Temporal, Physical Equality is an Illusion

I hope you'll agree that we are - without exception - wholly equal in God's eyes. All have sinned and have no hope of living in a way that would merit salvation.

Many in the world seek to create temporal equality where everyone has the same good things to enjoy. This was tried, and failed. More recently, it has also failed but rather than utter dissolution, it has evolved to allow tenets contrary to what was originally intended.

In Matt's blog, he referenced this story - "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's very short, so if you are unfamiliar with it, then you should read it!

The feel of this story very much reminds me of Animal Farm by Orwell (another must read - one of the handful of "classics" that I enjoyed!).

Basically, there are two main thoughts:

1. When "everyone" is "equal," there will always be some who are "more equal" than others. Complete, temporal equality is purely illusory. There will always - of necessity - need to be an unfettered governing body that must regulate all of the "others."
2. In order for equality to exist, it is not possible (some may argue only "not practical") to bring everyone up to a certain "good" level, rather, everyone must be lowered to the lowest common denominator. This is where wealth re-distribution schemes come into play (IRS & Welfare/Social Security is a limited example in the U.S. of A.). As Jesus said, "you always have the poor with you" so any attempt to change the poor into something else is futile exercise at best.

Please feel free to comment (supply a name and select the "other" radio button), especially if you disagree!

I stand in awe of God's creation

I have the blessing of being able to take a business trip in early October. The upside is that it's further west than I've ever been. The minor downside is that it'll be in LasVegas and with Stacey being quite pregnant and bringing Willow along, we probably won't get to go to far off the beaten path and experience a lot of that beauty.

In lieu of that, some friends recently went out west and did the whole nature trip thing. Go check out Will's blog for a great description and a couple of amazing (and I don't use that word lightly) pictures!

Book Review: God and the Astronomers

The following is my review of the book, God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow.

"When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume that he is over the hill or going bonkers." That is the beginning of a brief book about some observations/discoveries in the world of Astronomy written by a professed agnostic.

My initial interest in this book was two fold - 1. obviously the spiritual perspective was of concern. 2. Modern mathematics (esp. calculus and successive realms of study) are very firmly rooted in astronomy or come from those who had a strong inclination for both areas of discussion. In addition to these two items, we are currently involved in a study of apologetics in one of our sunday morning classes and I wondered what light this might shed on some of our discussions.

On the latter two fronts, this book was fairly informative. The former point was really only addressed (to any real intellectual level) in two "appendices" by commentators who wished to share a few thoughts based on the data layed out in the heart of this book.

The majority of the text looks at a brief history of astronomy and its connections both with the spiritual and arcane. Both Newton and Leibniz are cited as having great interest and making advances in astronomy while simultaneously involving themselves in investigations of the spiritual construction of the universe and how we relate to God and devoting attention to alchemy and astrology. Throughout history, it has been rare that one would look to the stars and not be prompted to think of a higher being (primarily God, lately "extra terrestrial life"). Just as biologists look to explain the origins of life, Astronomers frequently have studied what is transpiring in our universe. This resulted in theories proposed early in the 20th century (or at the end of the 19th) that caused much debate (especially with physicists such as Einstein) that pointed to the universe having an absolute beginning. With progressing technology, these theories have been all but codified and are accepted almost universally in both astronomical and physics circles. The only remaining point of contention is whether the "big bang" was an absolute beginning or a relative beginning.

Those in the absolute camp propose God as the prime cause. In the relative camp, the suggestion proposed is that the universe is constantly expanding, then contracting upon itself (explosion and implosion) over a great period of time. This view holds that we are simply in the midst of this process repeating itself over and over.

Also, descriptions (moderately technical, but not beyond anyone who completed a few intermediate high school science courses) of the varying methods of investigation and their progressive refinement are offered. This lends credence to the claims that are put forth in a clearly understandable way.

That is the meat of the book in a nutshell.

The main problem that I have is that the idea is proposed that the universe is ~10-15 billion years old and the earth is about 4.3 billion. Included in this assumption is that general evolution IS an accepted fact. God created Adam complete and fully developed. Why should we not believe that He created the heavens in a similar state (with light from stars billions of miles away already brightening our night time sky)? The answer is a simple one, in my mind.

What I found most interesting were a few of the quotes contributed at the end of the book of which I will share a few here.
This first set of quotes are by Dr. John A. O'Keefe of NASA (a catholic by profession).
On the question of our universe as happenstance or intention:

"We are, by astronomical standards, a pamered, cossetted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby's brave efforts to stand on his own feet and refuse his mother's hand. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the Universe was created for man to live in."(p118)

The impact of some of these advances in regarding the universe:

"...I think that the confirmation that the Universe was created at a dfinite time in the past, and that we see no reasonable prospect of explaining the Creation in natural terms, will be seen by many people as a starting-point for faith."(p119)

From Professor Steven T. Katz, Department of Religion, Cornell University (jew)
On the independence from observation of the beginning:

"...the notion of creation does not properly belong to the scientific vocabulary, which deals in causal connections and is premised on the assumption that causality operates everywhwere and over everything. Whether or not the Big Bang cosmology complements or parallels the Genesis account, it does reinforce an overriding consideration: to talk of creation is to point to another category of reality, requiring at least an openness to other than narrolwy scientific questions, and even more important, an openness to other than narrowly positivistic answers."(p133)

On evolution's failure to define the "why" of things:

"The basis for disagreement is not the conflict of evolution with a literal reading of Genesis, but rather the evolutionist's denial of teleology, i.e., the denial of purpose in and through nature, and purposeful movement in and through history, toward some end or goal. While evolution argues for the random, purposeless nature of natural selection, this argument only describes specific events, whether mutations or reproductions, within history and nature. It does not offer evidence for or against the purposeful ordering of nature and history as wholes."(p137)

Why this all boils down to "faith" on both sides:

"We must, however, recognize that teleology is a metaphysical concept whose ultimate reality cannot be affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical or scientific evidence. Despite scientific claims to the contrary, the destiny or meaning of the human race, and of the cosmic order, cannot be ascertained by a study of discrete biological or historical events. It is no more logical to argue the world has no ultimate cause or purpose than to argue that it does - in both cases the empirical or scientific evidence for deciding the matter is inadequate."(p138)

Consequently, we will never be able to "prove God" (theory, prop. 1, prop. 2, prop. 3, Q.E.D.). But with the beauty and power we see as we examine the universe and the world around us, it is difficult to draw another conclusion than that there IS a God and that He put all of this together.

Overall, if you're not terribly interested in astronomy, this will be quite a dry read (though a relatively quick one). My final suggestion is to get it from the library (as I did), read through it, and if you find it to be a valuable reference, buy it used.

ESV: divorce - God's view is unchanging

In this recent post on the ESV blog, they mention their translation of Malachi 2:16 as it differs from most other translations (NIV/KJV/NASB).

Some of the thoughts seem to make sense on one level, but does that invalidate the thought conveyed by the more "traditional" translation. Just because the bible (in the ESV) doesn't explicitly state that God hates divorce, isn't that the thrust of other passages?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

God sets out some of the laws the Israelites were to follow regarding this subject and this expresses the grave nature of such a decision. Were I eugene peterson, I might word it thusly:

You better be 100% sure that you don't want anything to do with this woman anymore. If you make up some excuse about her purity and she marries some other guy - forget about her! She's off limits. If you try and take her back, God detests that foolishness!

Jesus takes things a step further (or back a few steps, as I prefer to regard it) in Matthew 19:3-9:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Far too often, christians today get caught up in looking for an acceptable cause for divorce and remarriage and they totally miss the point of Jesus' answer in this passage. The question is - "Can a man get a divorce for any reason." Jesus answers - "No."

He goes further in saying that this law which was from the beginning is that one man and one woman are to leave the families they grew up with, become united in their new family and to not break this covenantal bond. It is only because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelite nation that Moses (interestingly, not God - at least explicitly) allowed divorce, but God never intended to be this way!

Since I am not a Hebrew scholar (i'm stuck with contemporary languages like French, German, and some Italian and Gaelic) I can't comment on the technical and qualitative accuracy of the ESV translation over the others. I will say this in closing: That passage (in the ESV) still teaches God's disdain for divorce even though it isn't expressly stated. Further, it illustrates the type of heart one must have to participate in such an action.

-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that I have not addressed all areas of the typical MDR debate, but that wasn't my intention. I will add as an aside that Jesus does offer an exception in that when a spouse breaks their vows of fidelity the other would be approved to remarry, but Jesus still holds to the fact that God does NOT WANT divorce, period.

Fire away!

Follow up to "Complete Devotion Required"

In yesterday's post, I went over some points about how it is imperative that we devote ourselves to God with every ounce of our being.

Well, in the context of the sermon I shared on that topic, I mentioned a few songs that I have questions/problems with. I seriously upset some folks. So, I stood up the next sunday and reminded everyone that my intention wasn't to hurt feelings or cause confusion, rather to admonish folks to think about what they're singing. I also stated that I didn't know that I could bind what I thought about those songs on anyone, but I do have questions.

I thought - for fun - I'd post those songs with my reasons and a few others. If you have some (Ward already chimed in with one - i'll spell it out below for those who haven't read the comments), post them in the comments section! And, if you disagree with me, give me a reason (and just so you know - if "we've always sung that" is your reason, then go give yourself a swirly!).

Questionable Songs (or parts thereof):
1. 10,000 Angels - Verse 3 is what I have a problem with. Quoting Jesus with "Woman, behold thy son." is taking it out of context and makes it sound like "Look at me!" not John as the scripture expresses.
2. Jesus, Rose of Sharon - After looking into this further, my objection isn't quite as solidly founded as I first thought, but I still don't care for it. My thought was that this phrase is attributed to the bride in the song of solomon. The TNIV agrees with this as does the NASB. John wesley is the only readily available commentator that I can find who believes ch 2:1 is the groom speaking. Everyone else (that I have found so far) expresses this as the bride speaking (lowly & lovely in contrast to the high & noble trees from 2:3) of herself. Though it isn't a strict parallel, we (the church) are Christ's bride, therefore HE should not be compared to the rose.
3. Lily of the Valley - Same thought as above, except for the Lily. I have less of a problem with this one because it is not so dependant on the whole metaphor as the preceeding.
4. Mansion over the Hilltop - "I want a gold one, that's silver lined" sounds a little on the greedy side to me. Jesus promised us a "dwelling" ("mansions" in the KJV isn't the best translation) not a palatial estate. In general I can sing this song, I just don't know that it's the best choice.
5. The Old Rugged Cross - (let the flames begin!) I don't know that I even need to spell out my reasons to get yelled at. I have an outline expressing why this isn't an accurate representation of what Paul spoke of in Galatians (and will gladly email that to any that wish to read it). We have no biblical teaching that expresses the concept of exchanging the cross (or even what it represents) for eternal life. Jesus does that for me. Yes, it sounds symbolic in its language, but really it elevates the cross to a higher position of esteem than God has placed it. This song is - to me - the new testament Nehushtan.
6. Come share the Lord - "no one is a stranger here"? That doesn't sound right to me! Any who are faithfully serving God should be part of the family, but any who decides to wallow in the filthy pits of sin (and no, Dennis, there isn't any "lovely filth" down there!) are strangers! This sounds remarkably calvinistic to me.

There are sure to be others (especially some of the more "contemporary" ones), but I'm drawing a blank right now. One other that was mentioned was - My Hope is Built (The Solid Rock).
"Imputed Righteousness" from verse four was the assertion, and looking at the words my take is that the thought is that living in Jesus (dressed in His righteousness) is what indemnifies us (faultless to stand). Though, I could easily see that this could be understood to imply no need for a trial with Jesus as our advocate which is exactly what we DO need.

That's it for now - fire away or add more fuel as you see fit!

Complete devotion is required

I gave a lesson about our singing in worship last week (and was soundly rebuked for mentioning some "traditional" songs that we probably shouldn't be singing - similar, but not nearly as discouraging as what Ward endured) and it lead me to a personal revelation.

In the gospel of Matthew, chapter 22 Jesus is "tested" by a lawyer who tries to trip Jesus up by getting Him to admit that one command is more important than another. Of course, Jesus answers in a way which should have soundly humbled the lawyer. His response was as follows (from verse 37):

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

What struck me were Jesus' expression of the devotion we are to show our Heavenly Father, Lord, and God. Jesus said that we are to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. I have always known that to be representative of complete devotion to God, but I hadn't really broken it down like this. What Jesus is talking about is being completely wrapped up in God in our emotions, spirit, and intellect. If I leave out any of these pieces, I'm cheating God. I am sinning if I don't allow myself to be completely entralled in all of these aspects of my life.

From what I have seen, the Lord's church today clings to the intellectual side (sometimes not even that so much) and neglects the spirit and abhors the emotional aspect. Not any of the three should be regarded as more important than the other. So, those who focus solely on the emotional side (as Paul spoke of in Romans 10) and neglect the intellectual aspects are wrong just as those who are "all head and no heart" are wrong.

I know I personally need to be more involved in my heart and spirit as I live for God. I believe that the intellectual approach is the soundest approach for convincing and converting the lost to the Lord's body (emotional & spiritual appeals are too subjective), but if we have someone visit with our congregation and see an absence of emotional, spiritual devotion to God, all of the reasoned arguments in the world aren't going to convince that sinner that we are practicing new testament christianity - because we AREN'T if we don't have the total devotion.

God wants all of me. He wants all of you. Where do you need to improve? What suggestions can you offer for drawing closer to God with my whole being?

New personal record!

I played disc golf at the belmont course last night and scored a new personal best - 3 under par!

As addicted as Jason is to Madden '06, I think I'm worse with disc golf, it's just not as easy access!


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

Make sure you read the fair tax book!

Must Read Book! (the fairtax book)

If you are an american taxpayer (or will at some point be one, or married to one), you must read this book:

I'm only halfway through, but am thoroughly convinced that everyone in america needs to read this.

It details the history of the income tax in America, what the problems inherent to this system are and simply describes the solution.

Some important notes from the first half:

1. Number two of Karl Marx's 10 step process for creating a communist society is "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" (number 10 is "free education for all children in public schools" but that's another post).
2. The 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States technically violates the 4th amendment (16th - making forced seizure of an individual's income [up to 100%] legal, 4th - right to be free from illegal search/seizure of property). The IRS has the right to do things that judges would never allow a local police department from doing
3. Each year, the government collects nearly $1.5 trillion ($1,500,000,000,000 if you need to see the zeroes) in income taxes. Collectively, our nation spends roughly $500 billion ($500,000,000,000) in maintaining compliance with the current tax laws.
4. It has also been calculated that in 2002 individuals, non-profits and businesses spent a combined 5.8 billion hours complying with tax code. That translates to 8,700 people's entire lives if they live to about 70 years old. Another way of looking at it is that for a 40 hour work week with a couple of weeks of vacation a year, this would be 2.7 million full time jobs. That is a tremendous amount of wasted time that isn't necessary!

A brief summary of the pending legislation (H.R. 25 and S.25 for the House and Senate, respetively):

1. Abolish the individual, corporate, and business income taxes, capital gains, social security, and medicare taxes.
2. This will lead to an overall reduction in the cost of consumer goods because there is an "embedded tax" of roughly 22% for most retail/service goods. By "embedded tax" the authors describe the costs that all individuals in the supply chain have to pad into their cost of doing business.
3. There will be - as proposed in the bills - a 23% national retail sales tax added. For most purchases, this translates to only paying a few pennies more than the previous price after the embedded taxes are removed and the market adjusts prices.
4. This also is a boost overall, because you take home EVERY PENNY you make. There is NO withholding of taxes (from a federal perspective).
5. In addition to that, there is the concept of a "prebate." For a given family size, the amount of expenses for life essentials is estimated and the tax on those goods (food and other things necessary for existence) is calculated (based on some poverty level indicators). That is divided into 12 and every month, consumers get a check or debit card that has that balance at the beginning of the month which one can then use to purchase such goods.

I need to keep reading for more info, but some of the predicted side effects are just short of revolutionary.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read this book. Buy it, get it from the library, borrow someone else's copy - but read it!

Then, get in touch with your congressmen and let them know that you support this!
If you have more questions, go to the Americans for Fair Taxation website.

I found my old friends!

Once upon a time, there used to be a crew (and quite motley they were) that ran around after meeting sunday nights, and spent time together on weekends and the like. We'll, I found a few of them on pleonast:
The collier clan (in chronological order) : Josh, Jessi, Allison
and Angela "Red" Moore

I'm so glad I found them!

And to Josh and Terra - Congratulations on the impending baby!

What book of the bible are you?

I'm Romans -

You have insight on what it means to turn your life around and try to live for God.
You really want people to understand the deeper things of God, but have a tendency to come across as pushy and prideful…and at times, maybe you are. But you know your weakness and work hard at trying to temper it with grace and compassion.

So, I guess that's it - what about you?

Thanks to Jason for pointing this little thing out!

If you had any doubts before...

... you will hereafter be disabused of them.
I am not - repeat NOT - a democrat. That isn't to say that I'm a staunch republican either. I would most closely align with the libertarian view of government, but frequently vote republican due to the issues and the candidates running races where I have the opportunity to participate.

I'm all for the fair tax movement (you should be, too!). I firmly believe that we should abolish social security (it had a limited purpose at one time, but has imploded and is taking our nation with it). I'm also very much in favor of private gun ownership (I just don't have the money right now, else I'd have one along with a concealed carry permit).

Near the top of the list of ideals/groups that should be abolished, the ACLU is a prime candidate. I can only guess that they are behind this current NCAA foolishness (thanks to Ward for pointing this out). Miami University (of Ohio) went through this some time ago and they are no longer the redskins, they're the "Redhawks" now. Well, isn't that just precious. Should we change the name of the town, or the river because they're named after the miami indians after all.

There are two great quotes from the article that I would like to share:

"I think it's offensive to native Americans ... the Seminole Indian tribe who support the traditions of FSU," Bush said on his way into a Cabinet meeting. "I think they insult those people by telling them, 'No, no, you're not smart enough to understand this. You should be feeling really horrible about this.' It's ridiculous."

This is a very succinct summary of what is wrong with the general democrat mentality today - you aren't smart enough to handle your (money/healthcare/parenting/etc...) so we'll start a huge bureaucracy to handle it.

If they (NCAA/ACLU/Democrats) want to fix something, they should heed this quote from Governor Bush:

"You know what they ought to be worried about? The graduation rates of most college athletes," the second-term Florida governor said. "Maybe if they had some suggestions on that, that universities could apply and could implement, they could be doing a service to all of us."

I'll end my rant there. Please, for the love of all that is good, stop voting for these people!

I want one!

I just read this post at the ESV blog, and totally want one. I love the concept of interlinear bibles, and a "reverse interlinear" just sounds so cool! Instead of the greek being the main part and transliterating that into english, this takes the text as translated and matches the greek text that was used for translation as well as the closest transliteration of the greek word. So, it's really a very interesting take on the whole concept. You get the interlinear (greek + choppy english) plus the readable text as the thread to tie it all together.

This is definitely going on my amazon wishlist (^_^)

Prayers, Please!

A good friend wrote that his son, Noah, had a seizure Sunday night. He posted some commentary as a result of the experience that I'll point you to, it is definitely worth reading. I can only marginally share the suffering from when Willow had what turned out to be a horrendous kidney infection at the age of 3 months. With her insane fever and the hours in the emergency room... man, that's not a good experience. Thankfully, God has taken care of us and she is completely whole (she shouldn't have grown out of her UT [urniary tract] reflux until she was 10, and that would only be 16% probable!).

Well, keep them in your prayers as they'll be going for some further tests tomorrow morning.

Make sure you hug the one's you love today!

The results are in!

Well, I didn't make my goal, but I did set a new personal record - 31:00.
So, that's 1:12 better than the last one. I'm intending to run again next friday and maybe I can shave another minute or so off of that since I know what I'm getting into this time (the course was much less flat than I expected).

I've actually completed my powerpoint and outline (not in that order) for tomorrow, so I get the rest of the night to study for our apologetics class tomorrow morning!

Big race tonight!

I'm going to be running my 4th race ("blazin' hot") of the season tonight! Yes, it's only a 5k (3 miles) but my goal is to eventually run a 15k by next year (or at LEAST a 10k). And, no, I'm not as fast as I used to be. I used to be able to do 3 miles in 15-16 minutes - but I weighed about 60 pounds less than I do now (80 less than back in April when I started running again!). So, my goal for this race is to break the 30 minute mark. I've done it in some practicing lately, but have only done 32:12 (memorial day) this year. I'll post a follow up when I get the results.

I survived!

Well, I survived the weekend!
I'll post some excerpts from the two lessons I preached sunday later. The funeral went well... or, I suppose it did. It's always sad to me when funerals have very low attendance. There were maybe 50 people there monday morning and it's just sad. The bible study went well last night, too. Dee has a good heart (i think) and wants to do the right things for the right reasons, but she has a lot of questions and she thinks that she needs to have at least some of them answered before making this committment. On one hand, it's good that she considers this seriously, on the other hand, I need to help convey HOW serious this is!

I have a prayer request: a good friend, Kristi Tustin, from the columbus ohio area just had a miscarraige. I can only imagine what she and Eric are going through right now, but please keep them in your prayers.

On a positive totally secular note - I played my first "zero" game of disc golf sunday evening. By "zero" I mean I came in totally on par (one or two holes over, one or two under). The earlier games had all been +12 or worse!

I'm afraid I'm hooked on disc golf!