystics of the past by his practical interest in current world affairs and not in religious and church matters only; he is distinguished by his lack of interest in his own personal development, by his ability to see God immanent in all faiths and not just in his own particular brand of religious belief, and also by his capacity to live his life in the light of the divine Presence. All mystics have been able to do this to a greater or less degree, but the. modern mystic differs from those in the past in that he is able clearly to indicate to others the techniques of the Path; he combines both head and heart, intelligence and feeling, plus an intuitive perception, hitherto lacking. The clear light of the Spiritual Hierarchy now illumines the way of the modem mystic, and not simply the light of his own soul; this will be increasingly the case.

Thirdly, both of these groups -- the general public and the world aspirants in their varying degrees -- have among them those who stand out from the general average as possessing a deeper insight and understanding; they occupy a no-man's-land, intermediate on the one hand between the masses and the esotericists and, on the other, between the esotericists and the Members of the Hierarchy. Forget not, They also use this great Invocation and that not a day goes by that the Christ Himself does not sound it forth.
The use of this Invocation or Prayer and the rising expectancy of. the coming of the Christ hold out the greatest hope for man-kind today. Great Sons of God have ever come on humanity's demand and always will, and He for Whom all men wait today is on His way.”

As if that wasn’t enough on The Great Invocation, try it’s website http://www.thegreatinvocation.org.uk/home.htm for anything else you want to know about it. Sounds like some great reading! Under the “WHO” section, you can find out who is meant when they say “Christ” in the G.I.. Don’t miss out on this good stuff in the “HOW” section: “The true followers of Christ are all those who love their fellowmen and see no barriers among people [i.e. exclusivity of religion maybe?] for the major effect of the reappearance of the Christ will be the stimulation of the spirit of inclusiveness.” [The Great Invocation: A Mantram for the New Age and for all Humanity] You guys ready to bring the Christ forth through some triangle energy?

Globalism, Part 10: From The Horses Mouth

2007-05-21T00:22:00.000-04:00

Listen to what he says in the last 40 seconds. Now, I know in our present day culture that as President the media would unceasingly attack him if he didn't answer the question the way he did, but does that change things? Does that excuse his answer?

I voted for the man, partially because of his Christian views. That is in no way orthodox Christianity. Worshiping God (i.e. "The Father") isn't good enough (even if you make the jump that "Allah is God the Father"). Why? Why don't you ask Jesus because he was the one who said that no one comes to the Father except through the Son.

"Different routes"...now where have I heard that before? Hmmm.

The great evil for the NAM is division. The Lucis Trust broadcast that I’ve mentioned several times said that The Buddha and The Christ came not to divide but to unite humanity. In fact, the title of the broadcast that I listened to was “Two Brothers: The Buddha and The Christ.” I seem to remember Jesus discussing how his message would divide families. The Great Commission brings those that believe in the message together. However, those that reject it, by default, move away from those who accept it. The two worldviews are diametrically opposed.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." - Matthew 10:34-39 NASB

For the NAM, everything can and should be solved through unity and knowledge which includes tolerance and in a sense, political correctness to avoid offense. Regarding the above passage, the broadcast said that religious people misinterpret their own religions causing division among humanity. Religions are just different paths to the same source. The “New Religion” is both truly new and truly old. It both exists as a new creation and as no religion at all. How can it be all these? It is the combination of all religions. Therefore, to the Lucis Trust, it isn’t a new religion. It is simply the understanding that all are trying to get to the same place. To the Christian, it is obviously a new religion yet simultaneously a “re-incarnation” of ancient pagan religions. The broadcast said that this point about all religions as different paths to the same location is the “light of wisdom” which is beginning to dawn (notice the theosophism in that). They defined wisdom as “…the enlightened application of knowledge through love.” They then said that this was the next step in the evolution of humanity.

Globalism, Part 9: The Doctrine of Evolution and Spirit Christology

2007-05-20T12:51:00.000-04:00

THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION
You should, by now, notice the undertones of evolution. The NAM believes that evolution is the work of God pushing his creation to greater and greater heights. (Remember the quote which said the goal of theosophy was the merging of religion with science?) This is true physically but also spiritually. That means we are moving to a greater goal, and we need a greater figure than Buddha and Christ. Christ is the highest point of evolution thus far. There is a great value to this high figure being truly human. For him to be truly (or only) human makes him this worldly rather than otherworldly. He, then, can truly relate to our experience and us. This makes him a realistic example for us because he didn’t just do what was right because he was divine. He is only different in action and knowledge, not in being. Therefore, we too can ascend to this high level of knowledge and ultimately action. Great teachers such as Buddha and Christ had insight into reality, which liberated them from the constraints of this world. This is a perversion of Spirit Christology which I believe in. For Schleiermacher and the Lucis Trust, Jesus didn’t lay down his power of divinity because he was just a chosen human (not pre-existent). I think an explanation of Spirit Christology would be helpful, but it will take a lot of setup work to get my point across.

SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY
At the risk of coming across blasphemous, Jesus isn’t pre-existent…the Son is. I know that may be hard to grasp at first (I became angry the first time I heard it, but I didn’t understand it). The Son is pre-existent, and he took on flesh as Jesus. From that moment on, The Son with a body became known as “Jesus”. This union was separated at death, and reunited at resurrection and continued at ascension (The Son is still en-fleshed as Jesus). Why does this matter? It matters because it gives an extreme value to Incarnation. The Son left the Father, came to earth, became like us to save us. Spirit Christology wishes to make sense of all this. How can Jesus by my example for the right way to live if he is god and therefore cannot sin? He can resist sin just by the power of being God, not really feeling temptation like a “real” human does. The answer to this dilemma is Spirit Christology. Philippians 2 has the famous “kenosis” passage which has been misinterpreted to say that Jesus “laid down” his divinity. God cannot become non-god philosophically. This is impossible. Jesus “laid down” the “abilities of divinity” in the sense that he chose to take on flesh which covered over his divinity. That is, he laid down omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence by choosing to take on human flesh. Some may say that God is not God without his divine abilities. To them, I ask this: Didn’t The Son unquestionably lay down omnipresence (assuming you’re not Gnostic) by becoming localized in a body? Why is it unreasonable to believe that he chose not to use all three abilities? I’ll give you the example that my professor gave me. Think of The Son as a pencil. Place some chewed gum over the head of the pencil. The gum is incarnation or flesh. The gum over the pencil made it so that it could not write (function) like it was supposed to. In the same way, The Son had all the abilities of divinity of before, but he could not use them based on his choice to take on flesh (the gum in the analogy).

Okay, I know where your mind has gone already. You’re thinking, well doesn’t that mean that the present day Jesus shouldn’t be able to use divine powers too? The answer is no because of the resurrection. The Son/Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Remember how we walked through walls and appeared and disappeared? It’s frightening how well this theological concept solved all these issues. I know this was a bit complex, but read it a couple times…it will sink in. If you have the time, go back and read “The Schleiermacher Connection.” His whole point with the non-divinity of Jesus is that Jesus has to be a true example. He doesn’t know how to make Jesus a real example for us without stripping him of divinity. Think about it? If God says, nope I’m not going to do that evil thing, BIG DEAL! Of course he didn’t do it; he can resist! I can’t, so don’t blame me! Well, Jesus is the answer to why we are to blame. Jesus says no to temptation because of the Spirit. Jesus was open to God through the Spirit. Jesus’ apparent divine powers on earth were actually the Spirit working through him. When Jesus heals, he does so through the Spirit. See the connection to us? We work through the Spirit as well. We can avoid sin through the close relationship of the Spirit. We can know God intimately through the Spirit. Think about how Jesus didn’t start his ministry of good works both physically and spiritually until he was baptized (and the Spirit came upon him). Just as the Spirit gave discernment to Jesus to know what others were thinking, so to does he give discernment in our time. Ever had a prophet/Evangelist tell you something that you knew they could not know? It was the Spirit that gave them that message. This belief that Jesus has to be a regular human to be our example is a strong push of the anti-Christ/New Age Movement. They use simple logic to say he HAS to be just a human. Well, Spirit Christology satisfies that concern without forfeiting Jesus’ divinity while enhancing the value of the Incarnation.

Globalism, Part 8: The Hitler Connection

2007-05-19T17:45:00.000-04:00

When Hitler came to power in 1930s Germany, there was an occultist movement longing for a prototype human figure to change the world. Hitler grabbed onto this longing. He embraced the mythology of German thinking including figures such as Parsifal. Parsifal was a knight searching for the Holy Grail in a famous German play (by Wagner). In the play (and in mythology), a special spear is used called the “Spear of Destiny” (aka Holy Lance). I’m not sure if this is what the Holy Grail turns out to be (in the play) or if it is merely used in attempt to find the Grail. Famously, Jesus’ side was said to have been pierced by this spear/sword. It was rumored to give unbeatable power to the one who believed in and possessed it. Hitler had the real-life spear moved to Germany embracing its rumored powers just one year before WW2 began. He killed himself the day the allies took possession of the spear. In actuality, it wasn’t the allies who took possession but the US. Soon after taking possession, we dropped the atomic bomb solidifying the US as THE superpower of the world. (It’s now in a museum in Vienna). Pause here to remember that the NAM doesn’t wish to destroy and forget the past, but to improve upon it. Hitler embraced Parsifal and the “mysterious powers” of the “Spear of Destiny”, but Hitler was the new and improved version of Parsifal. Hitler was the hero who would rescue Germany with the Holy Grail. Hitler felt a sense of destiny and believed he needed the Spear of Destiny to rule the world. What I’m trying to get at with this Hitler issue is that esoteric, mystery religions influence governments and their leaders. Parsifal was like Germany’s “Messiah.” Hitler wanted to be the manifestation of this “great figure.” The occult (which is a religion) influenced the Nazis (which is a government). See the connection? They wanted to govern the whole world while implementing ideas about “high evolution” such as eugenics. That is, they believed there was such a thing as the best race “Aryans.” The NAM teaches about the need for higher physical and spiritual evolution. There will be more on this issue of evolution later.

Another issue to consider with Hitler and the Nazis was their connection to the Thule Society. If you take a look at their pre-nazi symbol, you may notice something quite interesting. This fellowship was involved in typical occultic, esoteric mystery religions. This included theosophy. How so? Check this quote out, but remember that Madame Blavatsky was the founder of theosophy.

“[Madame] Blavatsky taught that her Hidden Masters and Secret Chiefs had their earthly residence in the Himalayan region.

As soon as the Nazi movement had sufficient funds, it began to organize a number of expeditions to Tibet and these succeeded one another practically without interruption until 1943. One of the most tangible expressions of Nazi interest in Tibet was the party’s adoption of its deepest and most mystical of symbols - the swastika.

The swastika is one of mankind's oldest symbols, and apart from the cross and the circle, probably the most widely distributed. It is shown on pottery fragments from Greece dating back to the eighth century b.c. It was used in ancient Egypt, India and China. The Navaho Indians of North America have a traditional swastika pattern. Arab-Islamic sorcerers used it. In more recent times, it was incorporated in the flags of certain Baltic States.

The idea for the use of the swastika by the Nazis came from a dentist named Dr. Friedrich Krohn who was a member of the secret Germanen order. Krohn produced the design for the actual form in which the Nazis came to use the symbol, that is reversed, spinning in an anti-clockwise direction. As a solar symbol, the swastika is properly thought of as spinning, and the Buddhists have always believed the symbol attracted luck.

The Sanskrit word svastika means good fortune and well being. According to Cabbalistic lore and occult theory, chaotic force can be evoked by reversing the symbol. And so the symbol appeared as the flag of Nazi Germany and the insignia of the Nazi party, an indication for those who had eyes to see, as to the occult nature of the Third Reich.”
- The Unknown Hitler Wulf Schwartzwaller or try this link.

The swastika is connected to ancient religions.

FOOTNOTE
There are differing views on how the Nazis, generally, and Hitler, specifically, viewed the Parsifal myth.
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/wagner.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsifal

Globalism, Part 7: The Schleiermacher and Tillich Connection

2007-05-18T12:31:00.000-04:00

I realize the following may be hard to follow, but I felt like it was important. Feel free to ask me about it if this doesn't make sense. Also, I should probably preface this with this: I don't actually believe there is a physical conspiracy going on here like my title may seem to convey. I don't believe 100 people at some Bilderberg Conference have decided to push Satanist plans on us. I believe what is going on is connected due to a spiritual connection. I know how this makes me come accross, but look at all the evidence before you judge me as a loony. There are things going on in this world which have no physical connection yet are related. No one said, hey Schleiermacher, start teaching some bs that will help us! Philosophy doesn't work that way. It flows and is not forced. It is only guided by the community of work of the age like Levinas, Kant, Schleiermacher, Tillich, Sarte, Camus, Cremme, Bailey, etc.

THE SCHLEIERMACHER CONNECTION

I listened to a Lucis Trust radio broadcast posted on the their website and the following was the teaching (Inner Sight Broadcast: “Two Brothers: The Buddha and The Christ”) One quote that stood out to me was this: “The divinity you need is within you.” There is a connection, here, to Friedrich Schleiermacher. He was one of the few “major” theologians of all time, but his chronological position is the 18th Century. Schleiermacher made real contributions in his method of hermeneutics/interpretation called the “hermeneutical circle.” However, from the point of most conservative Christians, he was a major step in the wrong direction. He denied the Trinity therefore denying the divinity of Jesus. Jesus was merely THE example for us. In a sense, God chose Jesus to be this example. In a sense, Jesus chose to be this example because of his “intuned-ness” or his “God-consciousness.” (By the way, some New Age thinkers push a thing called “Christ-Consciousness"). Jesus responded to the divine feeling/intuition (German word = Gefuhl) God had placed within all humanity. Jesus was different because he was able to recognize it and respond to it. The idea of Original Sin and sin in general is radically different or done away with in this framework. The solution to a spiritual problem isn’t “out there” but within. What all of this is saying is that you must tap into the spirituality that is already within you (“Gefuhl” for Schleiermacher). The NAM embraces Jesus. They think of him as a great thinker/philosopher. He moved us a long the necessary path. However, he was just human…a chosen human. He responded to the inner-light within. He tried to teach us the same, according to the Lucis Trust.

THE TILLICH CONNECTION

Furthermore, Paul Tillich (THE major liberal theologian of the 20th Century) said God is the ground of all BEING. God is essence in a sense. Your life is an “existence” which is the polar opposite of “essence.” Salvation is the unity of these two. Jesus clearly contained essence simultaneously being in existence. What the crap is Chad talking about? Basically, Christ combines the polar opposites of God/essence with humanity/existence. He does this as the revelation of God, not actually God. He ushers in the essence of God into the poor existence of humanity. It’s like a shift in the value of life for a prisoner who feels like all he does is exist and how he then views life once he leaves the prison. The essence of life isn’t just existing. This higher plane is what Jesus did for us bringing us out of the prison of “sin.” Jesus represents the ultimate goal of God for humanity. However, notice what this does to Jesus. He is just THE example again, not actually divine. Therefore, Jesus is a great teacher, prophet, philosopher, example, etc. but not the equally divine Son. The NAM is completely okay with promoting Jesus, but Jesus as a great figure in human history. Jesus is the symbol of the last 2,000 years of progress. We got so far because of him, but to the NAM, we must progress even further as human beings. This is the basis of the needed new figure. If you have a keen eye when reading NAM material, you may notice that Jesus is most often called “Christ.” I believe this is quite intentional. The reason is because they’re trying to promote that Jesus was “The Anointed One” (christ or messiah means this). Therefore, Jesus filled a role. He didn’t “ful-fill” it, but he filled it. Therefore, the same role could be filled by a greater, future figure. According to the NAM, the 21st Century world is in need of a new great-anointed person to solve all of our grave issues.

Globalism, Part 6: Neo-Gnosticism, Theosophism, and in Lucifer We Trust

2007-05-17T11:01:00.000-04:00

Earlier, I mentioned the post-modern idea that everybody has a piece of truth. There is a frightening point that I think I must go into regarding this issue of “pieces of truth.” Before we go into what that is, we need to put it within its proper context which is Gnosticism. The early church denied this pseudo form of Christianity. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “knowledge.” It was syncretistic which meant that it merged various religious elements (like merging elements from many religions into one system). To Gnostics, physical things were evil and spiritual things were good. Humans were trapped in physical bodies but gnosis (knowledge) could release us. The world was created by an evil spirit (demiurge). This mixes Greek philosophy in, by the way. Jesus is just one of the spiritual figures who can free us. It taught that “Sophia” (Greek for “wisdom”) birthed the demiurge. Some versions have Sophia manifested in the form of Mary Magdalene. Sophia was to be worshipped in the same way if not higher than Jesus was. (It’s no accident that we’ve seen the re-emergence of the significance of Mary Magdalene recently.) Just as Jesus was the revealed “word” of God (logos, see John 1), so to was Mary the “wisdom” (sophia) of God. It involved the worship of the “sacred feminine.” Some of the modern feminist theologians try this same move. In fact, some call the traditional Judeo-Christian God “Goddess.” Read this quote from Karen L. King regarding the apocryphal book “The Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” [it] presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority.” (King, Karen L. The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the first woman apostle, p. 3-4. Polebridge Press, 2003) or this link.

The beginning of that is the problematic part. “It rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life.” This is supposed to be Christian?

Furthermore, one of the many things that Gnosticism taught was the idea of “secret knowledge.” Judas was actually given secret knowledge. This is where the Gospel of Judas (that you might have recently heard about) came from. Judas was actually a good guy who did what Jesus asked him to do in bringing the guards to seize Jesus, but the other disciples weren’t on the spiritual level to understand, so Jesus didn’t tell them about it. Anybody here about “The Secret” that Oprah has been promoting? Secret knowledge that involves a “force” that we can tap into. The “force” of the universe is inside you and you just have to recognize it….hmmm…sounds great!

Understand that there has been a reincarnation of syncretistic nature of Gnosticism. There is a movement called Theosophism (i.e. “the wisdom of the divine”) which teaches that every religion has a piece of the truth. Each is trying to get to the same spot…the Absolute. Consider this, theosophism recognizes the universal concept within religions of a final “teacher” or ultimate figure. Each religion has a final important leader. Judaism has their “Messiah.” Christianity has 2 such figures in the Anti-Christ and the eventual 2nd Coming of Christ. Islam has “The Hidden Imam.” Buddhism has Maitreya. This specific figure will be discussed in a moment, but first consider this list of the requisites to joining the Theosophist Society:
 To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
 To encourage the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science.
 To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in humanity.
Does that sound New Age enough to you? Try this link and look at their emblem under the section titled “The Septenary.” By the way, Oprah Winfrey subscribes to this “universal god” and here her say this in this link.

Maitreya has been identified as this universal figure. He isn’t simply the Buddhist version of the final important figure; he is the figure in all the religions. He is transcendent of a single religion. He will unite all religions under him because as the Theosophist movement’s motto goes, “Nothing is higher than Truth.” This “truth” is that mankind should be united under one world truth (religion). It puts us in the “Age of Aquarius.” Yet another “out there” term, but this one needs to be known. This “New Age” movement is more than novel; it has a name (i.e. The Age of Aquarius). What happens in this age? Read this quote, “the Aquarian Age is thought to bring with it an era of universal brotherhood rooted in reason where it will be possible to solve social problems in a manner equitable to all and with greater opportunity for intellectual and spiritual improvement, since Aquarius is an airy, scientific, and intellectual sign and its ruler planet, Uranus, is associated with intuition (knowledge above reason) and direct perceptions of the heart; and on the mundane level it rules electricity and technology. It is generally described by astrologers that in the Age of Aquarius there will be a blending of religion and science to such a degree that a religious science and a scientific religion will be formed.”

Here is the most troubling part of this NAM: its political connection. Alice Bailey (a disciple of Helena Blavatsky who was known as the Theosophy “founder”), founded the “Lucifer Trust” in 1920 which was renamed, in 1922, “Lucis Trust.” The Lucis Trust (Lucis = light) is a NAM within the United Nations! This is not a conspiracy theory. This is fact. Go to the Lucis Trust website and they will tell you that they are “on the roster of the economic and social council (ECOSOC) of the UN.” In the very least, this entitles them to consultative status with the UN, access to its major players, and access to weekly meetings. The Great Invocation, which I will get into later, has been promoted by the theosophical Lucis Trust at UN meetings. It is a “world prayer.” The Lucis Trust maintains the UN’s meditation room.

FOOTNOTE = Taken from www.lucistrust.org speech Inner Sight Broadcast "Two Brothers: The Buddha and Christ" (May 5th, 2007).

Globalism, Part 5: The Next Great Figure

2007-05-16T12:16:00.000-04:00

The New Age Movement isn’t just a fantastical term. It is a reality. It has been sought out for over 200 years with connections back to the beginning. It is essentially a longing for a new and better truth. This truth is personified in an influential world figure. Just as Jesus Christ changed the world and the way humans think about this world, so to will this new figure change things. The NAM believes that Jesus is just one of many “spiritual avatars.” That is, he was a great philosophical and religious thinker that moved us to higher truth. The same could be said of Buddha or Muhammad. History is cyclical in that it will repeat itself, so earth will receive another great thinker. Yet history is progressive, also, in the sense that it’s moving toward an ultimate high point. So the world is at a point where we need a new thinker to come onto the scene. We’re eagerly anticipating the arrival of this figure to enlighten us. We need him/her to progress through the evolutionary rut that we’re stuck in. Old teachings held back the people and figures such as Buddha and Christ freed people from heavy bonds. Cultures could progress in various ways through their teachings. Humanity has to prepare the way for this new figure. The “energy of love” [Christ] and the “energy of illumination” [Buddha] are ready to be revamped. These were the fruit of human experience of their time. They teach that you, the individual, can be like Christ. “The divinity you need is within you.”

This above post is the teaching of The Lucis Trust speech by Inner Sight Broadcast: "Two Brothers: The Buddha and Christ" (1st week of May, 2007). Later, we'll find out who exactly this Lucis Trust is.

Globalism, Part 4: Unity and Religion

2007-05-15T17:29:00.000-04:00

Why unite? The theory goes that the world is in a terrible time of destruction. Poverty is an enormous problem coupled with Aids. The chance for another great epidemic has skyrocketed since the rise of transportation efficiency. Issues facing the 21st Century world are: Over-population, global warming, wars, weapons of mass destruction, tyrannical dictators, imperialism (e.g. the USA), the energy crisis, terrorism, unfair trade, etc. Our world is getting increasingly smaller. What happens in one place effects another. Just look at the global economy. What happens in Asian markets effects ours while we’re still sleeping. The same goes for “global warming.” The earth is begging for us all to get on the same page. We can’t be national-centric anymore because what one country does effects all the others. This conclusion was adopted as early as the 1920s when our own President, in conjunction with British officials, proposed the League of Nations. (It actually could be traced back even further to Immanuel Kant, an extremely influential philosopher of the late 18th Century.)

Think about what the United Nations (hereafter, UN) is. It is the outworking of the failed “League of Nations.” The League of Nations was the idea of President Woodrow Wilson, yet our country didn’t want anything to do with it. We wanted to be isolationists. The League of Nations was created after WWI in attempt to “prevent” another world war. Likewise, the foundational purpose of the United Nations is to prevent war. Therefore, they promote peace. According to them, the uniting of nations is the only way to accomplish peace. We must come together in agreement. We don’t wipe out those we disagree with (e.g. Saddam Hussein). The UN doesn’t want mere national agreement. They want one nation by which there is no one left to disagree with.

Historically, religion has been a central issue in most wars. Religious wars are of the worst kind. They lead to genocide. They caused the Crusades (According to Pope Urban II’s speech in 1095 at the Council of Clermont, the Crusades WERE NOT just an aggressive action. They were also a re-action to Islamic aggression. Both religions were to blame. Remember, however, that before the Christians wanted to take those “Holy Lands,” during the Middle Ages, the Mohammedans (Muslims) took them in war in the 600s.) Religion is the cause of Islamic Terrorism in the world today. It is the cause of the Protestant vs. Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the UN can get us to unite our religions, then they think they can end war. “Unity” and “peace” replace “Father” and “Son.” (8) In a truly “tolerant” society, every idea is equal. That is the hallmark of post-modernity. Everybody has a piece of the truth, and we just put these pieces together to glean a mosaic of truth. Where things appear to contradict one another, we simply recognize that we don’t know everything, and we must believe that truly perfect knowledge would reveal harmony of ideas.

The NAM teaches that there is no one way to God. God is bigger than a single religion. He or she is transcendent of that. Religion is merely the manifestation of individual cultures. It is the way communities express devotion to higher-ness. No religion is “wrong” because all express through their own relative experience. Therefore, one can learn from all religions.

Remember at this point, however, that they want to move beyond our present state. What does that mean? Presently, we live in a world that fights wars over religious differences. If we can all come to the realization that we’re just manifesting cultural differences, then maybe we can all just get along. After all, God is god whether he or she is called Yahweh, Jesus, The Triune God, Buddha, Allah, Baal, Ishtar, The ONE, Nature, Zeus, Sophia, or Goddess. If we can unite on this and also unite on morality, then we can move the world into greater peace, joy, and love. It has long since been believed that atheists have no moral code since they have no religion to base it on. Ask any atheist if they believe in morality, and they will tell you that they do. It’s based not on religion but on philosophy (i.e. on Plato, Aristotle, Levinas, Camus, etc.). So not even atheists are left out of this attempt to unite. God, for them, is replaced with “Good.” Atheism wants to demote religion because religion is the cause of war, division, misunderstandings/“poor understanding,” etc. However, they can philosophically agree believe in the "ethics" of the UN's goals.

Globalism, Part 3: Immigration & Environmentalism

2007-05-14T12:17:00.000-04:00

Let’s consider the immigration issue in the US. Why would a President who makes his entire foreign policy about terrorism leave our own borders wide open? He is one of the few Republicans who favors allowing illegal aliens in for the purpose of cheap labor. He was for the Dubai ports deal. How did the major empires of history accomplish what they did? Slavery. They found the cheapest labor possible and forced them to do government sponsored work. They forced their conquered to join their military or work toward the cause. If terrorism is the number one threat to US security, then shouldn’t politicians be worried about open borders? Republicans want cheap labor; democrats want votes. The US has already taken steps toward “free trade.” Free trade is an economic tool that profits member nations. It is the first step to the unification of countries. It is exactly what the European nations agreed to a few years before they decided to become the European Union (EU). The US is considering uniting with Canada and Mexico much like the European Union nations did. It would be a “North-American Union” (NAU). Now consider the issue of illegal immigration under this light. Cheap trade and labor comes out of such a union. Now do you wonder why we can’t get a fence built down there despite the majority of Americans wanting it?

Hey, how about a NAU superhighway! Sounds Great! Take a look!

More on the NAU.

How about the "Amero" as our currency...what? Haven't heard of it? Oh, by the way, it's already in the works.

Look at our culture. What is valued? Tolerance…political correctness…the environment. Why the environment? This whole “global warming issue” is truly a “global” issue. If it is true that humans are really CAUSING these problems and disaster is around the corner, then the whole world has to do something about it. See that? Global climate change is nothing more than global propaganda. If we allow global laws (Kiyoto Treaty) to rule over sovereignty, then we’ve taken yet another step into a worldwide government. World government only exists when nations transfer their power to another. Environmentalism stirs at the heartstrings of so many people for good reason, but it is a tool of the globalists. It makes us think in terms of internationalism. We cannot be isolationists if everything we do effects others. It also sets a precedent for other countries to have a say-so in what we do. It can unite other countries against us because “the US is causing flooding in England.” It’s about global socialism. In the 1970s, reports came out that the environment was cooling. We were on the verge of another Ice-age. The US is blamed for everything already; why not go ahead and blame us for global warming. Did you know the infamous Kiyoto Treaty did not include developing countries such as China and India? That is nearly half the world’s population! It’s not about the environment; it’s about control. Offsetting climate change is extremely expensive and yields little profit. These “scientists” who keep putting out these dire reports are UN sponsored scientists. The special reports we always hear about are from the UN. Hmmm…the UN wouldn’t have anything to gain from global climate change would they?

Globalism, Part 2: The WCC & Information Control

2007-05-13T15:33:00.000-04:00

I haven’t made up my mind (because I just don’t know enough about them), but the WCC or the World Council of Churches scare me. They’re basically the largest ecumenical movement in the world. Ecumenical comes from the Greek word “oikoumene” which means “all in one house.” It is an attempt to unite the church somewhat like it used to be prior to the Protestant Reformation. Oh yeah, seems like a good idea. Let’s go back to the corruption of the historical Roman Catholic Church. Let’s go back to the Church which strayed away from its foundation in Christ for the sake of money and power. The difference that the new unified church would bring is autonomy within unity. We would be unified within diversity remember? This means we hold to basic truths while allowing all kinds of religious groups in. We unite with other religions based on our mutual beliefs. What do we agree with them on? Well, we all believe first and foremost in a “god.” Secondly, we all believe in peace. Go to the WCC website and see how much of their page is about unification around the central doctrine of peace. It’s not that peace is a bad thing, but this peace is deceptive. We don’t want peace at any cost. We don’t want peace at the cost of accepting false religion as valid and true. We don’t want the end of freedoms. You’re a “terrorist” if you don’t want peace right? Well, then you’re a terrorist if you’re not for public security cameras. You’re a terrorist if you want to uphold the 2nd Amendment right to own guns. You’re a terrorist if you don’t allow yourself to be implanted with a tracking device (in the future)? What do you have to hide that you can’t be filmed and tracked?

Let’s talk about this issue of tracking devices. Digital Angel Corporation of Minnesota has already begun production of small RFID microchips that can be implanted in animals and humans. The implant is larger than a grain of rice but smaller than a dime (some RFID tags are the size of powder). The marketing of this technology is innocent enough. It allows pet owners to find their pets in disasters such as Katrina or when Fluffy simply “gets out.” It can be used by farmers to help track disease. It has been implemented in the military realm already via transponders for pilots who eject. Why spend millions to build a fence across the US when you can just implant people? Some may wonder, “Well, not everyone will go for implanting.” They will if they can’t buy anything without it. They will if they can’t go anywhere in the public realm without it. No usage of planes, taxis, no ability to buy food, cars, gas, etc. Tracking systems would give the ability to do things unimaginable. Purchasing items at Wal-Mart would require you to stuff your buggy, then simply walk out. You’re account could automatically be billed. Tired of all those login/password requirements online? Those would become a memory. Identity theft could be eliminated. Alibis would be a thing of the past. The local police office would know exactly where you were at the time of the crime. At least, they could say you were “there.” Why not track people, this would do so much to fight crime. Don’t you want to know where your abducted child is? Aren’t you for peace? Don’t you want to live without crime? Well, if you don’t, then I suspect you must want to carry out crime. You must be a terrorist. Obviously, my point is that this gives a centralized government a vast amount of power. What happens when Christianity, in the “fundamental” form, becomes outlawed? What happens when a pastor wants to say something against homosexuality based on biblical arguments, but he is fined for his “hate speech”?

(Let me make a brief statement about the WCC. The WCC may be a perfectly fine organization. They visited Lee a couple years ago for a meeting. I don’t know enough about them to say one way or the other. However, their goal seems a little troubling to me. It is the division of “truth” that allows choice. It is the division of power that avoids tyranny and religious dictatorship. "Uniting" isn't without its own problems.)

(Regarding the tracking devices, another company even has “powder-sized” RFID tags out now.)

Globalism, Part 1: A brief overview of the NWO and the NAM

2007-05-12T20:32:00.000-04:00

There is a difference between the NWO and the New Age Movement (hereafter, NAM). The NWO is a political term. It is the global unification of the world. Basically, it is a one-world government. This means a unification of laws, trade, rights, authority, etc. The NAM is much more spiritual. It is, in a sense, the religious division of the NWO. Both movements are about unity, but one is physical and one is spiritual. It is imperative to understand that there is a difference yet, more importantly, a unity between the two.

In an address to the nation, George Bush Sr. announced that all the issues facing the world required a “New World Order.” We need this to help with issues such as famine, natural disasters, global warming, nuclear holocaust, genocide, WW3, terrorism—essentially, peace. Peace is the new God. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “unity within diversity.” This slogan of tolerance is the sime qua nom (“not without which,” meaning it is the foundation) of the NWO. “If we can just unite everyone around a single goal, then we can accomplish anything.” According to this movement, humanity wants peace and if you don’t follow their narrow requirements for peace, then you’re a terrorist. Every religion is supposed to unite under this banner of peace to pray. All religions are equal, and all pray to the same God. We just manifest, due to culture, differing ways. These different ways are to be celebrated because this is “unity within diversity.” Pope John Paul II called for “New International Order”. Pope Benedict called for the NWO as well. He is quoted to say, “A united humanity will be able to confront the many troubling problems of the present time: from the menace of terrorism to the humiliating poverty in which millions of human beings live, from the proliferation of weapons to the pandemics and the environmental destruction which threatens the future of our planet.” [I wrote this part about 3 or 4 weeks ago and the link for where I got this quote (yahoo news) has been changed. So sorry, I just used a quote that I can no longer cite. Good thing this isn't a paper!]

Globalism, Introduction

2007-05-11T19:55:00.000-04:00

Growing up, I was told that the future wasn’t going to bright for the earth. I would be fine because I would “go in the rapture.” This, of course, led to the moments in my life where I thought I had been “left behind.” Such an evil little eleven-year-old, I was. The left-behind world was going to unite under a single leader who would head up the New World Order, which would be evil incarnate. Eventually, I grew up and left those “strange, fundamentalist” views behind. I became “educated” in the truth of the matter. I learned about the “amillennialist” view that basically the book of Revelation was just telling us that God would ultimately overcome. After all, for generations people have believed that they were the “final generation.” God was coming back in their lifetime, and their proof was the “obvious signs.” This is why, even though I did believe in the rapture, I didn’t believe it would happen in my time (by the time I got to college).

Leaving the issue of the rapture behind, I want to talk about another part of this whole interpretation of Revelation. That is, the New World Order. No this term isn’t in the Bible, but neither is “rapture” or “Trinity.” Do I need to stop here and let that sink in? The question is whether or not the concept of the New World Order (hereafter, NWO) is biblical. At the risk of coming across as a fanatical fundamentalist, I think it is present. To me, the question isn’t whether or not the NWO is coming; its whether or not it has any significance to the events in the book of Revelation. I think we as a world aren’t far off (by this I mean within 25-75 years) from this NWO.

Okay, at this point let me say this. This is a theory. I’ll try to give you truths, but the reality is that these truths are just dots in a sky. You have to trace the outline to make sense of it all. One has to connect the dots to come to the conclusion that there really is a NWO coming. I don’t know there is. I’m not saying this will happen. What I’m saying is that some of the things I’ve read and seen scare me. This subject will require many posts so if you're going to take the red pill, then follow it to its ultimate conclusion before you make any judgments.

Let me tell you how this started. I’ve been doing a class on the Church of God’s Declaration of Faith. The final two points (of the 14) are about eschatology (the end times). I’ve been doing a lot of research on the issue because I didn’t receive much education on the issue at Lee. I came across a lot of compelling information for the Preterist viewpoint, which basically claims that Revelation isn’t futuristic but a past event. In this framework, "John" is just saying that Christians will prevail over the evil Roman Empire and their persecuting Emperors like Nero (who is “the beast”). Well, while looking up stuff on that, I also found out a lot about globalization or the New World Order and the related “The New Age Movement.” I’m going to say some things below that I will try to back up with sources. (I used wikipedia as a source, but I made sure it wasn’t just garbage by double checking it and by using my own knowledge of the subject matter. I used wikipedia because it tends to pull a lot of information together into one spot—itself.)

Believe me, the rest will be a lot more interesting than this was, but this was necessary to explain why I got here and where I intend to go.

Next:
Part 1 will cover the purpose of the New World Order (globalization) and its religious connections.

Star of Bethlehem

2007-04-29T23:57:00.000-04:00

Sandy Berger

2007-04-29T23:52:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Monday, April 02, 2007

This story is absolutely incredible. Do you even know who Sandy Berger is? Probably half the people that read this will not know who he is (like I didn't), but I guarantee you if he were a Republican, you would know him. He is the former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR to Bill Clinton. I'm going to offer a summary of what happened, but if you have time, try the link below titled "World Net Daily" because it explains all the details and just how far this goes.

Here is what happened. Around 1999-2000 while Clinton was still President there was a terrorist plot on the USS Sullivans in Yemen and the Los Angeles airport. Yeah, I asked the same question...why didn't any of us know about that? Apparently, the government "thwarted" the terrorists (as Berger testified before the 9/11 Commission). This isn't true. Ahmed Ressam was discovered to be in possession of nitroglycerin while trying to enter the US through the Canadian border. A border patrol agent was suspicious and checked the guy out. The Clinton administration didn't say, hey go check out this dude. An American did her job. At Ahmed Ressam's trial, he revealed that he was trained in Bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. As for the bombing of our ship, that failed because the terrorists put so many bombs on their ship that it sank. They were going to try to do what they did to the US Cole (send a little boat with bombs right into the side of the ship). Yeah, Clinton nailed them!

(I wrote a ton at this point and of course myspace messed up and I lost it all...another reason why I'm beginning to hate myspace). Anyway, now you're going to get the really short story:

Basically, Berger went into the national archives and stole top secret documents...documents that were essential to the 9/11 Commission's duties. He stuffed them in his socks. These he took out, presumably, to alter and then replace. He made repeated visits to the bathroom (to flush papers that were altering wouldn't do the trick) while he was supposed to be looking at top secret reports. Some of these documents pertained to the Millennium plot in LA. They basically showed the fault of the Clinton Administration. When the new administration came in, they weren't briefed on this missing Millennium plot report and it's suggestions. WorldNetDaily reports, "Ashcroft said the "highly-classified" review "was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor [Janet Reno] briefed me during the transition."

I've never been a blame anybody guy on the 9/11 attacks whether that be Clinton or Bush. However, after hearing about Berger, you have to wonder what Clinton is responsible for? If Berger was scared enough to go flushing and altering ultra top secret papers, then don't you think there was a reason he wanted the evidence destroyed? To use a double negative, people don't hide what doesn't need to be hidden. You don't risk jail time (which destroying those papers would result in) because you have a paper fetish. There was something Clinton and his administration didn't want out because of its implications.

2007 - World Net Daily - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39544

2007- Latest Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262687,00.html

2004 - Fox News article from when this story first broke http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126428,00.html

Charlotte Church

2007-04-29T23:40:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Saturday, March 24, 2007

I heard Glenn Beck mention something about Charlotte Church, but I decided to check it out first to make sure it was correct. It was exactly what he said. Still have one of her cd's? It may be in the trash by the time you finish reading this: I took this article from another blogger whose trackback url is at the bottom.

What the Heck Happened to Charlotte Church?
Remember sweet little Charlotte Church? She was the very young teenaged Welsh classical singer who stunned the world with her mature operatic voice in the late 90's. Her sweet little innocent face graced the cover of her albums, like 'Voice of An Angel'. She's been quiet for a few years and in 2005 she came out with her first pop album, 'Tissues & Issues'.
Sweet little Charlotte Church isn't quite so sweet anymore. She's following in the footsteps of Madonna, both former Catholics mocking the Pope and Catholic Church. Ignatius Press, arguably the largest Catholic publishing company in the U.S, is refusing to sell any of Church's music.

Here's what she did:
In the pilot of her new talk show, "The All New Charlotte Church Show", Charlotte Church dressed as a nun and pretended to "hallucinate while eating communion wafers imprinted with smiling faces signifying the drug Ecstasy." She called the German-born Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi and mocked the Catholic Church. She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of hard cider inside, said she worshipped "St. Fortified Wine," and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.

Pope Benedict, the son of a German policeman opposed to Nazism, was forced into the Hitler Youth movement as a child, but quit the group not long after initiation. The infamous English gossip paper 'The Sun' claims Church's show is a "super blooper".
Ignatius Press made this statement:

"It is with regret that we do this. Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talents to offer praise and glory to our Lord.
"But we cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women.
"Therefore, our catalogues and website will immediately withdraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman."

Church, 20, was raised a Catholic and sang for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at the age of 12. Now she's posed nude in several publications and is dissing the Catholic Church. Poor thing.

Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/620421

The Divine Comedy

2007-04-29T23:36:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Thursday, January 25, 2007

Dante Alighieri wrote a famous poem around the 14th Century titled "The Divine Comedy." I have only read part of it, but I have studied it (and I saw where he is buried in Italy when I got the chance to go in 2003). I want to talk about his work briefly.

The Divine Comedy is brilliant because it understands the problem of sin so well. I posted something recently on the subject of Sin. In the world of academics "sin" is a creation of religion to force control on the masses. It is someone's opinion forced on others. It is the hallmark of traditionalism that stands in the way of progress. Well, sometimes I question sin myself. I don't think I'll go into that here, but my point is this: Sin is negative whether God exists or not. Sin has to stand-alone if it is to be real. Okay, follow me on this. Sin has to be negative in this world, not just the next. That is to say, there really has to be a negative consequence for all sin for it to be real. It cannot just be sin because God declares it to be. There really has to be a problem with it. Atheists say (for argument's sake) that there is nothing wrong with lies as long as they don't "hurt" anyone. They will think of times when sin isn't anything but pleasurable for all those involved, and then they question what the problem is. Everyone enjoyed what they partook in, so how do you as a Christian respond to that?

In The Divine Comedy, Dante illustrates the problem of sin. His basic premise (though it is a story, not a thesis) is that people are in hell not for hating others or lacking love. They are in hell precisely because they loved. However, they loved the wrong thing. Dante's vision of hell doesn't have only "evil" people there. Remember in the New Testament where Jesus was asked about the 10 Commandments. He replied with a summation of the 10 being "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." What was important in life, what matters to God is to be loved wholeheartedly. This is why David was loved so much despite all his "sins." Proper love is the determining factor for who goes to hell and who doesn't according to Dante.
The next interesting thing Dante writes is that Hell's punishment isn't some fire. Hell's punishment is you getting exactly what you wanted here on earth. Punishment for sin is "Just" because one's punishment is directly correlated to what one did.
Those who commit suicide are forced for eternity to search for their bodies. On earth they took life away from their bodies, so now they must eternally try to reconcile this.
Gluttons do nothing but eat all day in hell. What's the problem then? Well, they can never get their fill. They eat continually night and day, yet are always starving. The food they eat like pigs is their own excrement.

The lustful are blown by a never-ending wind. In life they were continually drifting from one person to another. They could never be fulfilled within their lust. The one they were with never satisfied. They had to drift to a new person. After having had them, they moved on.
The hypocrites are forced to wear a sparkling, beautiful coat lined with dull, heavy lead. For on the outside, they project one thing. However, in reality they are burdened down with their private falsehood.

This is brilliant and solves the question of sin that many may ask. "Why is this not good for me?" The point is that only God can fulfill in this life, yet in the next our relationship with him "never gets old." See in this life, our sins are good for a while yet we are never fulfilled. With God, our relationship with him never leaves us filling empty. In the afterlife, we will never say "I've had enough of this thing called God." Dante shows that every sin we are involved with on earth is something that we don't really want as much as we think. There is such a thing as "too much." We must love the right thing because for Dante, we will love this thing for all eternity. Hell is getting what you "want." This is why certain things are "sins." Our sin on earth is just small doses. We're not forced to pursue it unceasingly.

For more on this try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy

A Response to an Atheist

2007-04-24T16:02:00.000-04:00

I've been talking with an atheist who believes the Bible is full of contradictions (and therefore, it is just some pulled together stories of past religions and false gods). I am not going to post what he wrote, but here is my reply:

I appreciate the response. However, these were exactly what I thought they would be which is obvious logical problems. Problems that support the idea that the Bible is not "innerant." I realize most Christians believe in the complete innerrancy of the Bible. I do not. My view is quite original, so I can't simply say "I follow this line of thinking." My view of Scripture is like my view of Jesus. Tradition teaches that Jesus was 100% human yet simultaneously 100% divine. I believe this to be true of the Bible. It is 100% the work of men with the ability to error in details and memories. I also believe it was inspired by the Spirit to pour out the truth of God in human terms (explains anthropomorphism). However, just like Jesus never sinned, the Bible never makes a moral error. That is to say, just as Jesus made mistakes in the sense of "dropping things," etc. so to does the Bible make these types of mistakes (ultimately irrelevant mistakes).

This is the website he referred me to.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

I noticed a few of the verses were taken out of context, by the way. The writer slaps 3 verses up there which were written about 700 years apart and takes them completely out of context to say, "look, these don't match." The Bible is a human book about a divine being. We aren't divine just because he is. My view of the Bible is the application of a novel theological concept called "Spirit Christology." This is basically the idea that Jesus was purely human and was a real baby. He grew up as just a kid. However, the Spirit of God was in him. When the Son left the Father, he laid down (did not lose his power but chose to not use it) his divine power. Where you see him "knowing things" or "healing people" is actually the Spirit of God on him. Why does this matter? Well, this makes Jesus truly human. He only knows what the Spirit tells or impresses upon him. Therefore, he truly can be an example for us because he isn't just denying evil as a powerful God. He does so as every human does. The difference is his relationship with God the Father via the Spirit. The Spirit works in his life so closely that after his baptism, the Spirit does miracles and inspirers speeches. The Spirit can similarly work in our own lives.

The errors that were listed are irrelevant to this picture of Christ. They’re just historical details which don't effect the truth of God. I could argue all day about how God is true, but I know from experience that he can only be real once he is believed. Once you stop fighting the belief and actually accept him. Then, and only then, can one realize how much of life's questions become answered. How God can't be put in a box. All these logical problems are attempts to say, "God has to be THIS way." Well, that is the charge of Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach...that religion is the inverse of man. God is not forced to be any certain way. We don't create him; we serve him. We love him despite the problem of evil because we have faith that he is ultimately good.

Sin

2007-04-24T00:57:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Friday, December 15, 2006

THIS IS FROM www.SKEPTOID.COM. THIS IS THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT FROM A PODAST REGARDING SIN. IN THE COMMENT SECTION AT THE END, I PLACE THE SAME COMMENT THAT I POSTED ON THIS MAN'S SITE. THIS GUY ANGERED ME BECAUSE HE TAKES THE TYPICAL "OBJECTIVE" WAY OF ARGUING UNTIL HE COMES ACCROSS SOMETHING HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE CAN SIMPLY MAKE FUN OF THE BELIEF SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S "OBVIOUSLY" CRAZY. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT WE CHRISTIANS WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE TOWARDS EVOLUTION? THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT I TALKED ABOUT WHEN I DISCUSSED UNIVERSITIES. THEY HIDE BEHIND OBJECTIVITY WHEN THEY "JUST ASK" THEIR QUESTIONS WITH NO "INTENTION."

November 26, 2006Podcast transcript Listen Subscribe

This week, I'm going to put on my burgundy velvet robe, fill my martini glass, and observe that bastard stepchild of the value system: Sin.
Sin is an interesting thing. A sin is something you're not supposed to do, according to a given set of religious restrictions. Sins are not necessarily illegal. Sins are not necessarily wrong. Sins don't necessarily harm anyone. In fact, many sins can be completely, entirely harmless, like the thinking of impure thoughts. So what's the problem? Why are sins bad?
I guess that all depends on whose definition of "bad" you use. For example, if you're a Muslim, it's sinful to get urine on yourself. The rest of us follow this commandment pretty strictly too, but we certainly wouldn't consider the odd dribble to be sinful. Buddhists consider skeptical doubt to be a sin (though they call it a hindrance), but doubt certainly isn't a problem for Christians or Muslims. Most Christians consider polygamy to be sinful, but it's the rule for most of Africa and the East. So there's no one clear yardstick for determining what's sinful or not. It depends completely upon the religious context. Outside of a religious context, the word sin is, for all practical purposes, meaningless.
Christians in particular consider everyone to be sinful, regardless of their performance. They call this "original sin", and it's essentially a negative blot on your report card immediately upon birth. Since Adam and Eve had the gall to eat some fruit that was offered to them, you and I and everyone else are considered guilty by association and are thus fundamentally bad people, according to strict Christian doctrine.
Christians also have to deal with "mortal sins." A mortal sin is one that, if left unrepented, sends you to hell when you die. Christians don't maintain a list of what types of sins guarantee you a date with the devil, instead they lay out some general rules. The big sins, like murder and adultery, put you on the fast track. Mortal sins have to be done deliberately. If you simply forget to go to church, accidentally put on a condom, or unintentionally catch a glance at a hot chick out of the corner of your eye, such sins are called venial sins and you can get away with them. But if you do them deliberately — blow off church on purpose in order to saw some extra logs on Sunday morning, wear the condom on purpose, or deliberately stare at the hot chick with impure thoughts — they are mortal sins. If you do things like this regularly, strict Christians consider that you are hellbound for sure. There are probably a lot of human males who needn't bother wearing their jackets for their burial.
Worst of all is the "eternal sin" - to deny God, which cannot be forgiven. Those considering an eternal sin might as well lose a fiddling contest to Satan right now. The punishment for an eternal sin is the same as for a mortal sin; the difference is that there's no opportunity to be forgiven and get out of it. It's sort of like being on death row in a state where the governor doesn't have a telephone.
When you eliminate activities that injure others or are otherwise wrong, there are still items on the sin list: basically a long list of victimless crimes. This is where the fun begins for those of us not hampered by religious restrictions.
Take social relationships, including plural marriages, same sex marriages, and anyone living together or having sex outside of wedlock. It doesn't hurt anyone, everyone involved has a great time, and it's mutually fulfilling for all participants. But those activities are all pretty high on the sin list. Take it out of a religious context, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with it. Polyamory is also a victimless crime that for some reason is considered sinful: wife swapping, swinging, hedonism, group sex parties, and open marriages are things that all the participants enjoy behind closed doors. Where's the harm?
Straight sex between married partners is all right, so long as it never extends to include masturbation, fetishism, lust, or impure thoughts. "Have to stop a minute, Mabel, I started to feel a little lusty."
The list of sins is not static: it's even been updated to include cybersex. Using a computer in some way to enhance sexual stimulation is sinful. This includes a video chat session with your spouse when one of you is traveling. That makes a lot of sense.
Drunkenness and tobacco are big on the sin list. This one's just plain counterproductive. Who among us doesn't appreciate an evening at the club in an overstuffed leather chair, with a martini and a fine cigar, talking politics and blasphemy. Throw in some profanity (which, fortunately, I don't see on the list of sins), and you've got the perfect evening. Drunkenness and tobacco are fundamental to healthy male adulthood. Frankly, I don't even know how I'd be able to conduct a proper board meeting without these accoutrements.
Idolatry is another sin that would be hard for me to live without. Idolatry doesn't necessarily relate to graven images or statues of other gods; idolatry is the practice of loving anything or anyone more than you love God. For me, the brand names Porsche and Jeep are hard to get past. I do attend church every Sunday morning: My temple of worship is a rectangle at the beach measuring 8 meters by 16 meters and involves the hitting of a synthetic leather ball at other worshippers. And since I cannot honestly say that there are any supernatural invisible flying magicians whom I love more than my own family, idolatry is definitely a sin that I need to commit every minute of every day, as much as I need to draw breath.
Hate and anger are sins. I don't really hate anyone and I don't get angry very often. About the only thing that gets me angry is when I hear the worst of the bad news from the world: children being abused or murdered, and genocides. Apparently, the world's major religions think that I should go to hell because those things make me angry. I'd have to say this is one case where the world's major religions can kiss my ass. I respect how the Amish can overlook these crimes and offer loving forgiveness to even these criminals, but I'll save my applause for the inmates who beat Jeffrey Dahmer's head to death against a prison toilet.
Lying. This one's tough. I don't know how anyone can claim that they don't practice this sin every day, no matter how religious they are. Have you ever told anyone that you can't go somewhere, or can't do something, when the truth is you simply didn't want to? You're a liar. You ever stop talking about someone when they entered the room, to deceive them into thinking you weren't talking about them? You're a liar. Ever give someone one of those quick fake smiles when you pass them in the hall — as if seeing them makes you happy? You're a liar. Lies don't have to be spoken and they are usually not malicious, but they're still lies. We all do it, all day, every day. Lying is a fundamental of politeness and a pillar of good behavior.
The truth is the concept of sin has no place in the lives of intelligent adults in modern society. Politeness, honesty, industry, and simply being yourself will take you a lot further. I say to the religious people: Keep your arbitrary restrictions, and your hateful belief that I should go to hell, to yourselves.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of being free of the restraints of sin is that I get to make the following invitation: If any hot women out there want to join my wife and I for some raging topless hot tubbing, well cooled with margaritas and free of any Catholic guilt, give me a call.
© 2006 Skeptoid.com

My Reply

I just discovered your podcast today and found it interesting. Everything I listened to was well argued until I listened to the message on "sin." You seem, for the most part, to take an existentialist approach to discussing issues. This is your approach when you attempt to inform the "Creationists" about evolution. However, you left that "objectivity" behind for this. You openly trash the ideas on sin as if there is nothing to disprove…as if it’s quite obvious your right. I see a little Bill O’Reily in this episode. You make the claim that many "sins" do not hurt anyone. How do you know that? You mention lust ("impure thoughts"). Doesn’t this effect a marriage? Doesn’t sex outside of marriage effect (possibly) the family structure (accidental pregnancies)? You also frame the "Adam and Eve" sin as something like this "they had the nerve to eat some fruit offered to them" as if this was truly the problem. The problem wasn’t eating it; it was disobeying what God had commanded them to avoid for their own good. The whole idea of sin (practically) is that it is ultimately not good for you; thus, you shouldn’t do it. The whole idea of sin (spiritually) is that it is the wedge between God and humanity. Spiritually, sin prevents relationship. Lack of relationship with God is what (speaking of most Traditional Christians) "sends one to hell" as you say. The Gospels lump all SIN together into one "preventive" basket. So for you to discuss the "types" of sins as if one is "okay" but another is damnable seems to be a mischaracterization of Traditional Christianity. (I realize there are technical differences for the purposes of theology, but there is no difference when it comes to its spiritual result). You focus on "acts" of sin rather than what Jesus focused on which was the "heart" or basically one’s relationship with God. There is no New Testament list of sins but only the question of "knowing" Jesus.
You said in your "faith" podcast that believers should believe without trying to prove with science. So I’ll stop trying to prove why sin isn’t good. But I wonder why you’re trying to (not necessarily prove but) "strongly question" its relevancy. Take it by "faith"…right? At least, allow religious people to do so.

Logocentrism, Deconstructionism, and the Fall of Common Sense - Part 2

2007-04-20T15:54:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Part 2

I've already hinted at this, but there is an 'ethical' purpose of this viewpoint. It begins with a concept you may have heard of in politics or theology before—"The Other." Political correctness is an offshoot of deconstructionism. Logocentrism challenges certainty because certainty leads to the 'power of truth.' If something is true, then it has consequences. If it is TRUE that it is 'not right' to kill someone, then this leads to a punishment for this act. Alternative views to this 'truth' are stomped on. If I'm sure Allah wishes me to kill the infidel, then I will use this 'truth' to kill you. Nevermind your alternative view. This follows the line of thought that 'truth' is 'the opinion of the powerful.' Or maybe you've heard it as "might makes right." Philosophy argues over whether things are moral because "God" (powerful) says so or because they are right in their own merit. If they are right because powerful God says so, then they are arbitrarily that way (meaning he could have said murder was good). However, if he didn't say what was right and wrong, then isn't he just a puppet of the more powerful innate nature of morality? Is he subject to it? This is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.

I got off track. Let's get back to the concept of "the other." Tradition dominates truth. Notice the use of "tradition." You may or may not be familiar with the term "progressive." A traditionalist is typically a "conservative" or in other words, he/she wishes to hold onto the truths of the past. What was good, then, is good now. Progressives tend to think that the past didn't have the truth in the first place, and now we're learning better ways of thinking. A lot of times ‘progressive’ goes hand-in-hand with ‘secular’ to form the term "secular progressives." They tend to remove God from things because that "old truth" is no truth at all. Deconstructionism tears religion apart revealing a poor foundation. "We must progress past this primitive way of thinking." The majoritive (I just made a new word) way of thinking is no greater than the minority view. This mode of thinking applies both to theology and politics. Do you see now how we're getting to the fall of common sense? "The other" has been subjugated by the powerful for centuries. One cannot reduce someone based upon his/her "otherness." Alternative viewpoints must be valued so that the humans possessing these views will be valued (Levinas).

So, despite knowing what is right, we pretend like all things are equal. Common sense so easily shows what is right and wrong, but we have to ignore it. We're told to "consider everything." Isn't that what your University classes do? Haven't you noticed that classes taught in colleges attempt to make no statement about what is right? They simply present everything with "no intention to lead." They hide behind objectivity, but in reality, we all see the motive. Objectivity has its value, but common sense says that you consider this new idea and actually come to a conclusion. Remember deconstructionism doesn't truly let you come to a conclusion. It wants you to live in the world of the University where the proper answer is always "I don't know." The proper answer is no answer at all. Its simply this is why it's complicated…blah blah blah. No one can take a stand for what they believe because this is to say he/she has grabbed truth and put it in his/her pocket. Do you see the application to theology? "Did God really say that? How do you know?" Do you see the application to politics? "We must randomly check people at the airport." Racially profiling is "immoral" because common sense is dead. "The fact that the majority of terrorist threats would come from fundamental Muslims isn't relevant because its possible that it could come from someone not fitting that background." Yes, this is true, but common sense tells you to check for the most likely culprit first.

I hate deconstructionism because it is 'false brilliance.' Someone who can simply see a problem in a premise (meaning not 100% unquestionable premise) seems so smart. "Look they proved his argument is worthless." Common sense gets us past this perceived need for "unquestionability." (Again, I know deconstructionism doesn't say you have to have unquestionability. It doesn't care. It just questions.) My professors pulled this move all the time. They were using the Socratic method, which certainly has value, but at the end of the day, one has to come to a conclusion. We can't live in the world of academics which is "I don't know for sure, so I don't know." Descartes did us a service with his "Meditations," but the practical part of his life was filled with things he "knew." This "freedom" of truth is what has lead to ultra-liberalism. "Believe what you want…it is as likely to be true as what Tradition says." "The other idea has as much merit as mine"…right? This progressivism of thought seems antithetical to my primitive biblicism. That is the heart of my problem with it. Does truth change? Most would say no, but many would say our understanding of it changes. So does that mean we should be progressives or traditionalists? The progressive understanding of things is fine as long as the heart of what was said in the past (e.g. the Bible) isn't undermined for the sake of "present-day morality."

Logocentrism, Deconstructionism, and the Fall of Common Sense - Part 1

2007-04-20T15:47:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Part 1

Is that a lofty enough title for you? Some of you may remember that I wrote something on Islam a while back. Well, it was so long that I divided it into 2 parts. This will definitely be like that except that I'm not going to divide it up. I'll probably post this, and then go back and read it and edit it. So I don't know what version you've got. Anyway, I want to go over my point first, and then go into my long explanation.
I wish to explain logocentrism within deconstructionism (to the extent of getting at my purpose, not really covering the 'whole' of deconstructionsim). I also wish to explain why I dislike deconstructionism because of my contention that is directly related to the fall of common sense in this politically correct world. Okay, if this doesn't seem interesting, then tune out now cause this is going to be a long one.
Deconstructionism could properly trace its roots back to Socrates. Have you heard of the "Socratic method" of teaching? This method basically tries to teach by asking questions. Socrates' goal in asking questions was to show how poor one's foundations were in his/her arguments. This lack of a strong foundation meant someone could not really be sure of what he believes. The ethics of this is that one will not use his beliefs as a club over someone else's head. "Allah says kill the infidel, so you must die." See how dangerous a powerful belief can be? Okay, let's get a grasp of logocentrism.
Logocentrism is basically the idea that there is no such thing as a given. There is no unquestionable starting point from which to build all knowledge. Remember above where Socrates questions a person's argument by challenging his/her "given" or what they hold to be true. Remember the Aristotelian sense of arguments? Basically, all arguments are Premise 1 = Xa. Premise 2 = Xb. Premise 3 = Xc. So, Conclusion 1 = Y. Then Conclusion 2 = Z. So from, the 3 premises, one could properly draw conclusions 1 & 2. Logocentrism says that even our premises are taken upon past conclusions that were based on poor premises. I fell victim to this recently. I used a "the Bible says, so it must be true" argument. Well, I'm taking a "given" (i.e. the Bible) whereas logocentrism (rightfully in this case) says that this is not a given. The Bible isn't unquestionable to everyone, therefore it can't be taken as a given to everyone. The fact that I view it as paramount in epistemology is irrelevant to some, so what good does it do to use it in attempt to convince them of an error? Logocentrism claims that our foundational truths are conclusions, not indisputable givens. Everything that we think is a given (e.g. The Bible) is merely a long-standing conclusion.
Deconstructionism takes logocentrism to its extreme. It challenges so much of what we believe objectively. That means that it applies this ruthless standard of 'absolute certainty' as essential. Well, the reality is that deconstructionism, as I've seen it, wouldn't say one could have absolute certainty, but the impression left by its results is that one needs absolute certainty to sidestep it. This is the practical feeling. However, because of the death of objectivity with Kant, nothing is 100 percent certain. All we can do is take the G.E. Moore move, which is to say that I believe things based on the greatest proportion of evidence. If something has more/better proofs to it being true (say 70 percent) versus a minority of problems (30 percent), then I have a valid reason to go ahead and believe in it. I wonder if I'm making any sense. "The 10 Commandments are good because God gave it to us in the Bible." Deconstructionism would ask does God exist? Did he give it to us, and how do you know that? Does he even communicate with humans? Does this single event even apply to humans even today? Why? Why does it matter if I follow them or not? What does it matter what God says/gives? The fact that a person couldn't flatly refute all these problematic questions is no reason to deny Christianity or the validity of the 10 Commandments.

Trinitarian Language

2007-04-20T15:43:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Saturday, November 25, 2006

Presbyterians revisit the Trinity
From the Associated Press: (http://www.theologywebsite.com/)
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit"--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer and Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairwoman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God. (original lyrics can be found here: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/r/praisegf.htm)
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, said she was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the 10 Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly is to vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional presbyteries some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
-----------------------------------------
Now comes my commentary on this issue. There is no single "analogy" for the Trinity in the history of Christianity. However, there is one that is used significantly more than any other, including in the Bible. This is "Father, Son, and Spirit." I get the whole "God isn't male" deal. I'm not arguing that he is. What I'm saying is that when theology feels like it can re-interpret the Bible, it is too secure in itself. When theology feels comfortable enough to say "this is what the biblical author meant to say" it has overstepped its bounds. Theology was meant to organize subjects within Christendom, not re-write them. Karl Barth warned against inhumility in theology.

11/26/2006 -

Here I am a few days after I wrote the above section. I got to thinking about this issue. It is ironic that I would talk about how I didn't think these people should go beyond the Bible (or at least be extremely careful in doing so). Why is it ironic? Well, that is exactly what Trinitarian theology does. It is "the next step" to the Bible. The word "Trinity" isn't even in the Bible. Though it appears the basis for the Trinity is there, it took early church fathers many years to finally set a doctrine on the matter. Did they go beyond the Bible? I think that depends on perspective. They (they, here, means the early church Fathers such as Tertullian and Augustine) believed they were only "clarifying" what the Bible laid out. Remember the purpose of the Gospels wasn't high theology but to tell us of the good news. So of course, the Bible magnifies the work of Jesus over the person of Jesus/The Son and the Holy Spirit.
The reason the church felt the need to "clarify" (very dangerous in my opinion) was because of the multitude of heresies (even more dangerous). The unity of the church was valued more highly then. The culture didn't call for individual truth like our postmodern world does.

Abraham & Isaac

2007-04-20T15:34:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Thursday, November 09, 2006

I've been thinking about some things lately. I was reminded of something my Father preached regarding Abraham & Isaac. I had never heard it phrased quite like this before, but he said, "God didn't want to kill Isaac; he wanted to kill Abraham." The implication there is that God's incredible demand of Abraham to sacrifice his own son was really a command for Abraham to lay himself down on the altar. Isn't it funny that 2,000 years before Jesus walked this earth there were so many typologies. Jesus said that one must lose his life to find it. Abraham had to be willing to give up what he loved most dearly to demonstrate his love for God. Do you want to prove Christianity? Live a life of sin. That proves it. The moment your in that garbage, you see how simple the solution is. You see how the pursuit of self is a dead end. You took this turn and that turn for days, weeks, months, years. You traveled for such a long time only to realize you had gotten nowhere. If you never leave yourself, then you've gone nowhere. You've achieved nothing. You feel worthless and for good reason. I'll never forget when that passage about losing your life to find it went from just a strange phrase to revelational truth. They call it the "ah ha" moment. Why is it that we can know things like that mentally, but when it comes to living out the truth we have inside, we're so good at lying to ourselves. We're so good at suppressing what we know.

"Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him...." - Job 13:15

Alive

2007-04-20T15:32:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Sunday, June 11, 2006

Did you know that that web logs is where "blog" comes from? Anyway, I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which it’s spectacular). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes that I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a second chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?

6.6.06

2007-04-18T21:49:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, June 06, 2006

BE SURE TO REALIZE THAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED THIS ON 6/6/06 BEFORE I HAD THIS SITE. PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MY SARCASM. I'M NOT SAYING THE INTERNET = THE BEAST...or am I?

Well, in honor of all Satan's day, I thought I would just tell you something interesting that I learned last night. The Hebrew alphabet has a letter called "vav." It is basically a V, but it can translate into English as a "W." This is why you sometimes see YHWH or YHVH. And it is also why the more traditional yahWeh is translated jehoVah. I don't pretend to understand the language. I just know that I've seen some kind of "inter-changeability" between the 2 letters. If you think that's ludicrous, then it is also ludicrous that the "y" is changed to "j" in YHWH/Jehovah. Get the idea? Letters change between languages. So, the v can change to w in English. I've been told that Hebrew didn't have numbers in the form of separate symbols like we have 0-9. They merely used letters as numbers somewhat like Roman numerals. The numerical value in Hebrew (gematria) for "vav" is 6. That means that everytime you enter a website, you're typing www right? That also means that you're typing the Hebrew numerical equivalent of 666. Interesting huh. So next time you go to myspace, just think that you're typing 666.myspace.com. 20/20 was right! Myspace is evil. Oh yeah, add up all the numbers from a roulette wheel. They range from 00 to 36. It equals 666. I've been told that every bar code has 666 on it, but I don't understand those well enough to know if that is true. Have you heard that the 666 of the Bible = Caesar Nero? I have heard that, but I don't know Hebrew, and it is a Hebraic equation, so I can't check that. Even more interesting is that Latin Gematria adds his name up to 616. Well, check the references at the bottom of your Bible. You will see that there is a variant of the passage that adds up to 616. Irenaeus' manuscripts read 616. See Rev. 13:18 for the passage in question. I have more on this, but I will post it later.

Oh, I was reading on this stuff and read what this nut put...and he is serious.
"Jehovah, YHVH, God: Yod = 10He = 5Vav = 6He = 5Total = 26Analysis: Note that Vav, the Hebrew letter corresponding to the English letter W, is in this word, and W is the letter representing President Bush. An indication of President Bush being a bridge between man and God, bringing divine energy to Earth as the letter Vav symbolizes, and doing God's work in destroying the great evil of these Moslem terrorists, as I discuss on the page on the War on Terrorism."

Apparently if you have the letter W as your middle initial, then you're God's Chosen One. Maybe I should change my name to Chad Wichael McCracken? But then I'd have to worry if Wichael would end up freakishly adding up to 666 in either Greek, English, Roman numerals, or Hebrew because notice that most people use any one of these systems to say someone is evil or good. Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each of his three names 6 6 6, but notice that that isn't even gematria. Gematria would give a value for each letter and then add that up. But the bottom-line is that yeah, Reagan was really evil!

Okay, so I guess my point is that I don't know what to think about 666. The writer of Revelation had a point, but it was meant to be a code. We like to try to say we know what he meant, but we don't. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, he didn't give the code for fun, he wanted people to understand who he meant despite the oppression of the Roman empire at that time. That leads credence to the Caesar Nero idea. Although, Nero was dead (60's) by the time of the writing of Revelation (90's). So have I confused you yet?
Again, I have a lot more on the case for and against Nero as the "Beast" of Revelation, and I will post it soon.

Paranoia Express: Implantable Microchips

2007-04-18T15:49:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Friday, May 26, 2006

Paranoia Express: Implantable Microchips
Glenn Beck and my father are to blame for this, but I feel like writing about something scary. Darla, I know you well enough to know that you won't want to read any further. You can thank me later. After 9/11, I made the comment that terrorism would spell the end of privacy rights. I said that our government would eventually implement a tracking system for EVERYTHING. Why would we do this? It solves a multitude of our current issues. This tracking/information system would be some form of nano-technology that would be placed within the body in a from that would likely be impossible to remove.
Let's look at all the issues this device could solve. These will be in the order that I think of them rather than by importance.
1) Passwords and the "speed age." As a realtor, I have at least 15 websites that I use occasionally each with its own password and user ID. Often I'm not able to change the user ID or password, so I just have to remember them. For the main site (MLS), I have to remember a 9-digit code, then I put in my pin number (4 digits), then I put in the 6-digit code that's on my keypad. This keypad has 6 digits on it that change every minute of every day 24/7/365. This is just for work. What about your security system at your house? What about your check card? Did you check your email today? Did you get on myspace? Did you have to "sign on" to your internet service? Do you have a social security number? Passwords are everywhere. They are our current "identity" checker. Anything typed on a computer can be taken off a computer. ALL of your information is on some computer somewhere. The chip could solve identity issues. Illegal immigrants steal social security numbers all the time. They can't do this if one's identity is beamed from a chip inside one's body. Imagine a world where you pump gas without ever swiping a card. You deposit or withdraw money at the bank without having to stop and fill out those slips. You go to the grocery store and don't have to wait in line for FOREVER while you get "checked out." You simply walk out the door. You go shopping at the mall and try on a new outfit. You like it so you want to buy it. Well, you just keep it on and walk out of the store. Don't you see that our world has become the "speed age" more so than the "information age." Information just helps us speed up processes. When people buy homes today, we can show them everything available that fits what they're looking for by doing an internet search. Yes this is information, but it is information meant to speed up the process. Our culture, and more importantly, our economy, is moving towards whatever speeds things up. That's why we have automatic, online bill paying now. Itunes gives me the latest song without my ever having to put on pants (I'm wearing pants anyway though, just for you). Okay, have I proven my point on this one yet?
2) Terrorism/Illegal Immigration- Anyone who comes into our country could be forced to take this chip in him or her. We will know exactly where they are and exactly how long they've been here. Anyone who doesn't have this chip wouldn't be able to survive. If someone from Mexico came over, they would have to have the chip to buy food. One could only steal for so long. Viola, the border issue is solved. Who would want to come over if they couldn't survive. Let's say, however, that Mexico gets on board with this technology. Then, we would know that illegals have come into our country. Anyone who doesn't register when they come over would be breaking the law. Terrorism would still happen, but if we have everyone injected and we suspect who is to blame, then we would know instantly where to find this person. Do you see how these 2 are related? If we inject every one who comes into our country, then they can't perform a terrorist act and get out. This is why illegal immigration would EVENTUALLY become a real crime to our government rather than something that's seen as an opportunity for amnesty like it is now.
3) Others- How do you speed when you're being tracked? How do you steal someone's car when it has a tracker in it? How do you kidnap and molest a child when the tracker will lead police right to you? Let's say a patient is brought into an emergency room. The doctor doesn't know who the patient is because the patient is unconscious and the people who brought him in just found him on the street. They don't know him or his medical history. The doctor needs to use either one drug or another based on the blood type of the patient. The chip could give the doctor the information immediately. Otherwise the doctor would have to run tests which in the meantime, the patient could die. Imagine how this chip could help the military. It would know exactly where every soldier is in real time. 25 percent of the deaths in the invasion of Iraq were due to friendly fire. The military has already taken steps to prevent these kinds of deaths by placing real-time trackers on their vehicles. The "friendlies" show up on monitors. The problem is that it only shows vehicles, not men. The plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11 turned off its tracker. We had our F16's over the ocean because we didn't know where it was. If we would have had the chip, we could have easily found out who was on the plane and then found out where these people were. Don't you see how this chip only makes sense? If it can really do all of this, why wouldn't we use it? It's coming. At the same time, the danger is that this information will get into the wrong hands, not "if." I'm only 24. This chip, in some form, will be in circulation by the time I retire. The technology already exists. It's just a matter of time. I don't know about all the "out-there" interpretations of Revelation, but I will say this. It's extremely possible that this technology will provide governments with a power never seen before. The question is, isn't it possible that the UN or some other organization will try to have this chip implemented throughout the world to bring these "benefits" and to prevent terrorism? What then?
---
I recently made a video on this subject in conjunction with another topic that I haven't discussed yet--The European Union. I admit that this might be over-dramatic right now, but nonetheless, it worries me. Take a look at the slideshow, but keep in mind that I'm connecting percieved dots. I feel like things are moving, slowly, but surely toward this. I will get to the subject of the EU and it's role in globalism soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpmZYkaBKM

Ever Wonder What They Believe: Jehovah's Witnesses

2007-04-18T15:43:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, April 25, 2006

I found this at http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm. This is not the official page for J.W.'s. I didn't want to give that out because I don't know who might read this and where they are in their "faith." The reason I mention that it isn't from the "official" is two-fold. 1) That means it may not be "exactly" framed the way they would. Although, I went to their site and it seems to be an excellent summary. 2) However, there was one discrepancy between what "carm.org" said and what the official site said involving Jesus. Carm.org says that J.W.'s believe the angel Michael incarnated as Jesus. The official site didn't mention Michael but just called the Son the "prehuman Jesus." Okay, here you go. Now you will know what they believe when you hear that knock at the door. By the way, can you explain to me why # 11 matters? What difference does it matter if it was 2 pieces of wood (cross) or 1 piece? Also, when you read about the 144,000, they believe others (than the 144,000) will have "eternal life." The 144,000 have a higher version with better bodies, though.
What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?
There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188.
There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386.
The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.406-407.
The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952,p. 24.
Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah increating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.
Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15,1963, p. 307; The New World, 284.
Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 306.
Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4.
Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276.
Jesus was born again, The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1954, p. 682.
Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985,pp. 89-90.
Jesus began his invisible rule over the earth in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free,p. 300.
Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119.
Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1,1972, p. 197.
They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19.
Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30.
Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152.
The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67.
There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80.
Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures,1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121.
Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681.
Only the 144,000 may take communion,
Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73.
The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from theScriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92.
Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp.150,152.
It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.358-359.
The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43.
Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long. Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth'spreparation, Let God be True, p. 168.
They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armedforces.
Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55

I realize a Jehovah's Witness member may come across this. If so, please leave a comment on what isn't true. I simply don't know and had to turn to another source which I could not verify. I give you that ability.

Authority Dilemma

2007-04-16T22:00:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, January 03, 2006

I feel like I should talk about this upcoming subject for a reason unknown to me. Maybe it's just because I find the subject very interesting. When I first had the question posed to me, I had no answer. I was completely shocked by it. I thought, how could I be 20 years old, been involved in Bible and Theology for two years and I've never realized this dilemma. Ready for the dilemma?
Question: Which is the higher authority?: The Church or Scripture? Here in lies the problem, if you say Scripture, then how did it get there? Didn't the Church "decide" what Scripture was? Didn't they vote on it? If you say, then, that the Church is higher, you also have a problem. If you aren't Catholic, then you have a limited perception of the Church. You're so splintered between differing beliefs that it becomes quite impossible to say "truth" is one thing. Protestants have differing views on everything. If you're Catholic, this is just a false dilemma. The Catholic church holds them both up as pillars of authority. My problem with that is this: history shows us the problem with the Church. The Church has participated in murder and other sins. It was corrupted long ago. It decided what was "proper" and then changed it years later. How does truth fit in that? Obviously you can tell that I don't subscribe to changing truths. So, where are we left then?
Interestingly, John Calvin had a solution to this. To me, it was a genius point.
Point 1: Scripture has its authority from God, not from the Church.
Calvin goes right to the heart of the Catholic idea that Scripture was decided by man/the church when he says, "As if the eternal and invisible truth of God depended upon the decision of men" (all quotes/references are from his Institutes Book 1, chap 7). It actually goes into a borrowing from Platonic thought, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, Calvin believed the historical event of the Church gathering to decide on the canon was merely the outworking of the Spirit's work. The Spirit is the ultimate guide and leader in their decision. It is as if the inspiration that guided the writers guided the delegates. If the Church was truly given the power to place books within the canon, then she could have the power to remove books. Where would we be then? Truth would become someone's whim. The Church could manipulate the way to Christ. After all, we receive Christ "clothed with the Gospel." The Spirit would be unnecessary to reach the Father because man's authority has taken his stead.
2. The Church is itself grounded upon Scripture
Calvin takes it a step further to argue the reverse of the Catholic doctrine. It is an "antecedent" view of Scripture. That is, instead of the Church declaring "Scripture," Scripture is the foundation of the Church. Eph 2:20 says that the church was "built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles."
3. This point goes into an appeal to St. Augustine, but we don't need to go into that. Basically, he was miss cited. His point was misunderstood.
4. The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof
Calvin believes Scripture is self-authenticating. He believes it is apparent. It has been moved along by the wind/Spirit. It is above human reason.
Point 5 is basically the same as 4 except that he thinks the Spirit doesn't just reveal truth in the Bible, but it reveals the truth in us. That is, the Spirit moves us to belief, not just that it brings truth in Scripture. Their is a dual action working in the text itself and in us. Belief/faith is a gift. Scripture is not proved by guesswork for "the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts."
Another argument I heard once went as simply this: the Church didn't vote, it simply upheld what was already being read in the vast Church. The Church simply got together to uphold the orthodox faith due to surging heresies and confusion.

Chosen

2007-04-16T21:59:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Wednesday, November 30, 2005

We are chosen not because we're good enough, but because he was good enough to choose us.

Fundamentalism

2007-04-15T13:31:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Wednesday, October 25, 2006

I said in my last blog that I would explain the emergence of the term "fundamentalism" and display a connection to Islam, so if you haven't read my last blog, then you need to before this one. And once again, this will likely be long and philosophical, so if that bores you, now would be the time to stop reading. What I'm about to say might be controversial even to my conservative readers. That is okay. If you have a problem with it, then just email me and we can talk about it. I "could" be wrong.
Fundamentalism is a Protestant movement emerging out of the early 20th Century backlash against the rise of secularism. Namely, this involved Darwinism and liberal theology. Trust me people, popular theology was very liberal coming into the 20th Century. Names like Hegel and Schleiermacher were the "head" thinkers in "high" theology at this time. I don't have time to go into their theologies though. Let's put it this way, the Bible was an after-thought. Basically, people got tired of the garbage out there in their world, so they wrote down 5 points that one HAD TO believe in order to be a Christian. Now this is the part that makes me truly a non-fundamentalist (although I am one in a different since). I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY "have to" in Christianity (I'll leave that vague). However, I do believe in all 5 points and find it troublesome to be a Christian and not believe these points. Here they are: 1. The Virgin Birth (biblical) 2. The Physical Resurrection of Jesus (Hegel and Schleiermacher denied this, biblical) 3. The Infallibility of Scriptures (this one is the most tricky because what does "infallibility" mean?) 4. Substitutional Atonement (A simple way to understand this is that Jesus stood in the place of you for the payment of sins. We are allowed relationship with the Father through the act of the Son, biblical) 5. Physical 2nd Coming of Christ (biblical). Do you see a pattern here? All of these are biblical points. Even though I didn't list the 3rd as biblical, it really is because there are passages (Timothy) which describe the Scriptures' nature. This is a circular argument though, so I won't press that. Anyway, those who held to these five points and the necessity that others did as well were called "Fundamentalists" because they held to fundamental/core Christian beliefs. Jesus was a radical. To believe these points in the early 20th Century was radical. To believe them now in our post-Christian society is radical. Now I want to bring in Islam.
Muslims who kill the infidel (aka "unbeliever") are labeled as "extremist radicals." Muhammad did not just lead a new religion; he led a war—Jihad (Holy War). It is true that he died rather early on, but his followers continued and even increased the warfare. Islam began in 622. By 636, they won a major battle against the Christians at Yarmuk. Two years later, they took Jerusalem. 641 saw Alexandria fall. 695 saw Carthage end its reign as a place of great theologians including Augustine. It wasn't until 732 (over 100 years) that the Muslims lost a major battle. In all of this conflict, pagans were forced to convert or they were given the sword. Christians and Jews were not always killed, but their evangelical efforts were not allowed. By 700, nearly all of Arabia was unified under the bloody sword of Islam. Interestingly, Christianity gained its strength by blood too but it was Christ's and the martyrs. Notice a difference? Anyway, terrorists today are not extreme forms of their religion. They are "Primitivists." What this means is that they seek to return to the primitive or beginning ideas of the religion. Consider the Suburbia Jesus and the societal Christians you know. Aren't they just followers of a watered-down religion with no real-life in it. Their religion is decided more by society than by its foundational truths. It's a religion, not a relationship. What I'm suggesting is that the world is perfectly okay with watered-down religion. It seeks that. In an odd way, I can understand why terrorists act for Allah. They're attempting to hold to their "orthodox" (beginning) religion. They work for their salvation, while ours has already been worked for.
My central point for bringing the Muslims into this discussion is this. Their religion, at its core, is not a loving one. It is a religion of the sword. It is one based on the original deception of Muhammad. Those that follow it, as it really is, are labeled extremist fundamentalists partially to mask its true identity and partially because a watered-down religion is acceptable to society. We're told that the few who commit these acts aren't representative of Islam. The reality is that they are the ones who actually follow their religion.
Here is my final point. I'm a fundamentalist. I'm a primitivist who believes in the necessity of the restoration of the church as John Calvin argued. I list myself as a Protestant because I "protest" (which is where Protestant comes from) the way the Catholic Church had moved away from its foundation in Christ. I believe in the 5 points of fundamentalism. They seem, to me, to be exactly what their title says they are—fundamental. I'm radical to this world and its Suburbia Jesus. According to our culture, I'm a radical for being a fundamentalist, and that is the way I like it. If Jesus was, then I probably should be too.
As a side-note, if you agree with these points, don't go around calling yourself a fundamentalist. People won't know the difference that you intend. They will believe your goal in life is to bomb an abortion clinic. Remember that fundamentalism was intended to just return to the Apostolic (Apostle's faith). It just wishes to worship the triune God as he revealed himself in Scripture without bowing to society. That was their intention, and it is mine.

The Jesus of Suburbia

2007-04-15T13:29:00.000-04:00

Originally posted - Tuesday, October 18, 2005

"The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie." This quote from Green Day provoked me to finally write on something I've been thinking about for a while. This is likely to be long, so if that matters, you might want to stop reading now. In fact, where I want to get with this point will take so long that I'm already planning on getting there in another entry. Okay, the disclaimer is over.
I don't know how the staunchly liberal group meant that phrase, but allow me to run with it as it struck me. Is it true in some sense? Yes, I think so. Our Jesus is what we make him to be in some sense (Freurbach). Do we really turn the other cheek? The figure the Gospels present is a totally radical one. The Suburbia Jesus isn't radical. He's our "pocket Jesus" that we pull out when we're in a jam. "Oh, something bad just happened, so I think I'll pray." How many rap videos have you seen with the crucifix around someone's neck? Then they proceed to sell us their garbage of materialism and lust. The Jesus of the New Testament, though loving, did care about how we lived our lives. "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Jesus, the radical, spoke largely to Jewish people saying, "But I say to you." The "but" there is crucial to my point. The Jews followed a religious system set up from the times of Abraham and Moses. Jesus confronts that system or at least, the misunderstandings prevalent in the system. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) does not weaken standards but raises them. Do you realize how radical that was to a people who followed the same Tradition for thousands of years? He tells us to reconcile, not sue. The Jesus of Suburbia solely takes our side. "Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated." The radical New Testament Jesus doesn't lower standards but raises them instead. Jesus tells us to give to the one who asks (Matthew 5:42). He tells us to love our enemies. He challenges the idea that pain in one's life is the direct result of one's sinfulness, especially in the case of sickness (a commonly held belief at that time and even exists today in the form of the "health and wealth" gospel). He tells the last in society that they shall be the first. Joy is reached not by seeking happiness and pleasure but by "losing his life to find it." Jesus drank wine. While this wasn't radical at this time, Suburbia Jesus has nothing to do with this. Our Jesus just wants us to be happy and have money. Our Jesus isn't Sovereign over natural disasters because this would make him the author. The point is simply this, we aren't radical enough. When society sees a radical, they label them "fundamentalist." That is where I want to go with my next point. I am a fundamentalist (in some sense). But I want to explain where that term came from and how it connects with the Protestant movement and eventually, I want to bring it into a thought about Islam. So tune in boys and girls.

Prologue

2007-04-13T00:08:00.000-04:00

I am going to begin to post some of my opinions. They are simply that. I don't know where this will lead or if it will have any relevance to anyone. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write. I started a blog over a year ago elsewhere. I will post those thoughts first. After they are completely posted, I will begin to post new material. I'm interested in what others think, but I'm not interested in arguing. If you disagree, please do so without resorting to negative rhetoric. That is, disagree intelligently without resorting to name-calling. Back up your position with sources. I occasionally will do that myself, but I won’t always. Mostly this is opinion, not an essay. However, if pressed, I will attempt to provide sources on anything one might ask for.

My background is in the field of Bible & Theology. However, I have a strong interest in politics, philosophy, and history. You can expect all of these things to be discussed in a "real" manner. Essentially, I’m saying that I will talk about things with no PC constraints.