Discover Truth

10 Life Truths for Adults

2012-01-20T09:59:00.000-06:00

1. There is nothing worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

2. I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.

3. Was learning cursive really necessary?

4. Google Maps really needs to start their directions on #5. I'm pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

5. Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the person died. (Okay, that’s morbid, but true!)

6. Bad decisions make good stories.

7. You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

8. Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after Blue Ray? I don't want to have to restart my collection ...again.

9. I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars team up to prevent a jerk from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers and sisters!

10. Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car keys and finding their cell phone, but I'll bet everyone can find and push the snooze button from three feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time, every time!

Adapted/Edited from: http://www.gcfl.net/latest.php

Are You Born Again?

2011-04-14T15:00:00.000-06:00

by J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)

Are you born again? This is one oflife's most important questions. Jesus Christ said, "Except a man be bornagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

It is not enough to reply, "Ibelong to the church; I suppose I'm a Christian." Thousands of nominalChristians show none of the signs of being born again which the Scriptures havegiven us—many listed in the First Epistle of John.

First of all, Johnwrote: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (I John 3:9)."Whosoever is born of God sinneth not" (5:18).

A person who has been born again, or regenerated, does nothabitually commit sin. He no longer sins with his heart and will and wholeinclination. There was probably a time when he did not think about whether hisactions were sinful or not, and he did not always feel grieved after doingevil. There was no quarrel between him and sin; they were friends. But the trueChristian hates sin, flees from it, fights against it, considers it hisgreatest plague, resents the burden of its presence, mourns when he falls underits influence, and longs to be completely delivered from it. Sin no longerpleases him, nor is it even a matter of indifference to him; it has become ahorrible thing which he hates. However, he cannot eliminate its presence withinhim.

If he said that he had no sin, hewould be lying (I John 1:8). But he can say that he hates sin and that thegreat desire of his soul is not to commit sin at all. He cannot prevent badthoughts from entering his mind, or shortcomings, omissions, and defects fromappealing in both his words and his actions. He knows that "in many thingswe offend all" (James 3:2). But he can truly say, in the sight of God,that these things cause him grief and sorrow and that his whole nature does notconsent to them. What wouldthe apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Second, John wrote:"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (I John5:1).

A man who is born again, or regenerated, believes that JesusChrist is the only Saviour who can pardon his soul, that He is the divineperson appointed by God the Father for this very purpose, and beside Him thereis no Saviour at all. In himself he sees nothing but unworthiness. But he hasfull confidence in Christ, and trusting in Him, he believes that his sins areall forgiven. He believes that, because he has accepted Christ's finished workand death on the cross, he is considered righteous in God's sight, and he maylook forward to death and judgment without alarm.

He may have fears and doubts. He maysometimes tell you that he feels as if he had no faith at all. But ask him ifhe is willing to trust in anything instead of Christ, and see what he will say.Ask him if he will rest his hope of eternal life on his own goodness, his ownworks, his prayers, his minister, or his church, and listen to his reply. What would the apostle say aboutyou? Are you born again?

Third, John wrote:"Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29).

The man who is born again, or regenerated, is a holy man. Heendeavors to live according to God's will, to do the things that please God andto avoid the things that God hates. He wishes to continually look to Christ ashis example as well as his Saviour and to prove himself to be Christ's friendby doing whatever He commands. He knows he is not perfect. He is painfullyaware of his indwelling corruption. He finds an evil principle within himselfthat is constantly warring against grace and trying to draw him away from God.But he does not consent to it, though he cannot prevent its presence.

Though he may sometimes feel so lowthat he questions whether or not he is a Christian at all, he will be able tosay with John Newton, "I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I wantto be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I amnot what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am." What would the apostle say aboutyou? Are you born again?

Fourth, John wrote:"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love thebrethren" (I John 3:14).

A man who is born again has a special love for all true disciplesof Christ. Like his Father in heaven, he loves all men with a great generallove, but he has a special love for those who share his faith in Christ. Likehis Lord and Saviour, he loves the worst of sinners and could weep over them;but he has a peculiar love for those who are believers. He is never so much athome as when he is in their company.

He feels they are all members of thesame family. They are his fellow soldiers, fighting against the same enemy.They are his fellow travelers, journeying along the same road. He understandsthem, and they understand him. They may be very different from himself in manyways—in rank, in station and in wealth. But that does not matter. They are hisFather's sons and daughters and he cannot help loving them. What would the apostle say aboutyou? Are you born again?

Fifth, John wrote:"Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world" (I John 5:4).

A man who is born again does not use the world's opinion as hisstandard of right and wrong. He does not mind going against the world's ways,ideas and customs. What men think or say no longer concerns him. He overcomesthe love of the world. He finds no pleasure in things which seem to bringhappiness to most people. To him they seem foolish and unworthy of an immortalbeing.

He loves God's praise more thanman's praise. He fears offending God more than offending man. It is unimportantto him whether he is blamed or praised; his first aim is to please God. What would the apostle sayabout you? Are you born again?

Sixth, John wrote: "He that is begotten of God keepeth himself' (IJohn 5:18).

A man who is born again is careful of his own soul. He tries notonly to avoid sin but also to avoid everything which may lead to it. He iscareful about the company he keeps. He knows that evil communications corruptthe heart and that evil is more catching than good, just as disease is moreinfectious than health. He is careful about the use of his time; his chiefdesire is to spend it profitable.

He desires to live like a soldier inan enemy country—to wear his armor continually and to be prepared fortemptation. He is diligent to be watchful, humble, prayerful man. What wouldthe apostle say about you? Are you born again?

These are the six great marks of a born again Christian.

There is a vast difference in the depth and distinctness of thesemarks in different people. In some they are faint and hardly noticeable. Inothers they are bold, plain and unmistakable, so anyone may read them. Some ofthese marks are more visible than others in each individual. Seldom are allequally evident in any one person.

But still, after every allowance, here we find boldly painted sixmarks of being born of God.

How should we react to these things? We can logically come to onlyone conclusion—only those who are born again have these six characteristics,and those who do not have these marks are not born again. This seems to be theconclusion to which the apostle intended us to come. Do you have these characteristics?Are you born again?

I Want Your Money (the Movie)

2010-08-23T14:20:00.003-06:00

Link to the Video.

B.S. Remover

2010-07-20T10:32:00.004-06:00

If they had a similar kit for removing George Bush stickers I would have promoted that too. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I do have a Ron Paul sticker on my vehicle. I'm a big fan of "Dr. No." We need 434 more like him in the House.)

Comments on Vulnerability

2010-07-17T20:17:00.013-06:00

I received an email comment on my vulnerability post which led to the following email exchange with a guy I'll call "Sam" to protect his identity. Below are his comments behind the ">" in our first exchange with the follow up messages thereafter.

First Exchange:

Sam writes:

> Wow - what a polemical statement
> "no Scriptural support."

My "polemic" as you call it is intended to exhort my brothers and sisters in Christ. I offer it in the spirit of Proverbs 27:17 with hopes of unifying the body around the truth of the Word, not from a spirit of divisiveness. In 1Tim 4:13 Paul commends Tim to give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. In 2Tim 4:2 Paul says to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and teaching." This is the spirit in which I offer my polemic, as you call it.

> That's pretty all-inclusive. For it to be true, there
> should be no Scriptures that might be interpreted
> to give Scriptural support for vulnerability.

Not quite, but almost. :-) Scripture reveals many virtues such as love, mercy, and justice which apply broadly and without exception. Take love for example. We are not only to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, but also our enemies. Love is a virtue without exception. There *might* be ways to squeeze out an interpretation to support the practice of vulnerability in special circumstances, but it is not taught as a virtue.

So far neither you or anyone else I've discussed this with has shown where the Bible teaches vulnerability as a positive *virtue* on par with other known Biblical virtues such as love, mercy, justice, honesty, humility, etc. In fact, every instance you provide as a counter point falls short.

> what if I can find one verse that gives Scriptural support
> for vulnerability - will you post a comment retracting
> your assertion?

Notice I said there are no Scriptural anchors for venerating vulnerability as a *virtue*, i.e. something Christians should practice as a character trait or quality valued as being always good in and of itself. I did not say there is no Scriptural mention of vulnerability at all. There is a difference. Hopefully I am making this difference clear.

> Take a look at http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-22.htm - to me
> "showing your weakness to others who are weak" is a manifestation
> of vulnerability.

Not exactly. The Greek word translated "weak" often -- perhaps usually -- refers to physical health; it should not be confused (especially in this context) with letting down your defenses in the presence of somebody strong enough to thereby overcome you, which is the nature of vulnerability.

> Or Matt. 5-7: One of Jesus' major themes in the sermon on
> the mount was to not trust in your own strength, but to put
> yourself in a vulnerable position.

Trusting in our own strength is indeed far more vulnerable than trusting in God's strength, which is the specified contrast in every place where this idea is taught. Not trusting in our own strength but in the strength of God is certainly a theme in the Bible, but nowhere do I see instruction in Matt 5-7 to "put yourself in a vulnerable position." In fact, I'm not finding where the sermon on the mount teaches us to not trust in our own strength, but God's. What verses in Matt 5-7 are you referring to?

> Or Matt. 18: A little child is vulnerable; Jesus said
> to humble yourself to become like one.

A child may in fact be vulnerable, but it is not the vulnerability of a child Jesus invites us to emulate. Both the text and your comment emphasize humility, a Biblical virtue which is not the same as vulnerability. We can be humble while remaining strong (the antithesis of vulnerability). Moses and Paul were humble, but neither was vulnerable. Humility, gentleness, and meekness are all virtues taught in Scripture; vulnerability is not. Neither is vulnerability identical to humility, gentleness, or meekness collectively or severally.

> James 5 tells us to confess our sins to one
> another. That's being vulnerable.

I don't think so. It is being honest which is a different and well known Biblical virtue. One can be honest (and humble/gentle/meek) without being vulnerable. After you repent of sins, there is little risk (vulnerability) in telling other people about them, provided you include evidence of your repentance. One becomes vulnerable only if one persists unrepentant in those sins. Remaining unrepentant would indeed make one vulnerable, so the confession here urged does not bring about nor recommend vulnerability.

I'm curious why you (and others) are so desirous to find vulnerability in Scripture. What is the motivation as you see it? Are the virtues clearly taught insufficient to the point we need to stretch our interpretations to define as virtuous something that is not clearly taught as being so?

Thanks again for your comments, but I see no need to retract my "polemic" so far. :-) You're welcome to comment further on my blog if you so desire, or continue in this email dialog.

In His Grace,
[my signature removed]

First Follow Up Response from "Sam":

Dennis,

Thanks for your thoughts on the word “vulnerability.”

I find you to be a black and white thinker who majors on truth but shows very little grace. Perhaps you are different in person, but the way you come across in email is adverserial. Frankly, I don’t know how people ever get close to a person like you or see Jesus in the way you attempt to love. You exhibit the argumentative qualities that repel people from the gospel.

God bless you and you try to find your way to a place of connection with others.

[signature removed]

My Second Effort:

Sam,

I asked you three specific questions in my response:

(1) What verses in Matt 5-7 are you referring to?
(2) I'm curious why you (and others) are so desirous to find vulnerability in Scripture. What is the motivation as you see it?
(3) Are the virtues clearly taught insufficient to the point we need to stretch our interpretations to define as virtuous something that is not clearly taught as being so?

I see that rather than answer my genuine questions or continue to engage in civil discourse, you've instead chosen to attack my character and personality. I find that tragic. Love does not equate to unconditional affirmation. Love is unselfish and seeking the good for the other. I'm seeking the good for the Body by being like the Bereans and checking to see if what Christian leaders like yourself are advocating lines up to the authority under which we Christians live, the Bible.

If you are not interested in submitting your life to Scripture and instead prefer to attack me personally, there is little I can do but pray that God will change your heart.

I pray that my thinking *is* white and not black. I want to live in the light, not darkness. I pray that I exemplify the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, gentleness and
self control Paul talks about in Galatians 5. I only wish that you would be willing, in humility, to reciprocate. Or, would that make you vulnerable? Even then, the theology you advocate, should you follow it faithfully, would indicate that you'd throw down your defenses of personal attacks rather than defending with ad hominems.

If I have sinned against you, please show me where, and I will repent.

In Grace,
[my signature removed]

Sam's Reply:

Dennis,

Who is your accountability? I'll submit this to mine and I suggest you do the same. I don't perceive my email as attacking your character, just giving you the advice that email is a poor venue for you. If you're graceful, I'm suggesting that people don't see it there. Email is a flat medium - if you intend it to be loving, because it's argumentative and doesn't seek understanding, but seeks to prove a point, it is divisive instead. Which is why I prefer not to continue the dialogue.

[signature removed]

My Response:

Sam,

> Who is your accountability?

I'm trying to be accountable to Scripture, Sam, and was hoping you'd do the same. Assuming this wasn't a rhetorical question, I would welcome the accountability of discussing this topic further in a public forum, either your blog or mine.

> Email is a flat medium

Every good novelist -- and Scripture's Author Himself -- believes otherwise, Sam. So-called "flat" text like email is perfectly capable of communicating both subtle emotions such as love and grace, and also strong feelings like the hostility with which you began this exchange. Of course some people will have trouble seeing it there in the "flat text," and probably should avoid text altogether, especially purporting to teach (flat text) Scripture in their own (flat text) blog.

For my part I deeply regret and apologize for failing to examine your web site closely enough to see there your prior commitment to the primacy of "vulnerability" over Scripture, and thus my attempt to engage you on that topic violated Jesus' command in Luke 17:1, leading you into the temptation of violating your own conscience and deeply-held value of grace (affirmation).

You are absolutely right. We should disconnect from these email exchanges and follow the guidance of Matthew 18 so that the truth of this matter can be established by the testimony of other witnesses. I've taken the liberty of starting the discussion [on my blog] should you so desire to continue in a public forum.

Pursuing His Truth,
[my signature removed]

Sam's Apology:

Dennis,

I'm sorry for what I said and for the personal nature of it. I wish you well.

God bless you.
[signature removed]

My Acceptance:

Apology accepted.

Vulnerability

2010-07-15T19:17:00.029-06:00

A young friend of mine up in Columbus who is a church planting pastor/elder blogged about the business book Getting Naked which advocates "vulnerability" as a positive virtue. "Vulnerability" seems to be a recent fad word in Christian-speak too. It concerns me when the church borrows values from the business world. It isn't the first time I've seen it. I blogged on this same concern last year regarding emotional intelligence in my church's leadership training curriculum. I'm wondering if Christians are borrowing worldly wisdom to our own detriment. [See 1Cor 1:18-20]

I don't see vulnerability being any more virtuous than poverty. Poverty is a state you might arrive at if you gave all your possessions to feed people more impoverished than yourself. This would, of course, be virtuous; however, it isn't very smart. Once you impoverish yourself how can you help others in need? Isn't it also possible to be rich and virtuous? Everyone in the USA is rich by world standards. I'd like to think some of us could also be virtuous!

Similarly, vulnerability is a state you might arrive at if you cast away all your defenses to help another person out of danger, but is that smart? Isn't it also possible to have good defenses and still be virtuous? Isn't it possible to maintain a posture of humility without being vulnerable?

If the only way you can escape pride is to cast away all defenses, then in the spirit of Matthew 5:30, by all means do so. But, Hezekiah [2Kings 20:15-18] and Samson [Judges 16:17] tried vulnerability with miserable results. Fortunately, Jesus was smarter. He went through some serious cloak and dagger gyrations with Peter and John in Luke 22:3-13 to avoid being vulnerable to the Enemy.

Vulnerability to the Enemy or his minions of lackeys is not a virtue. And, how do we know who might be the Devil's emissary? Unlike Jesus, we don't! None of the disciples suspected Judas. He was trusted enough to carry the money bag for the twelve. So, when in doubt shouldn't we be wise as serpents while being gentle as doves and keep up our defenses?

I'd like to think the church would look to the Bible for what we believe to be virtuous. I have not yet seen any Scriptural evidence that vulnerability is virtuous. Maybe my friend in Ohio will offer some evidence for me to consider. I asked him to show me some. I'm still waiting.

A different friend pointed out the above citations from Scripture. He also helped me understand the root issue behind this veneration of vulnerability. My other friend is older than I am, and has spent many decades reading and applying Scripture meticulously to every aspect of his life. In doing so, he's developed a theory that the modern American church has been "feelerized" while "thinkers" have been ostracized. In the modern Amercian feeler church, relational affirmation is prized above almost all other virtues. It therefore follows that vulnerability is valued because it is a form of affirmation. Affirmation is the highest value for MBTI feelers. (Truth and justice are the highest values for MBTI thinkers.) The person making himself "vulnerable" is in effect saying "I trust you." That's affirmation.

Along with "missional" and "authentic" the concept of "vulnerability" seems to be a persistent fad in the slice of the evangelical church I'm exposed to most. The Bible teaches virtues like honesty, humility, love, justice, and mercy but so far I've found no virtue anchors for vulnerability in Scripture. None. I'm hoping the vulnerability fad will fade and die unless it finds some Biblical anchors. I understand the attraction worldly wisdom has for obtaining worldly virtues, but shouldn't those of us in the church put our emphasis on what Scripture teaches instead?

[comments received via email & my response]

Cheap Grace Defined

2010-06-29T06:46:00.001-06:00

"Cheap grace is preaching forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession. … Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

--Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)

German theologian and Hitler resister

The Greatest Threat to the American Way of Life

2010-06-11T08:08:00.002-06:00

BP Response Spoof

2010-06-11T07:50:00.010-06:00

If you're sensitive to profanity, be warned there is an f-bomb at the very end.

Fellowship

2010-04-17T06:23:00.002-06:00

Last night my three sons and I went to the Rock & Worship Roadshow Tour. It was a last minute offer from a friend who had extra tickets in one of the sky boxes at the American Airlines Center. We had a total blast! We rode the DART light rail down to the AA Center, enjoyed the show, and made a memory that will last a lifetime. (Thanks James Meeker for the tickets!) We also were surprised to find some other mutual friends who showed up in the sky box. One of the ladies there I had not seen since junior high school!

If you get a chance to see this concert event, I recommend it. Great time for the family.

Truth from Narnia

2010-03-11T10:07:00.001-06:00

"It isn't Narnia, you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's YOU. We shan't meet YOU there. And how can we live, never meeting you?

"But you shall meet me, dear one," said Aslan..."there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

-C.S. Lewis

Book Review: Against the Gods

2010-01-31T17:30:00.008-06:00

Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk by Peter L. Bernstein is the third book I've read in the book swaps I do with my fee only financial advisor. I never would have picked this up to read myself, but I'm much better informed on the topic of risk having read it. Berstein's book is primarily historical, somewhat biographical, and minimally technical in his comprehensive treatment of risk.

The sections and chapters progress historically from the earliest notion of numbers and risk quantification in ancient times to the present day--or at least 1996 when the book came out. The earlier chapters deal with historical developments in the mathematics of probability and statistical theories. The later chapters focus more on risk in modern financial markets. In the concluding chapter titled "Awaiting the Wildness" Bernstein writes:

As we look ahead toward the new millennium, what are the prospects that we can ... hope to bring more risks under control and make progress at the same time? ... despite the many ingenious tools ... created to attack the puzzle, much remains unsolved. Discontinuities, irregularities, and volatilities seem to be proliferating rather than diminishing. (p.329)

Yes, it is a wild and risky world out there! I wonder what the author would say today as we're digging out of the recent implosion in our global financial system? Overall, I enjoyed the book, particularly the biographical sketches of the many intellectual luminaries who contributed to the body of knowledge on risk and probability. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Prospect Theory which was a core part of Predictably Irrational, another book Brent loaned me. Recognizing the classical view of rationality was wrong and that human "logic" is not so logical leads to some fascinating conclusions about the human condition.

Prospect Theory discovered behavior patterns that had never been recognized by proponents of rational decision-making. Kahneman and Tversky ascribe these patterns to two human shortcomings. First, emotion often destroys the self-control that is essential to rational decision-making. Second, people are often unable to understand fully what they are dealing with. They experience what psychologists call cognitive difficulties. (p. 271)

Prospect Theory discovered asymmetry in human decisions involving gains vs. decisions involving losses. People are more risk averse about winning than losing, i.e. we take more risks to avoid loss than to achieve gains. Adding this discovery to the observation that loss remaining unresolved, such as the loss of a loved one, can provoke intense, irrational, and abiding risk-aversion is a profound insight that explains a lot of human behavior. It also got me thinking more deeply about why I make some of the decisions I do. In addition to the insights on human behavior, this book also confirmed and solidified my thoughts on money management and investing.

Book Review: Confessions of a Tax Collector

2010-01-24T15:20:00.009-06:00

I meet once or twice a year with my financial advisor, and we started swapping books in our meetings. Last year I gave him Tim Keller's The Reason for God and he almost didn't give it back he liked it so much. He said he was getting his own copy for his personal library. He loaned me Predictably Irrational which I'd never heard of and probably never would have picked up myself. I thought it was fascinating. It made me rethink some common sense concepts.

This past week my advisor loaned me Confessions of a Tax Collector: One man's Tour of Duty Inside the IRS by Richard Yancey, another book I never would have picked up to read on my own. It is a fictionalized account of the actual experiences the author had working as a revenue officer inside the IRS. I read almost exclusively non-fiction, and while this book is based on a real life experience, it reads like a novel. I also primarily read books on Christian faith and theology, but this book is a dive into the bowels of the Byzantium known as the IRS.

There were several places in the book where Yancey goes into this stream-of-consciousness yammering that I ended up skipping over, but for the most part he weaves an interesting story. Still, I'm much more a fan of another author by the same last name (no relation), Philip Yancey. "Confessions" is interesting if you've ever wondered what the IRS looks like on the inside, and it kept my attention to the end and was entertaining, but it really didn't make me think--other than realizing I want to have as little contact as possible with the IRS, and I certainly wouldn't want to work there.

Book Review: The God Who Smokes

2010-01-24T15:03:00.009-06:00

The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditations on Faith by Timothy J. Stoner was a gift from a friend I meet with on a regular basis. We usually meet at Cafe Brazil to discuss what we're reading and life in general. I liked this book much more than the last two books he loaned me, neither of which I could bring myself to finish reading. I bailed on both Empire of Illusion and The Cry of the Soul about half way through. However, I thoroughly enjoyed Stoner's book and read all of it, even the end notes.

Stoner's writes like a novelist, and mentions his poorly selling fictional work several times. Don Miller's Blue Like Jazz reinvigorated sales of his earlier overlooked work. Perhaps Stoner's multiple mentions of his novel will produce the same sort of sales boost if his non-fiction work begins selling well. I don't read much fiction, so I doubt I'll buy it.

Stoner creates a lot of word pictures and writes with emotion concluding many chapters with a Psalm-like blessing. But his book is neither a set of stand alone meditations or a coherent story with beginning, middle, and end. This didn't detract from the book in my mind because I was very interested in the consistent theme running through the chapters. It is a theme I've been struggling with myself for quite some time.

Stoner grew up a fundmentalist Baptist missionary kid in Spanish speaking countries living most of his early life outside the USA. He and his wife have raised three boys and a girl of their own here in the USA plus an adopted African child. He has both seminary and law school training, and is presently involved in orphan justice ministry. His eclectic background gives him an interesting perspective on Christian life in the USA.

The theme that binds the book is Stoner's struggle between the more traditional and fundamentalist practice of the Christian faith in which he grew up, and the modern "emergent" church which finds himself a part of today. He lives in Grand Rapids and his grown sons are involved in Rob Bell's church (Mars Hill). This doesn't keep Stoner from leveling several criticisms of Bell, all of which I agreed with. There are lots of references to Rob Bell and few to Brian McLauren while frequently quoting Peter Kreeft and C.S. Lewis. Stoner struggles with finding the balance between the modern and post-modern church. This is where I am in my own personal faith journey as well so if you're in the same boat you'll probably enjoy this book.

ObamaCare Blues

2009-12-28T16:41:00.003-06:00

Nobody I know is in favor of the health care bill the Democrats are ramrodding through Congress. Maybe that is saying something about my circle of friends and acquaintances. Since my blog here at www.discovertruth.com also cross-posts in Facebook, I'm hopeful some Facebook liberals or Democrats or anyone in favor of ObamaCare can help me out. I know quite a few people who are vehemently opposed because they believe ObamaCare will be more harmful to our economy than the bailouts and takeovers of the financial and automotive sectors. Common sense and basic economic principles lead me to the same conclusion.

I'm open to listening to someone, anyone, who can help me understand why ObamaCare is good. If you're in favor of ObamaCare, please tell me why! A friend of mine was engaged in a similar dialog. He too is unconvinced that ObamaCare is good. He explains why in this email to his sister. He gave me permission to share it here.

Dear Sis,

I suspect there are some facts you have not taken into consideration regarding ObamaCare. I downloaded the proposed law a while back and examined it carefully. Have you read it? Has your Congressman even read it?

We agree that ObamaCare does not help the rich, it just raises their taxes.

We agree that ObamaCare does not help the poor, they already get free health care (through Medicaid).

We agree that ObamaCare does not help most of the people in the middle, whose employers (or spouse's employers) already pay for health insurance.

The relatively small number (10%) of people in the middle whose employers cannot afford to pay for health insurance, and the people who are not employed, are the ones we disagree over.

First of all, we need to recognize that these people in the middle can buy health insurance TODAY if they want to. It's very expensive because health insurance is like that. In addition to paying all those expensive doctor and hospital bills and prescription drugs, the insurance companies also have to pay for their own administrators and the extra paperwork caused by government regulations and their CEO's expensive new car. The people on no insurance only pay for the doctors and the hospital and the pills. You could buy health insurance for you and your minor child TODAY, if you want to, but it would cost you more than you are paying out-of-pocket for doctor visits and medications. That's because the insurance companies must make a profit if they are going to stay in business. If they don't make any money, they just close their doors and you can't get their services at all.

ObamaCare does not help those people in the middle like you and me, who COULD buy health insurance TODAY, but don't want to pay as much as it would cost. All the new law does is force us to buy insurance that is too expensive today and still too expensive under ObamaCare, or else pay hundreds of dollars in new taxes, or else ObamaCare sends them to jail if they refuse. I read the proposed law, that's what it says. That part was in Obama's original plan.

Many of the people in the middle work at minimum-wage jobs where their employer cannot afford to pay for health care. ObamaCare also raises the taxes on those employers in an effort to force them to pay for health insurance, but the taxes, while burdensome, are less than the actual cost of health insurance, so many (perhaps most) of those companies will still not pay for health insurance. To the extent that they are small businesses operating on a shoestring they will not be able to stay in business, and all those people will be out of a job. At least then they can go on welfare and get free health care.

ObamaCare promises to make health insurance "affordable". That's a lie. They can't. They might subsidize the premiums for the poor people otherwise on Medicaid, but they already get their health care for free. People like you and me won't see any significant help. The premiums less the subsidies will still cost more than just paying the medical bills ourselves, the way we do TODAY.

One more thing: Taxes go up for everybody, because *somebody* has to pay for those subsidies. The poor people who pay no taxes today, some of them will still pay no taxes, but people like me (I paid no taxes last year) will pay up to $1000 in new taxes. The rich people who pay no taxes today, will still pay no taxes, for the same reasons. Their cronies in the White House will continue to look the other way and let them off the hook. It's called "Chicago politics" and Obama is in that game.

All the rest of the people with any livable income will pay increased taxes. I calculated what ObamaCare would do to me, if it were the law this year, and I would have to pay $800 more in taxes -- and my income is below Federal Poverty Level.

That's what I see in ObamaCare. That's why I don't like it.

Now, tell me how is it going to help anybody? I really want to know.

You could start by telling me how ObamaCare helps *ME*. Or yourself. Your minor son is already covered by the new Childrens Health Act passed last year under Bush. All ObamaCare does is penalize you for not paying for it.

Signed,

Perplexed Brother

For a Cause or for Christ?

2009-12-28T14:32:00.002-06:00

Over at Wineskins for Discipleship Heather Zempel raises and interesting question. She asks, "Why am I more cause focused than person focused?" In her case, being a Christian, this carries the Christian expectation that the person of focus should be Jesus. I agree. Jesus is the center of Christianity, but what does this look like practically?

I love passionate people like Heather who give their lives to a cause. In fact, I'm inspired by people who give their lives to all sorts of worthy causes whether it is caring for the poor, helping the homeless, ministering to those in prison, starting new churches, etc. I'm even inspired by people who merely offer a cup of cold water to a child (Matt 10:42). The Bible makes it clear that these sorts of causes are on mission and within the heart of Christ.

It is good to recalibrate the compass periodically and ensure the cause on which we're focused is a cause that Christ would approve, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with being cause focused. Heather arrives at her "for a cause or for Christ" dichotomy by starting with this premise:

"The disciples didn't lay their lives down for a cause but for a person."

Heather didn't share the full context of this Dave Buehring statement, and I'm hesitant to be too critical without proper context, but out of context and by itself this appears to me as a false statement. The cause of Christ is outlined in Matthew 28 and in other areas of the New Testament. The disciples were cause-driven men who turned the world upside down in spreading the Gospel. I believe Christians should passionately pursue the cause of Christ, and isn't that the Gospel? Perhaps the real question here is whether or not whatever cause we've given our lives to is furthering the Gospel?

I don't know what it means to lay down my life for a person unless that also means laying down my life for the causes that person cared about.

Your thoughts? Please comment.

Insurance is the Problem in Health Care

2009-12-14T15:11:00.008-06:00

This essay was written by a friend of mine. I totally agree with his assessment. What do you think?

Health Insurance Is the Problem, Not the Solution

President Obama ran on a campaign (among other things) to solve the cost of health care crisis in this country. His proposed solution can only make matters worse, not better.

Two things drive up the cost of a product in a market economy: supply and demand.

Obama's proposal eliminates the market economy by eliminating all competition, then forcing everybody to pay for his "public option" instead. He doesn't say all this, because our President-trainee does not understand markets.

In a market economy both buyers and sellers are free to transact their business or not. People who decide that there is profit for a seller in the transaction can produce the product and sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay. If they decide there is no profit, the supply is diminished, driving up the price until there is sufficient profit to motivate producers to enter the market. If the price is too high, buyers stop buying and the reduced demand results in over-supply, which encourages producers to reduce their prices. The market stabilizes at a price that free buyers are willing to pay and free sellers are willing to produce it for. That is usually slightly higher than it costs to produce, the difference being the profit margin which motivates producers. If the profit margin is too high, other producers will enter the market at a lower profit margin and take their business away. The system works and it works well.

The problem with spiraling health care costs is that we do not have a truly free market, because the buyers are not the consumers. The buyers of health care are the insurance companies. They repackage their plans and sell the package to the companies and individuals who pay fixed premiums regardless of how much service they use, so that most of the actual health care costs are paid by the insurance companies, not the consumers. That makes health care "free" to the consumers. There is no limit to demand on free products, and demand drives the price up.

The way to manage the cost while restoring and maintaining a free market is to eliminate the insurance companies. You can't just outlaw them -- although Obama's plan effectively does that -- what you need to do is restore the freedom of choice to the consumers. Make it worth their while to consume fewer health care services. Allow them (not the insurance companies) to keep the money not spent on health care, and they will make informed and reasonably intelligent choices about when to spend it. Insurance is the problem, not the solution.

The people who will object to this idea are the people whose lifestyle choices lead to bad health and thus to higher medical needs: the smokers, the obese, the sexually promiscuous, the thrill-seekers and the clumsy. A very few are born with health problems we do not (yet) know how to prevent; they will be unhappy also. This is not all that different morally from the fact that some people are born into wealthy families and some people are born poor. It's the luck of the draw. Government efforts to equalize wealth only serve to reduce everybody to (equal) poverty, because it is the prospect of great wealth that drives people to do things that increase the wealth of the nation. The rising tide lifts all boats, but it raises the boats of the hard workers even more. That is what motivates them to work for it.

If everybody pays for their own health care, then the rich people will have better health care. They also eat better food and drive nicer cars and live in bigger houses. That is the nature of wealth, and it is not immoral. The prospect of great wealth motivates people to produce products that other people are willing to pay for, and they are willing to pay for these products because they make life more pleasant. Furthermore, the rich people spend more money on their nice products, which enables opportunistic people to increase their own wealth by producing the products these rich people are willing to buy. The result is that when people get rich in a market economy, everybody benefits. If they want to.

There are also poor people who cannot afford nice cars and big houses and fine food -- nor the best health care. Some of these people cannot afford food and housing at all. There are charities to provide minimal food and housing to people willing to meet their requirements. The people who are unwilling, go without. That too is the nature of a market economy, that you can choose to do without the things that hard work would pay for. Health care is no different, and there are (or can be) charities that provide it to indigents. Unless the government gets in the way.

Obama's proposed solution is opposed to free markets. He wants to cap the price people pay for health insurance without providing any incentive for them to limit their consumption of services. Demand therefore increases without any limit, but supply becomes limited by the reduced profit incentive. Doctors will drop out and go do other things that better reward their efforts. Insurance companies will discover that they cannot afford to stay in business at these reduced prices and higher costs, so they will drop out also. That leaves only the "public option" funded by taxes. Taxpayers will protest, so the government will limit supply by various means such as delay and outright refusal. The quality of health care will drastically go down -- as indeed it must in any system that attempts to equalize wealth by government intervention.

The rich will always be able to access quality health care -- on the black market if the government attempts to make it unlawful, but they can do that. The only difference is that large numbers of middle-class people who now pay high prices for their health care, they will not be able to get it at any price because of the reduced supply. Sure, they will have the government-mandated insurance, but (as reported in England, where this kind of program is already operational) the waiting period or the quota lotteries will make it inaccessible.

Do you want that kind of health care? I don't.

Tom Pittman
2009 December 9

Source: http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/InsProblem.htm

Truth Decay

2009-12-07T06:32:00.003-06:00

In two national surveys conducted by the Barna Research Group the following was found:

By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation.
83% of teenagers said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of said moral truth is absolute.
Just one out of ten of our country's born again teenagers believes in absolute moral truth - a statistic that is nearly identical to that of non-born again teens.
The alarmingly fast decline of moral foundations among our nations young people has culminated in a one-word worldview: 'whatever.' The result is a mentality that esteems pluralism, relativism, tolerance, and diversity without critical reflection of the implications of particular views and actions.

Very sad.

Flu Vaccine Exposed

2009-12-04T13:37:00.006-06:00

I'm not a big fan of vaccines. When I went to India, I did a lot of research on vaccines, and decided to only take anti-malaria tablets and skip all the suggested vaccines. I also opt-out my son from school vaccines. Here's a short video that summarizes the information on which I based my decision years ago to never get a flu shot:

More info: The Truth about Tamiflu explains why the "evidence that Tamiflu reduces complications, hospitalizations, or deaths is weak at best, and if the drug does offer any benefit, it is slight indeed."

Comedy in Theology

2009-11-25T13:43:00.001-06:00

“Because of piety’s penchant for taking itself too seriously, theology–more than literary, humanistic, and scientific studies–does well to nurture a modest, unguarded sense of comedy. Some comic sensibility is required to keep in due proportion the pompous pretensions of the study of divinity. I invite the kind of laughter that wells up not from cynicism about reflection on God but from the ironic contradictions accompanying such reflections. Theology is intrinsically funny. This comes from glimpsing the incongruity of humans thinking about God. I have often laughed at myself as these sentences went through their tortuous stages of formation. I invite you to look for the comic dimension of divinity that stalks every page. It is not blasphemy to grasp the human contradiction for what it is. The most enjoyable of all subjects has to be God, because God is the source of all joy.”

-- Thomas C. Oden quote from his three volume Systematic Theology

Science & Technology: A False Hope

2009-11-24T13:19:00.004-06:00

Human beings have an innate need to worship. Modern people are too sophisticated to worship idols of wood or stone. Instead, we idolize sex, self, security, power, money, and particularly science and technology. The sophistication of modern idolatry is quite high. Neither atheists nor believers bow down to a statue of Science or sacrifice animals on the altar of Science, but when you examine where people place their trust as an ultimate authority, even unaware Christians bow the knee to Science and its twin god, Technology. One of Satan's more heinous tricks is the subtlety of substituting science and technology as the ultimate authority over and above the authority and promises of God's Word.

Many people have written on the rise of scientific authority and technological progress in the modern and post-modern era, so there is no need to repeat that here. The bottom line is science is an unstable foundation for ultimate truth seeking, i.e. answering the "big questions" in life. Scientific progress is accomplished by adherence to an ethic of uncertainty. Technology will not lead us to utopia. The atom bomb proved that without doubt. Science is a shifting sand of doubt based on questioning the current paradigms of human understanding, and it is limited in its ability to answer the big questions in the domain of theology and philosophy. Technology is a false hope for ultimate human redemption.

Even something as apparently absolute as the law of gravity is subject to change with advancement in scientific understanding. For example, Newtonian gravity isn't as precise as Einstein's view, and who is to say that Einstein's description of gravity won't be replaced by some new understanding in the future? Such is the evolution of science, and this is a good evolution for understanding the universe around us. However, there is a not-so-good evolutionary mindset among scientists today called Darwinism. This scientism has taken control of science over the last century even through there are a few bright lights that things may be changing.

The unfortunate outcome of pitting science and technology against God as the ultimate authority is to is to build up a false dichotomy for truth seeking. I am disturbed by how many Christians allow the atheistic scientism of Darwinism to be more authoritative in their thinking than the Word of God, but I've met relatively few people who chase down their assumptions to this level of consideration. Most people seem to be too caught up in the idolatry of consumerism, money, etc. to really consider the big questions at the root of their belief systems.

The good news is eventually true science will realign with God's Word, or errant understandings of God's Word will be corrected and realigned with true science. History shows this pattern. Human scientific understanding grows in fits and starts, and for periods of time science is sometimes at odds with Biblical truth. But, if God's Word is as important as Jesus claimed that it was, then ultimately human beings will discover there is no conflict between the Bible and science when both are correctly understood.

Time

2009-11-12T08:38:00.010-06:00

Did God create time? I used to think so. When studying physics many moons ago, I learned that time is a 4th dimension in addition to the three spatial dimensions. According to Genesis 1, God created space and matter, so I had assumed God created time too. That implies God is "outside" the space-time continuum. Now I'm not so sure about this implication. Here's why:

There are two ways to interpret the mathematical core of Special Relativity. On Einstein’s interpretation, there is no absolute “now” in the world; rather what is now is relative to different observers in motion. If you and I are moving with respect to each other, then what is now for me is not now for you. But on H. A. Lorentz’s interpretation, there is an absolute now in the world, but we just cannot be sure which events in the world are happening now because motion affects our measuring instruments. Moving clocks run slow and moving measuring rods contract. The Einsteinian and the Lorentzian interpretations are empirically equivalent; there is no experiment you could perform to decide between them. But I want to argue that if God exists, then Lorentz was right. Here is my argument:
1. If God exists, then God is in time.

This is true because God is really related to the world as cause to effect. But a cause of a temporal effect must exist either before or at the same time as its effect. So God must be in time.

2. If God is in time, then a privileged observer exists.

Since God transcends the world and is the cause of the existence of everything in the world, His perspective on the world is the true perspective.

3. If a privileged observer exists, then an absolute now exists.

Since God is a privileged observer, His “now” is privileged. Thus, there is an absolute now, just as Lorentz claimed.

This is a very startling conclusion, indeed. But I am firmly convinced that if God exists, then a Lorentzian, rather than Einsteinian, theory of relativity is correct. It is hard to imagine how religion could have any greater relevance to science than this, to show that one theory is wrong and another is right.
[Source: What is the Relation between Science and Religion? by William Lane Craig]

Perhaps time is not so much created in the manner of space and matter, but merely a result of creation being in relative motion compared to God, yet God is also transcendent and omnipresent "for in him we live and move and have our being." Maybe time simply ceases to exist at God's point of being as the privileged observer which could account for God's timelessness. Who knows? What I do know is I really don't know with any degree of certainty what I thought I used to know!

So, what about something like an absolute zero temperature region or a perfect vacuum where all molecular motion ceases or no matter is in motion? Does time stop there? Nope, not in relation to God since this region or vacuum has motion relative to the position of the privileged observer, i.e. God.

Even if this line of thought holds water in the context of Special Relativity, it has been 20 years since I gave much thought to General Relativity. And, even though I was a physics major in college I didn't fully grasp General Relativity even when I studied it. Someone much smarter than I will have to consider the ramifications in the context of GR.

This line of thought reminded me of Psalm 46:10a: "Be still, and know that I am God."

Tozer on the Unknowable

2009-09-22T06:57:00.005-06:00

In the chapter on the self-existence of God in his classic work The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer writes:

Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.

To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him. Yet how He eludes us! For He is everywhere while He is nowhere, for "where" has to do with matter and space, and God is independent of both. He is unaffected by time or motion, is wholly self-dependent and owes nothing to the worlds His hands have made.

I used to think I was the furthest thing from a mystic when it came to my Christian faith, but the older I get the more I resonate with guys like Tozer and Oswald Chambers. I've also been hearing more about younger generations of Evangelicals going over to the Eastern Orthodox church. I wonder what is afoot here?

Mr. Fix-It

2009-09-17T12:45:00.002-06:00

Dr. John Gray of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus fame calls it Mr. Fit-It. It has probably been over a dozen years since I read that book, but I remember identifying with Mr. Fix-It a lot. If you articulate a problem around men, we look for a solution. If you articulate a problem around women, they tend to empathize and talk it out. There is a definite gender difference in how the sexes deal with personal problems. I have been reminded of this difference in some very significant ways just recently.

In the last couple of weeks, I've had a rash of personal problems popping up all around me with friends and family: two marriages blowing up of two couples I care about deeply, issues with my teen-age boys, getting along with co-workers, etc. I've discovered that being Mr. Fix-It is exhausting. The Bible has some powerful wisdom on how to deal with personal problems.

First, get the log out of your own eye. That is often my first problem. Dealing with someone hypocritically (especially our children) is usually a train wreck waiting to happen. Romans 2:3-5 addresses this directly and without pulling punches. Then, realize there are two sides to every story. Proverbs 18:17 is one of my favorites: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."

My most recent discovery is realizing that in the midst of their messes, others are not just problems to be fixed, but people to be loved. I often forget that when I'm in the middle of a crisis situation and looking for a solution. Jesus gives a great example on striking the balance when he was approached by the rich young man. The version of this story in Mark 10 has some additional insight beyond the synoptic version in Matthew 19. Mark's gospel gives this account:

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

This passage is almost always used for teaching about money and possessions, but it also teaches us the art of helping someone with a personal problem. First, be careful of giving unsolicited advice. In this case, the rich young man came to Jesus asking for help. Second, work from a position of log-free humility. Jesus was perfect yet he deferred the goodness and honor given to him over to God rather than engaging from his position of perfection. None of us have a perfect position from which to counsel others.

Third, engage the other person on the basis of Biblical truth. Jesus gave the rich young man the law from the Book. Fourth, note how in v.21 Jesus loved him. This is more than just warm fuzzies and emotional affirmation. It is telling the truth in love rather than what would tickle his ears. Jesus gave this rich young man some hard truth and still loved him. Finally, the ultimate advice always points back to Jesus himself. We do well to follow Him, and point others in the same direction.

9/11 Nonsense

2009-09-10T11:36:00.014-06:00

On this eve of 9/11, a friend of mine sent me this purported interview of President Obama by Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen.

http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/

It sounded fishy from the beginning, but I was immediately skeptical anyway because I recognized the Infowars.com domain. Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com are the work of conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed truth seeker Alex Jones. If you read through this piece of fiction concocted by Mr. Sheen, you find this little nugget at the bottom:

"Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet."

Thankfully I didn't waste my time reading this nonsense. My chagrined friend alerted me to the skullduggery he inadvertently passed along before I got around to reading the material myself. This is exactly why I pay nearly zero attention to Alex Jones, and why I'd recommend any serious minded truth seeker should ignore him as well. 95% (maybe more?) of the people who hit this link won't read the fine print at the bottom or will overlook it in their zeal to pass it along to a "truth seeking" friend who is like minded in their skepticism regarding the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.

Mr. Sheen's work of fiction will inadvertently be passed along as truth, and I have no doubts that is the intent and desire of Mr. Jones who is also promoting this work of fiction on his PrisonPlanet.com banner ad as I'm writing this blog entry. In Mr. Jones's world, truth is not only stranger than fiction, fiction is presented as truth (until you read the fine print). It is no coincidence this propaganda piece showed up on Mr. Jones's web sites during the anniversary week of 9/11. Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are obviously running a propaganda program of their own. It gives Alex Jones more fodder for his online radio and TV shows. I guess when fighting "infowars" lying...or "fiction" purported as truth (with a little disclaimer)...is okey dokie on Mssrs. Sheen and Jones's moral compass?

In my world view, fighting lies with lies only results in more liars. Why should Alex Jones or anyone else believe Charlie Sheen as a credible authority on the 9/11 controversies and mysteries? Because he is a Hollyweird celeb? Give me a break!

An Aphorism

2009-08-31T15:09:00.002-06:00

Truth invites scrutiny of the evidence, but error demands tolerance of opinion.

Dave Ramsey on "Cash for Clunkers"

2009-08-28T08:32:00.002-06:00

With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.

About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.

Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.

The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?

When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.

Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.

Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.

There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”

So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.

Source: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/newsletters/company/082809.cfm?ectid=cnl0909.1_05#1

I know nothing!

2009-08-11T22:26:00.012-06:00

This past Saturday morning I spent some time down at UGM with some friends that do a monthly service project there, and we were enjoying some brunch afterward. I was having a bit of a theological discussion with a couple of the guys at the table, and another guy across the table made a comment about how "You know everything!" (meaning me). He didn't say it in a mean spirited way. In fact, I think he meant it as a genuine compliment, but it got me to thinking about how *little* I really know. Then I got worried that other people might actually believe I know something when I don't. Or, even worse, I might think I actually do know something when I don't and steer someone in the wrong direction. Jesus called people like this "blind guides." That started me thinking about what I know and don't know. I'll be the first to admit, I know far less than it appears on the surface, and that is an integrity issue that bugs me.

When I was a kid I liked the show "Hogan's Heroes." It was about some very smart POWs in a German prison camp who basically chose to stay in the POW camp of the naive Col. Klink so they could run counter intelligence activities. One of my favorite characters was the pudgy Sergeant Schultz whose famous line was "I know nothing – NOTHING!" I've been feeling a lot like Sergeant Shultz lately, and this got hammered into my mind further today when I read this on a web site:

If we honestly want to discover the truth, it's helpful to start with a clean slate by pretending that we don't know anything about the topic that we are studying. This will help us look beyond our preconceived biases and "filters." It's important to be as prayerful, honest, thorough, and objective as possible, and it's important to be willing to believe whichever view has the greatest weight of evidence in Scripture.

One of my best friends has been telling me this for a couple of years. This "second witness" really hit it home for me. I come to the Bible with a TON of preconceived ideas that have been absorbed from all over the place. I rarely have an original thought. I'm lazy that way. It is easier to let someone else do the thinking for me and then criticize their viewpoint by comparing it to other viewpoints and using compare/contrast techniques. Original thinking is hard work and slow. I find it much faster to build on the work of other people and synthesize their thinking into my own world view. I'm pretty fast and adept at this process, and I try to choose my source information carefully. This allows me to increase my knowledge base widely. However, it puts me at HUGE risk of being wrong if one of my sources is wrong or if I inaccurately interpret a correct source. I hate being wrong, but it now occurs to me that I've been letting the pride of having a wide breadth of knowledge outweigh my desire for Truth. Bad choice. Pride comes before the fall, and knowledge puffs up.

Another issue I've been under conviction about is that I read for information more than transformation. Being in the technology industry where change is always accelerating, I've learned how to process large amounts of information and filter down to what is important for the task at hand. For example, it is not unusual for me to process through more than 150 email messages in a day. This is a counter productive behavior when it comes to processing information for personal transformation. Somehow I need to figure out how to go deeper rather than casting such a wide net in our information rich but knowledge poor info-tainment culture.

If you have any ideas about how to do this, I'm listening...

Tim Keller on the Gospel

2009-08-10T17:17:00.006-06:00

Religion operates on the principle of "I obey -- therefore I am accepted by God." The basic operating principle of the gospel is "I am accepted by God through the work of Jesus Christ -- therefore I obey." As we have seen, believing the gospel is how a person first makes a connection to God. It gives us a new relationship with God and a new identity. We must not think, however, that once believing it, the Christian is now finished with the gospel message. A fundamental insight of Martin Luther's was that "religion" is the default mode of the human heart. Your computer operates automatically in a default mode unless you deliberately tell it to do something else. So Luther says that even after you are converted by the gospel your heart will go back to operating on other principles unless you deliberately, repeatedly set it to gospel-mode.

We habitually and instinctively look to other things besides God and his grace as our justification, hope, significance, and security. We believe the gospel at one level, but at deeper levels we do not. Human approval, professional success, power, and influence, family and clan identity -- all of these things serve as our heart's "functional trust" rather than what Christ has done, and as a result we continue to be driven to a great degree by fear, anger, and lack of self-control. You cannot change such things through mere will-power, through learning Biblical principles and trying to carry them out. We can only change permanently as we take the gospel more deeply into our understanding and into our hearts. We must feed on the gospel, as it were, digesting it and making it part of ourselves. That is how we grow.

From The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller, pp. 114-115

Centered Set vs Bounded Set Christianity

2009-07-27T14:35:00.014-06:00

I originally wrote this in my private journal on 11/7/07. Moved it to my public blog due to several conversations I've had with people on this particular topic.

I've been taking an online self-paced Theology Program and learning more than I expected. One concept in the intro course text by Roger Olsen particularly captured my attention. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity significantly impacted my views on defining orthodoxy.

Olsen describes two perspectives of defining orthodoxy. He calls them bounded set and centered set views. I've always been a bounded set guy. I didn't even realize there was another way. The bounded set view defines the essential beliefs for anyone to be properly classified as a "Christian." These essential beliefs are inside the boundary. This appeals to my analytical personality which categorizes every aspect of life and attempts to ascertain the truth value of these cataloged items.

For analytical people like me, the bounded set view requires an inordinate amount of time for boundary maintenance. Trying to figure out what is "in" and what is "out" of the set of essential beliefs is a difficult and controversial endeavor. I've been working on theological boundary problems for most of my adult life. This has caused a lot of relational tension over the years with people whom I care about a lot. I shouldn't be surprised. Theologians have been working on the boundary problems for nearly two thousand years. Not a few wars have been waged over these issues. The problem with the bounded set approach is the sheer diversity of views on what is "in" and what is "out" of the set of essential beliefs. However, the Bible is pretty clear starting in Genesis that God loves diversity, so rather than fight what appears to be the nature-of-things I am looking at the centered set view as an alternative.

Centered set theory was a totally new perspective for me. Ironically, I told my wife about my new discovery, and she matter-of-factly said, "I've always thought about it like that." At that point, I should have done my best Homer Simpson impression and slapped my forehead with a big "Doh!" My own better half knew this all along?! For the last 12+ years I've been beating my head against the boundary problem while the person who climbs into bed with me every night has thought about the problem in a completely different and enlightened manner. Maybe I'm a slow learner and should be taking theology lessons from my wife.

Anyway, centered set theory makes a lot of sense. It is a new way of thinking for me. Jesus is the center of the set. I may be taking a little liberty with my interpretation of Olsen's description, but the gist of the centered set view is that orthodoxy is not defined by a set of bounded beliefs. Rather, it is an ongoing process of moving beliefs toward the center which is Jesus Christ, son of God and savior of mankind. I could go into this much deeper, but I want to think about it for a few days before writing more. This has been a serious paradigm shift in my thinking.

Is Hating my Enemy Easier?

2009-07-13T08:32:00.008-06:00

In my last blog entry I was bemoaning the hard teaching of "love your enemy." Shortly after I posted this, I was listening to a teaching by Dallas Willard that corrected my misperception. Willard points out that the alternative of loving our enemy, i.e. hating him, is not any easier. After considering the wisdom of Dallas Willard for a bit, it became obvious to me that he is absolutely right!

Just look at all the revenge/hate cycles that have destroyed the Middle East for millenia. This began with the Jacob and Esau feud which continues today between the Israelis and Arabs. On a more personal level look at all the lives that are destroyed by individual haters as they kill people, even their own families. Hate is much harder than love. The biological damage hate does to our bodies through stress and blood pressure and heart problems alone is enough to cause us to question if love might not be a better way.

One person I know who hates me is repeatedly wrecking his own life and destroying the lives of those who he professes to love. Human hate is stupid, self-destructive, and foolish. The only hate that works is the righteous hate of God which is reserved for sinners who refuse to repent. God hates unrepentant haters, but he overcomes them with His love as shown by the Cross. Those who relent and repent of their hate can receive the free gift of grace. Love wins!

I now believe loving my human enemy is better than hating him, but my natural instincts are to engage in hate. The only way I know to really love my enemy is through the power of the spirit of God working through me to do what I cannot do on my own. I want to do what God wants, and He will help me do it. Jesus said "my yoke is easy and My burden is light" but it is still a burden. The burden of hate is hard and heavy by comparison. Which burden are you going to bear? I need to learn to bear the burden of love because it seems obvious the burden of hate is heavier.

Love your Enemy

2009-06-21T08:16:00.006-06:00

I've been thinking a lot about forgiveness lately, especially related to the emotional component of how love and hate/anger are related to forgiveness. The Biblical passage that has me stumped is in Matthew 5 where Jesus teaches us to "Love your enemies."

An enemy is "one who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe." Jesus doesn't say befriend your enemy. Jesus doesn't say feel good feelings about your enemy. Jesus doesn't even say forgive your enemy. If my enemy were to repent and ask for forgiveness, and I were to forgive and reconcile with that person, then he would no longer be my enemy. This command is all about *my* behavior irrespective of what my enemy does. It is a hard command, very hard. Maybe the hardest of them all. It is very asymmetrical. Someone does evil to me, but I return that with good. That is the point Jesus is making.

So, can I love my enemy and still be angry at him? That probably depends on how my enemy responds to my loving behavior. If I can win this asymmetrical battle by overcoming evil with good, chances are my emotions will follow. And, perhaps my my enemy will repent or at least relent or even turn from their wicked ways and seek God, but I cannot count on that. I may continue to be attacked in which case I can put up boundaries or flee if possible. There are no guarantees. If all I get is continued persecution I'm left to depend on Romans 12:19. Jesus does offer a little bit of help. He says "pray for those who persecute you." Take it to God, and maybe He will help us with this very hard teaching.

You Get What You Measure

2009-06-10T06:24:00.003-06:00

I'm hard wired as an MBTI Thinker/Judger. It is designed into my personality. There are some dangers and problems that come from being wired this way, but I believe God made me this way for a reason. So, I need to figure out how to work with the Owner's design. As one of my good friends likes to say, "You get what you measure." Maybe measuring is better than judging, particularly if you're not sure your judgment is right.

A friend of mine sent me this insightful coaching tip from http://www.straususa.com/

DISTINCTION: Measure vs. Judge (Distinctions are subtleties of language that, when gotten, cause a shift in a belief, behavior, value or attitude.)

When you want to grow in some manner it's useful to measure your progress so you can tell how you're doing. Are you getting closer to what you want or further away? If closer, do more of the same. If further way, change something. Measuring relative to some standard lets you determine your progress and quickly make corrections.

What do you measure against? Anything which looks like what you want.

It's when you let measuring turn into judging that the trouble starts. To judge yourself means that you decide some level of your self-worth by how the measuring goes. And that's a problem because there is always something, or some place, or someone richer, smarter, taller, faster, prettier, smaller, nearer, younger, or older than you. You will always lose the comparison, if you make it a win/lose comparison.

"I'm not enough" is the lament of the person who judges their performance.

"I see what I need to do next" is the healthy attitude of the person who measures their progress.

Coaching Point: What are some useful measurement points you can find?

Words Women Use

2009-06-01T08:01:00.005-06:00

This came to me as an email forward. Email forwards annoy me for a number of reasons I won't go into right now. (My advice to email forwarders: GET A BLOG!) Unfortunately, since the email forward didn't provide a citation, I cannot credit the wise man who captured this knowledge for the rest of the male species. All I can say, is "thank you!" and pay it forward by posting it here without annoying others by forwarding it to my entire email address book. I'm sure this is already in a zillion other blogs, but it is worth adding one more entry into the blogosphere with the hopes this sage advice enter the collective consciousness and disappear from the email forwarding circuit.

Words Women Use

1. Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

2. Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to do what you're doing before helping her do what she wants you do to.

3. Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

4. Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!

5. : This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)

6. That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a woman can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

7. Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you're welcome.

8. Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer to #3 above.

Happiness

2009-05-31T21:43:00.001-06:00

I have nothing against being happy. In fact, I often order my life in such a way that it will optimize my level of satisfaction and happiness. However, I've noticed over the years that pushing this behavior to its logical conclusion is a path do disaster resulting in the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom would lead us to believe. The ultimate result of radically pursuing happiness is unhappiness, brokenness, and separation from God.

A lot of Biblical characters were not happy. Job was not happy beginning in Job Chapter 1. For the next forty one and a half chapters much misery follows. It isn't until the very end of chapter 42 that we see another glimmer of happiness. Jonah was not happy about having to preach to Nineveh. Hosea loved Gomer, but he sure wasn't happy with her unfaithful behavior. My children were not happy about eating their vegetables when they were younger. Now they are older and not happy about their curfews.

God is far more interested in our obedience and developing our character than he is in our happiness. Unfortunately, in our individualistic culture, we tend to center our lives around ourselves instead of God. At its core, happiness is almost always selfish. God's best for our lives and selfishness are mutually exclusive. Both the greatest commandment (love God) and the second greatest command (love others) are anti-selfish. They are other focused.

So, is happiness wrong or evil? Does God want us to be unhappy? I don't think so. The problem with happiness is making it the end game or goal. When personal happiness becomes the center of our lives, we reap the consequences of being out of alignment with God's best for us. However, if happiness is a byproduct of living our lives in obedience to God and in service to His Kingdom, then we have our cake and eat it to. We risk personal destruction and eternal separation from God if we pursue personal happiness instead of God's purposes for our life. Our ultimate good will come from our ultimate obedience.

More on the Soul

2009-05-29T14:16:00.005-06:00

Dallas Willard is one of my favorite authors. Here's what he says about the soul:

The soul is one non-physical dimension of the person. A human person is a non-physical (spiritual) entity that has an essential involvement with a particular physical body. The brain, then—a piece of meat that is of more than usual interest—is one part of the embodied dimension of the human person. It too is integrated by the soul into one life, along with all of the dimensions of the person (at least when all is well).

These matters are especially important as Christians often treat the soul as the recipient of salvation, and the other dimensions of human life are left out—especially the bodily and the social, but also thought and feeling. Redemption in Christ is a retrieving of the entire person from alienation from God and opposition to God.

The soul is not some separable part of us that eventually gets to go to heaven while everything else about is left out.
(Source: Grey Matter and the Soul)

Well said, and much better than I could have said it! To see the other books I'm reading go here.

What is a Man?

2009-05-27T22:00:00.001-06:00

Are people triune beings? I'm convinced we are. Obviously we have a physical body. That part is obvious to the most casual observer. So, what about soul and spirit?

Soul: I believe the soul consists of, but may not be limited to, intellect/mind, will, and emotions. The Bible is clear that man and the animals have souls. The Hebrew word translated into "soul" (nephesh) is first used in Genesis 1:20 for the words translated "creature" and "life." This same word is translated into English "soul" 472 times in its 754 appearances in the Old Testament. My two pet dogs have intellect, will, and emotions too. In fact, Kaydee our pit bull has more intellect, and Sydnee our mix breed has more will. The soul strikes me as being like a sophisticated software program running on a flesh computer (brain) and central nervous system network.

Spirit: In 1Thess 5:23 Paul wrote, "May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The writer of Hebrews tells us in 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit..." 1 Cor 2:14 makes the distinction between the "soulish" ("psychical" in Greek) person and the spiritual person. Biblically, the spirit is something ontologically different from soul, but how? Spirit is a little more mysterious than soul, at least in my meager understanding.

The Hebrew word "ruach" appears 389 times in the Old Testament, 237 of which it is rendered as "spirit." By looking at how this word is used I get the impression of a supra-natural yet personal force. I'm not talking about the Star Wars "may the Force be with you" force. I reject the dualism. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), so apparently spirit is an important concept for people who want to worship God. I need to do more study on soul and spirit to develop a clearer understanding, but the above analysis summarizes my current thinking with slight revisions since I wrote about this topic in my journal back in 2007.

Question: Why is this important?
Answer: Because it helps us answer the big questions in life.

The big questions in life are questions like these:

(1) Who am I? Was I designed or evolved?
(2) Why am I here? What is my purpose?
(3) Where am I going? What is my destination?

Most people don't think about these questions very much. I'm not sure why because I think about them all the time. I guess I'm a little weird that way. Life is too short to not think about these questions. Perhaps people are just too busy with the immediate and urgent to contemplate the important. That's a shame. As Ghandi once said, "There is more to life than increasing its speed."

The secular world view is that people are biological machines that came from a cosmic accident called evolution. It is an illogical and absurd world view because machines do not evolve, they are designed. Even worse, the secular religion of scientism has no good answers for the big questions of identity, purpose and destiny. So, I reject the incoherent secular world view and its accompanying religion of scientism. My view is informed by the Bible. I am a Christian because it is the only belief system that offers reasonable answers to the big questions.

Based on my understanding of the Bible, I believe I am a man created and commissioned by God who will ultimately face God and give an account for my life. So, I want to know as much as I can about who I am and what I should be doing with my short life. Ephesians 2:10 says, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." I want to discover what God prepared in advance for me to do so I can do it to the best of my ability for His glory.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Love for God

2009-05-20T07:21:00.012-06:00

I've been thinking a lot about love lately. Our modern emotional view of love doesn't seem to have much in common, if anything, with the kind of love described in the Bible. Emotional love is mentioned very infrequently. Have you ever noticed the word "love" doesn't even appear in the ENTIRE book of Acts? Acts is the book about the founding of the church. If love is such an essential component of Christianity, why did the Holy Spirit neglect to utter this word "love" even one time in the book of Acts?

I'm starting see that our modern emotional view of love is entirely selfish which is directly opposed to Biblical love. The Biblical notion of divine love I see in Paul's writings is a righteous love. It seems to have more to do with justice than feelings.

"God manifests his own love (agape) for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us... Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath [of God]... [W]hile we were enemies [of God], we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son."
--Rom 5:9-10

I'm starting to wonder if our modern evangelical gospel is warped too, largely related to the Emotional Jesus who we believe loves us unconditionally. Where in the Bible does it say, "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?" Where in the Bible does it say, "Ask Jesus into your heart," which is generally the phrasing used in emotionally manipulative and tearful altar calls I heard for most of my life in the church I grew up attending.

One of my best friends re-ignited this line of thinking in me, but these thoughts have been bouncing around in my head for years. I have really struggled to reconcile the emotional love preached from the pulpit and seen in our culture with the love I see in the Bible. My friend is (thankfully) pointing me back to Scripture, and I'm not finding a lot of feel-good love in Scripture. The love I see is a sacrificial love that cost Jesus everything. It is anti-selfish love, not the all-about-me love prevalent in our culture and even our churches.

Jesus seems to have a different view of love than the unconditional affirmation view held by many in the modern evangelical church. Four times in John 14, Jesus says some variant of, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." The last instance is an inversion of this: "He who does not love me will not obey my teaching." The very words of Jesus Himself tell us that our love for God is demonstrated by our obedience. God's love for us was demonstrated by Jesus being obedient to the Father even unto death. Seems to me that love is tied up inextricably with obedience, is it not?

If our love is directly tied to our obedience, then is OUR love for God conditional? Yes, it is! It is conditional on our obedience. So, can we really justify our expectation of unconditional love from God when we love God conditionally? Where is the justice in that? Why should we expect to receive what we do not give? Thank God for grace and the obedience of Jesus in going to the Cross even if He didn't feel like doing it.

Lust

2009-05-09T08:02:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, I had lunch with a friend who was bemoaning the sexualization of our culture. That got me thinking about lust. Every guy I know struggles with lust, so I thought I'd investigate specifically what the Bible says. I was familiar with the general Biblical principles about lust (1Peter 1 has some great guidance), but I also did a little data mining on BibleGateway.com. I did a word search for "lust" in the New Testament (NT). Here are the numbers for how many times "lust" appears in the NT for these English translations.

40 - King James Version (KJV)
30 - New King James Version (NKJV)
14 - New Living Translation (NLT)
9 - New International Version (NIV)
5 - English Standard Version (ESV)

I thought this was a most curious set of data points. The KJV and NKJV had substantially more mentions of lust than the modern translations. Why? It would take a lot more work and data gathering to come up with a hypothesis. But, I'm curious what my friends think. These blog entries cross post in Facebook, so if I tagged you with this note it is because I'm interested in your opinion on this topic. I also welcome comments in my blog.

Muslim Demographics

2009-05-06T08:49:00.001-06:00

This YouTube video is a fascinating look at the changing dynamics of our global culture.

The Case Against the Income Tax

2009-04-15T07:25:00.006-06:00

This is from Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk archives (5/7/2001). Note the comment about Treasury having surpluses. No more! After eight years of Republican fiscal mismanagement, the USA is essentially bankrupt. The Democrats are making the mess worse with the bailouts Republicans began endorsing during Bush's lame duck administration. Is Ron Paul the only voice for Liberty and Reason in Congress?

Dr. Paul writes:

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

Head v. Heart

2009-04-11T13:58:00.005-06:00

Q: What has the priority, the head or heart?

A: ...Now by heart I don't mean feelings or sentiments or emotions. Those are like waves. They're wonderful. They're fun to surf on. You can't build on them. A biblical focus always aims at the heart, the pre-functional root out of which all the functions grow, out of which all the branches come. The danger of doing that is that you forget the head or that you subjectivize it, or that you become skeptical of it, or that you oppose the head to the heart, or that you reduce the heart to sentiment. But those are dangers that you don't need to succumb to.

The primacy of agape love, rather than the primacy of reason, certainly seems to be a scriptural emphasis. [Thomas] Aquinas, as usual, is wonderfully balanced here. In asking the question whether knowing or loving is the highest thing, he gives a very nuanced answer. He says, "With regard to the universe, knowing is higher than loving. With regard to God, loving is higher than knowing, because when you love something you become more like it. When you know something, it becomes more like you."

When I know a stone, I raise it up to my level because I give it a second life. I make it a thought. When I know God, I drag him down to my level. I reduce him to what I can know of him, and therefore when it comes to relating to God, loving God makes you more godlike than knowing God. And therefore its higher.

Source: Peter Kreeft

The Money Masters

2009-03-27T16:18:00.004-06:00

This video rocked my world view back in 1996 when I first saw it. In our new world order of bailout debacle after bailout debacle, it is even more relevant than ever. At just over 3.5 hours, I know it is long. However, in my opinion this is financial education you cannot afford to miss. You will not find this information comforting. It is very disturbing. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and the historical retrospective in this documentary is stranger than any Hollyweird production. If anyone watching this finds any facts or information in this production misleading or incorrect, I'd love to know about it. I'm convinced the makers of this documentary are speaking the truth, but I don't consider this video infallible. Comments are welcomed and appreciated.

History Repeats for those who Don't Learn

2009-03-24T06:39:00.004-06:00

Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today's problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958. He prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul's positions today. This 9 minute video is stunning. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we don't learn from them.

Video of Ron Paul & Chuck Baldwin Keynote speeches at the JBS 50th Anniversary: http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3377

Emotional Intelligence

2009-03-18T07:15:00.008-06:00

I'm taking a leadership training course at my church. The topic for this week's class was "Emotional Intelligence." The preparatory reading was pulled from the book Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. I had an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw the title. Some folks explain such feelings as promptings of the Holy Spirit, but I won't go that far. What I can say without hesitation is my premonition was justified after I read through the material. I have no problem reading secular material in order to compare and contrast it with Biblical values and truth. In fact, I bought a copy of Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence about a month ago before I even knew about this class topic. I still plan to read it. However, I do have a problem when bunk science is used to justify a secular viewpoint that Christians accept uncritically.

Our Chase Oaks Church Core Doctrine says the Bible is "our supreme and final authority in all matters about which it speaks." Fortunately, the first semester of this leadership training course focused on doctrinal truths, and half of this semester is devoted to spiritual disciplines. I applaud my church leaders for finding a good balance in the curriculum, but I'm concerned about the choice of reading material for this particular class on Emotional Intelligence.

In a nutshell, the reading from Primal Leadership suggested our primitive lizard-like limbic brains that control our emotions evolved into ape-like mammalian brains which have a prefrontal area responsible for the higher level logic and reasoning. This bunk science may not be as high on the lie scale as the "ontology recapitulates philology" bunk, but it is still bunk according to the Book. This bunk science is then used to give scientific credibility to the alleged primal nature of emotions and usurp the importance of the intellect which drives moral reasoning. This is flat out wrong and unbiblical, but this is how the authors justify statements like "our emotions are, in a very real sense, more powerful than our intellect." (p. 27)

Are we Christians going to believe the Bible or bad science? Did God create an amoeba that evolved into a fully thinking and reasoning human being, or was Adam created with a fully developed frontal cortex capable of moral judgment? If we believe the latter, then why are we taking leadership lessons from secular authors promoting (at least in this excerpt) emotional intelligence over moral authority as the key to leadership success?

Primal Leadership, as the title suggests, buys into the philosophy of Darwinism. In the dozen page excerpt included in our training materials, evolution was mentioned several times. I was reminded of Colossians 2:8 and Romans 3:4 as I read through it. When unbiblical philosophies are couched in scientific sounding language, undiscerning people may unwittingly assume this means they are authoritative. This is particularly a problem when the authors have PhDs from respected schools like Harvard. I'm a nobody with a piddly physics degree from small liberal arts college. My opinion doesn't carry much weight. But, I do try to use a Biblical grid and be like a Berean in filtering out truth from lies. Shouldn't all Christians, and especially leaders training leaders, do likewise?

Admittedly, I'm a person who got skipped when they handed out emotional intelligence. In the skills assessment we took in this training class, my three lowest skills were Social Intelligence, People Skills, and Emotional Intelligence (EI). My EI score was dead last. I got a dismal 3.6 out of 10. So, if this blog entry offends people, I won't be shocked. I simply don't have the people skills to couch the truth in feeler language so my church leaders feel good about it.

I'm a truth seeker first and foremost. That is my gift to the body, and I hope others will receive it in the spirit it is given, which is with as much gentleness as I can muster and respect for the authorities I've willingly placed myself under at Chase Oaks Church. I take 1Peter 3:15 seriously, including the last four words.

More on science and the Bible: Age of the Earth - does it matter?

New Element Discovered

2009-03-18T06:18:00.008-06:00

Big news from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Physicists have now discovered the heaviest element known to science. Its existence, which was anticipated after the hurricanes, gasoline price increases, and Iraq Wars, has now been proven.

The new element has been named Governmentium.

Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called mo-rons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pe-ons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take over four days to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years. It does not decay however, but undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, as each reorganization will cause more mo-rons to become neutrons, forming iso-dopes.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium -- an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium because,though it has only half as many pe-ons, it has twice as many mo-rons.

In separate news, fears still abound about a black hole being created by the LHC. In order to quell fears CERN physicts have set up a new web site for the general public. If you're concerned you no longer exist and consulting a philosopher fails to convince you, just hit this link:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

2009-03-16T11:42:00.018-06:00

Over the years, I've received email forwards quoting 2 Chronicles 7:14 so many times I've lost count. What I've noticed is they generally come from conservative Republican Christians during Democratic administrations. I got a lot of them when Clinton was in office. I'm starting to get them again (three so far) now that Obama is running the show. They generally include some admonition that Christians should pray for repentance so that our country will turn from our wicked ways so God can heal our land.

I think praying for repentance is wonderful. And we should pray for our leaders no matter their political party. However, as a truth seeker, I want to rightly divide the Word of Truth. So, can American Christians today claim 2 Chronicles 7:14 and hope for God to "heal our land" if we repent from our "wicked ways"?

About twelve years ago a friend of mine named Ken Klein was teaching a group of us at a seminar here in Dallas. Ken was teaching on prophecy and suggesting hard times might be in front of us as our country moves further away from God's commands. During the Q&A session, someone in the audience stood up and quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14. Ken gently instructed him that this verse does not apply and gave him an in depth lesson on the context of this particular passage. That teaching has stuck with me over the years. I believe Ken was right, and I even found an almost identical statement of what Ken was teaching here:

Today we live in "the dispensation of the grace of God for us Gentiles." God's program with Israel is temporarily set aside during this present dispensation. The "new creation," the church the body of Christ, is what God is forming now, and it is NOT a nation with a land on this earth. Instead, the body of Christ has a citizenship in heaven and is awaiting the Lord's return to gather us together unto Himself and to take us into the heavenly places. Neither are we today, in this dispensation of grace, being treated by God like He treated Israel. He has not put us under the law today, but we are under grace. -- THE MISUSE OF II CHRONICLES 7:14

If you've forwarded those email messages quoting 2 Chron 7:14, I recommend reading the full article. If you have comments or opinions about it, I'd welcome hearing them and discussing it. I don't get overly exercised when believers take this verse out of context or spiritualize it in an effort to call people to repentance and prayer, but I do make of point of questioning the sender to get him or her to think deeper about rightly dividing the Word as Paul commended Timothy to do. I believe Christians need to place our hope in things of eternal value rather than getting distracted by our present circumstances. Kris Harrison's Vertical Devotional for today drove this point home for me in spades!

Finally, James 3:1 holds those who teach to a higher level of accountability, and I take that warning seriously. I believe people in places of authority in the church or with responsibilities for teaching the Bible (myself included) should be very careful to rightly divide the Word. Forwarding an email message is a tacit endorsement of its content including whatever theological perspective it contains. I want to be known as someone who rightly divides the Word. Don't you?

Literary License

2009-03-15T21:04:00.006-06:00

It drives me nuts when people are loose with the truth. What is even more troubling is when the truth is violated by someone who is supposed to be a leader and keeper of the truth. My example in this case is Pastor John Baker from Saddleback Church in California and the editors of his book Life's Healing Choices. This is a great book that I'm sure has helped countless people, so why spoil it with inaccuracy?

On page 77 the book mentions the story found in Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Mark. It is the story of Jairus whose daughter is sick, then dies, but is raised from the dead by Jesus. On the next page (p. 78) John Baker goes on to tell this story from the Bible with great exaggeration:

Jairus was an honest guy, and so he told Jesus the truth: "Lord, I've got a lot of doubts, I want to believe; help me with my unbelief."

I don't have a problem with people paraphrasing the Bible or putting it into understandable language, but this is flat out wrong. Jairus didn't say that! The guy that said that line was the father of the demon possessed boy in Mark Chapter 9, a totally different guy with a totally different situation. How the editors and author goofed this up is unbelievable to me. Is the Bible not amazing enough without this sort of lying literary license. As my favorite TV news show guy John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"

Our Enemy, Inflation

2009-03-13T07:53:00.005-06:00

25 minute video presentation by Ron Paul at "Our Enemy, Inflation," the Mises Circle in Houston, sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis. Recorded Saturday, 24 January 2009.

4 minute video of Ron Paul talking about Austrian School of Economics and the business cycle. Clips from: Federal Reserve Hearing with Chairman Bernanke, Alex Jones radio interview, Republican Debate 2008, Glenn Beck TV interview.

The Country of Texas

2009-03-12T17:38:00.004-06:00

(This is another one of those email forwards that I refuse to forward, but it was funny enough to post here. I made some edits. The original suggested making George W. Bush the president of Texas, but that wouldn't be much of a change from what we have now since he was just as fiscally irresponsible as Obama looks to be. I find it even funnier that people have commented both here and in the cross-posted facebook note about the Treaty. )

Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union . (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

We Texans love y'all, but we'll probably have to take action since Obama won the election and isn't implementing change we can believe in down here in Texas. We'll miss ya'll, but here's the plan:

#1: In order to avoid rampant socialism and crazy inflationary bailout packages Texas secedes from the Union.

#2: Ron Paul will become the President of the Republic of Texas, and we'll actually follow the Constitution.

So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. We will control the space industry.

2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States .

3. Defense Industry--we have over 65% of it. The term "Don't mess with Texas ," will take on a whole new meaning.

4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.

5. Natural Gas - again we have all we need and it's too bad about those Northern States. John Kerry will have to figure out a way to keep them warm....

6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications--small companies like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Miconductor,Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

7. Medical Care - We have the largest research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well as other large health centers. Dallas has some of the best hospitals in the United States .

8. We have enough colleges to keep us going:
University of Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston , Baylor, UNT ( University of North Texas ), Texas Women's University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.

9. We have a ready supply of workers. We could just open the border when we need some more.

10. We have essential control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over Chuck Norris and a couple of Texas Rangers.

12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let's not forget seafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama:

Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off satellite communications.

You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long as you survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from Global Warming.

Signed,
The People of Texas

P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note to give you something to think about!

SLEEP WELL TONIGHT THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!!

One Texan Nation Under God

Live to Serve

2009-03-10T17:36:00.020-06:00

Have you ever heard this line?

"Americans live to work and and Europeans work to live."

Whenever I hear this witticism, it is usually coming from an American (like me!) jealous of the amount of vacation and holidays Europeans get. I uttered this phrase myself many years ago when I felt stuck in my job. I worked at a global conglomerate where my French colleagues seemed to be on vacation half the year, nevermind their 35 hour work week if they happened to be working. I would sit in my cubicle in a suit and tie (just like Dilbert) and wish I was the guy outside cutting the grass. Of course, I wanted to keep my same salary and have access to the AC on really hot days.

Americans do work more and vacation less on average than Europeans, but my life versus work mentality was dysfunctional thinking. I had a very skewed notion of work during my late 20s and early 30s. The problem was compounded by the fact I really hated my job most of the time. I was paid less than I thought I was worth and uninterested in what I was doing. An odd combination. Perhaps if I'd put more passion into my profession my pay might have reflected my self-perceived worth.

Contributing to my angst was my association with a group of people reinforcing my thinking that my job was the problem. They said the cure was to get "financially free" in a MLM business. I bought into "the dream" of making a gob of money in MLM and telling my boss to "Take this Job and Shove It" like that old Johnny Paycheck song. I always wondered if Paycheck did tell his boss to shove it, did Paycheck lose his paycheck? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I was ripe for the picking with the MLM pitch because it was wrapped in American patriotism and Christianity, core values I already embraced. The money goggles blocked my truth vision, and it took me nearly a decade to discover the moral problems with MLM, but that's a another story for another blog entry. My focus with this note is the sacredness of work in the life of a believer.

Life isn't what happens when you're not working. Work is an integral part of life just like eating and sleeping. Work is a blessing. Unfortunately, work was tainted (like the rest of creation) in the Fall, but fundamentally work is good. This is much easier for me to say today because I love my job (most days), but it required a big shift in my thinking to get to this point.

First, I had to reject the greed thinking driven by the MLM hucksters. Next, I had to realize God desires his children do with excellence whatever they set their mind to accomplish. Third, I had to overcome the dysfunctional thinking that work is a curse rather than something affected by the curse. God gave Adam productive things to do before the Fall, so while work suffered from the curse God redeems work as part of the sanctification process.

I finally concluded the main purpose of an apprentice to Jesus is to love and serve God and other people, and I can do that wherever I happen to be working. In fact, work is the primary platform God gives us to live out His commandments. Lately, I've started seeing less of a distinction between the sacred and secular. Rather than compartmentalizing my life into "church work" and "secular work" I'm seeing all work as potentially good and even sacred when redeemed.

I'm a slow learner, or maybe I'm just stubborn -- probably both. God is patient with me, and I trust He is not done with me yet. But, when I began putting all this together, it blew away the false dichotomy of the "live to work versus work to live" thinking. Today, I believe all Christ followers live to serve. We can do that wherever we are in whatever we are doing, whether that is working a corporate job or working in a ministry. Unless your profession is illegal or unethical, bloom where you're planted. Do whatever it is that you do with an attitude of love and service to others, and God will change you from the inside out. At least that is what is happening with me. (It also helps if you don't believe the lie about money being the solution to all your problems.)

The Truth about the Fed

2009-03-03T13:29:00.016-06:00

Where does a US Dollar come from? What is the relationship between the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the IRS which collects our taxes?

G Edward Griffin - Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (42 minute Google Video)

Additional Resources:

Our Enemy, Inflation (DiscoverTruth Blog)
The Truth about Money (DiscoverTruth Blog)
Ron Paul Schools Ben Bernanke 2/27/08 (YouTube)

Letter from my Senator - Say "No" to Stimulus

2009-02-23T13:28:00.002-06:00

Dear Mr. Elenburg:

Thank you for contacting me about efforts to stimulate the economy. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

As you know, the Congress recently passed—and President Barack Obama signed into law—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5) along partisan lines. I could not support this legislation, which increases the size and scope of the federal government, adds over $1 trillion to the federal deficit, and fails to reduce the tax burden on all working families and small businesses. In fact, this legislation will increase Texans share of the national debt by almost $90 billion and according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, will have a negative impact on economic growth over the next ten years.

Nonetheless, I remain committed to finding real solutions that will have an immediate, positive impact on the economy. During the Senate’s debate of P.L. 111–5, I supported an amendment that would have helped address the struggling housing market. The Fix Housing First Amendment (S.Amdt. 353) would have made 4 to 4.5 percent mortgages available to every creditworthy American in an effort to ease the pressure on family budgets. Millions of Texans would have qualified for this refinancing option—translating into an average $300 reduction in the monthly mortgage payments of middle-class families. Additionally, this amendment would have created a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit for the purchase of any principle residence and would have encouraged lenders to modify privately held mortgages, a provision that would have helped stem the number of foreclosures. Finally, S.Amdt. 353 would have put in place a number of critical tax incentives, aimed at creating jobs and spurring small business investment. Unfortunately, S.Amdt. 353 was not included in the final version of P.L. 111–5.

Furthermore, excessive taxation hinders job creation for small businesses and overburdens taxpayers during difficult economic times. According to the Tax Foundation, taxpayers worked almost four months last year to pay for government operations. This is more than what they worked to pay for food, clothing and housing combined. As such, I offered an amendment to P.L. 111–5 that would have lowered the 10 percent tax bracket to 5 percent. This proposal would have provided tax relief to every Texan who pays the federal income tax. Hard-working Texans deserve to keep more of their own money to spend, save, and invest how they see fit. Although the Senate failed to adopt my amendment, I will continue working to provide broad-based tax relief to all Americans.

Finally, I understand the frustration of American taxpayers regarding Congress' inability to restrain spending—the primary factor contributing to the budget deficit and our national debt. Like you, I am concerned about the long term effects of excessive government spending, often on wasteful, ineffective government programs. In an effort to be a better steward of tax dollars, Congress must eliminate government waste and fraud and restrain runaway spending. Although P.L. 111–5 included some meritorious funding initiatives, I believe that any programmatic funding should be openly debated during the annual appropriations process. While I am not a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the annual appropriations bills that allocate federal spending, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that all Texans are well served.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate, and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation be considered during the 111th Congress. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Doing Nothing instead of Something

2009-02-10T17:17:00.006-06:00

I listened to Obama's first press conference last night. As usual, his rhetoric sounds great. What a change from Bush! However, I question the logic of his philosophy that doing nothing is worse than doing something when it comes to our present economic problems. Doing the wrong thing is generally worse than doing nothing at all. This is *frequently* the case with government.

The examples of unintended consequences from government doing what appeared to be right, but what is discovered to be wrong in retrospect are legion. History is littered with such examples. If my government cannot properly inspect peanuts, why should I believe they can fix something as complex as the economy?

I read Adam Smith in college. I believe in the "invisible hand" of the free market. There are economic schools of thought that believe on good evidence that what FDR did prolonged the Great Depression. The New New Deal with Obama looks like an example of "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." If you disagree, I'd like to hear why.

I Am Last

2009-01-27T11:48:00.016-06:00

A billboard along Central Expressway in Plano, Texas, says simply: I Am Second. It is part of an evangelistic outreach ministry, but they got the number wrong. Christians with total commitment to God know "I Am Third" is more accurate. More precisely, "I Am Last" is how Jesus said those with total commitment think about such things. Jesus summed up God's law in two simple commands: (1) Love God, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. At best, I am third behind God and my neighbor, but being last and putting God first doesn't mean cutting off those to whom God calls me to serve and minister. Neither does it mean spurning those with whom I should be co-laboring to make disciples.

Someone whom I thought was my good friend is cutting away our relationship stating, " That's what the First and Great Commandment is all about: cut away everything else -- money, hobbies, even family (relationships: see Luke 14:26) -- only God matters." In his zeal to literally follow this hyperbolic teaching of Jesus, he appears to be missing God's heart for the relationships required for community, discipleship, and unity within the body of Christ. Yes, God does want us to be Holy and wholly mindful of Him, but it is a false dichotomy to believe this creates an either/or choice between God and relationships with other people. All you have to do is look at the life of Jesus to see the truth of the matter.

You cannot love your neighbor or make disciples without engaging in personal relationships with other people. You cannot obey God's guidance to live in community with one another or be a church with each other without personal relationships. You cannot bring a message of reformation to the body of Christ without being engaged in the body life. You cannot bring the Word of Truth to those who do not have it in their heart language if you cannot relate to those who can take the technology and message to people groups who desperately need it.

Ironically, by choosing to exclusively and single-mindedly follow command (1) to the apparent exclusion of command (2), my friend has missed what God put right in front of him to help him share his life work with the body of Christ. I admire his single-minded devotion, but it seems a great pity that his life work will likely collect dust on the shelf until he discovers God's heart for personal relationships. God will find other ways to accomplish His objective, but I wish my friend could experience the joy of being in the community of believers. I hope his holy isolation is rewarding because that is all he has at the end of the path when he walks alone. I choose not to walk alone. I'm looking for truthful relationships.

Truth Trumps Nice

2008-12-04T23:32:00.001-06:00

In our post-modern culture of moral relativism, we've elevated the doctrine of tolerance above all others and redefined the unforgivable sin as being the "sin" of intolerance. I know I've committed this new unforgivable "sin" when someone accuses me of "shoving my morality down their throat" or when I'm labeled a "bible thumper" or a "legalist" or a "fundamentalist." These are clues that the other person (who is generally advocating tolerance) has become intolerant of my viewpoint or religion. This is thick with irony because it proves the doctrine of tolerance is itself intolerant of other viewpoints. It is at best a logical conundrum and at worst hypocrisy.

Personally, I don't care if someone calls me any of those intolerant names or hangs a label on me as long as I am not being a hypocrite. My highest value in life is truth, and I abhor being a hypocrite. If I'm shown to be a hypocrite, I hope I have the humility to repent. Jesus had harsh words for hypocrites. Jesus was also intolerant of violations of God's Truth. He called people to repentance so they could be forgiven for their sin and receive grace.

Tolerance is good to a point, but the doctrine of tolerance becomes problematic when it is elevated above the doctrine of Truth. Jesus made an extremely exclusivist statement when he said, "I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (emphasis mine) If you are a professing Christian, you are under the obligation to submit yourself to the Truth, otherwise your profession of faith is meaningless. Jesus elevates Truth (himself) over tolerance, and all real Christians should do as Jesus did.

In our world of post-modern political correctness, the doctrine of tolerance is exemplified in the avoidance of civil confrontation and rational dialog on issues of substance. People believe it is "not nice" to discuss sex, politics, or religion in polite company. Why? Probably because you might have a disagreement that highlights the hypocritical doctrine of tolerance, and that's not "nice." In the event of a disagreement, parties in conflict often choose to "agree to disagree" rather than seeking unity in the Truth. They mistakenly believe this is the nice way to behave. It is not. It is dishonest.

Nice is often a euphemism for tolerance. Christians think they are supposed to be nice and they even justify their hypocrisy by it. That is wrong and unbiblical. Christians need to stop being hypocrites (especially me!) and stop elevating nice (i.e. tolerance) over truth. God is not "nice" and neither was Jesus, the Apostles, or the Prophets. They all preferred telling the truth about wrongdoing, even (or maybe especially) when it hurt. Read your Bible if you don't believe me. It is the truth. We need more Christians who can think critically and rationally and politely articulate those beliefs even if they don't sound "nice" to the ears in our politically correct culture of tolerance. This will help the rest of the church grow in grace and unity in the Truth.

Tolerance is a virtue to a point, but not beyond the point of Truth. Truth trumps tolerance, and sometimes there is no way to be nice about it. Some people are wrong, evil, and immoral. They make sinful choices and need to repent. If we are merely nice to these people and afraid to tell them the truth, they will never find the forgiveness offered by Truth himself, Jesus Christ. Telling the truth is the only loving way for Christians to behave, and sometimes this tough love is not very nice.

Credits: My observations and many of the ideas contained in this blog entry were developed through extensive email discussions with my friend Dr. Tom Pittman. For more information along these lines, check out his evolving online book: God of Truth: Reforming the Feminized American Church

Freedom of Choice

2008-11-11T12:47:00.006-06:00

My freedom to swing my arm ends before my fist hits your nose. Why? Civilized people regard unprovoked violence as immoral. So, we enact laws to protect innocent people from assault. The government is God's agent for restraining evil in the world, and civil governments do this through legislation. The conventional wisdom that "you cannot legislate morality" is flat wrong. Laws are indeed moral statements. We have laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. because those are immoral acts that should be restrained.

Human life begins when the fusion of egg and sperm produces a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. The fact that life begins at conception is not a matter of opinion or religious expression. It is a biological fact. The scientific evidence is too overwhelming for there to be any debate on this point. The abortion debate is really about whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.

Abortion is a massive injustice which systematically destroys the most innocent and helpless members of the human race. Unborn human beings are fully qualified to be recognized as persons under the law and should therefore be protected from any assault that might befall them. A woman's right to choose ends when a sperm fuses with her egg. Why? Civilized people regard unprovoked violence as immoral, and abortion is an assault on a defenseless human being's life.

Protecting people who are weak and defenseless is a moral obligation of any civilized, democratic, and moral government. This is why the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a reprehensible and despicable piece of legislation. It removes all protection for the defenseless people who have not yet crossed the birth canal and disguises this under the banner of "Freedom." It is not freedom, and it is not about choice. The FOCA is an effort to codify into federal law the undemocratic and immoral act of abortion on demand. President Elect Barak Obama has promised to sign this heinous legislation as his first official act as president. God help us!

The Truth about Change (and Bailouts)

2008-11-10T09:31:00.003-06:00

I hope the "CHANGE" Obama talks about means that we will CHANGE our foolish and UNconstitutional policies of bailing out the private sector and stop the inexorable slide to socialism. That would be CHANGE that I could support. Unfortunately, the pattern I've seen is that Democrats pass legislation that get the opposite results of what they intend because FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK as an agent of (good) change. Republicans (at least in election years) agree to bail out these foolish programs. Utter nonsense. We know better. History proves it. We're doomed to repeat it if we don't learn from it.

WE THE PEOPLE are the agents of change, and the Obama folks should realize their success was in the GRASS ROOTS efforts at the LOCAL level. Federal Government isn't the solution. Local volunteers doing good at the local level is a good solution. That's what got Obama elected. What frightens me is now that Democrats are the ruling party, they will forget what made the Obama campaign the most effective presidential election bid in American history.

In this article from the April 24, 2008, Wall Street Journal we read about Republicrat collusion in bailing out the student loan fiasco. This was several months before the heinous and UNconstitutional bailout of Wall Street. When will the lunacy end?

Bailout of the Year

Guess who's asking Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for a bailout now? Hint: They are members of an exclusive club who bet wrong on the credit markets last fall. No, it's not a cabal of Wall Streeters, but Democrats in Congress.

We're referring to the "student loan crisis" now appearing in a media outlet near you. In September, Congress vowed to make education more affordable by passing the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act." The law reduced the interest rates borrowers pay on federally insured student loans. Backed by the Federal Family Education Loan Program, these loans account for more than 70% of education lending. Taxpayers will fork over $7 billion by 2012 to pay for the rate cuts.

But Congress didn't stop there. Convinced that the private lenders who make these loans were reaping too much profit, Congress also cut the yield on each loan. The return on the popular Stafford loan for undergrads was reduced by 70 basis points. For loan consolidations, Congress cut returns by 65 basis points. In a vibrant market, banks might have absorbed these hits and continued to lend. But the combination of legislative fiat and fewer investors willing to buy asset-backed securities amid the credit crunch has put the squeeze on lenders.

What's now clear is that Congress didn't merely wring the profits out of student lending. It's blown up the entire student loan market. Market leader Sallie Mae says it now loses money on every new federal education loan. Sallie continues to lend in hopes of a change in D.C., or increased investor demand for securitized loans.

Others can't wait. A third of the nation's top 100 lenders to students in 2007 have temporarily suspended new loan originations or exited the business altogether. Citibank subsidiary Student Loan Corporation cited "unprecedented federal legislation" in announcing its recent withdrawal from much of the market.

Usually, the law of unintended consequences takes so long to reveal itself that no one remembers the culprits. But the speed at which Congress's student lending changes have gone south is raising political danger for Democrats, if Republicans had the wit to point it out. (They don't; that's why they're Republicans.)

Democrats would thus like to clean up the mess they created before May, when a flood of college-bound seniors will seek loans. But the pols can hardly repeal their autumn blunder mere moments after taking credit for it. No doubt many of them are still sending out taxpayer-financed mail bragging of their "achievement."

The result is that the same man who authored last year's bill to cut lenders' returns has crafted a new bill to subsidize those same lenders. Last week the House passed Education and Labor Chairman George Miller's latest foray into collegiate finance. The bill gives the Department of Education new authority to purchase loans directly from lenders.

To summarize: Congress mandated a return on student loans that is too low to attract private capital in the current market. So Congress will now use your money to create artificial investor demand. Taxpayers will bear more risk so that Congress can fashion a new business model to replace the one it just destroyed. The Bush Administration, unwisely but typically, has endorsed this approach.

Oh, there's more. Mr. Miller's allies in the Senate understand that legislation moves more slowly on their side of the Capitol. There may be too little time before the angry phone calls from parents target the 202 area code. So the same Senators who gave us the autumn accident have begun a letter-writing campaign to request that bailout we mentioned earlier.

Daniel Akaka, Bob Casey, Tom Carper, Chris Dodd, Tim Johnson, Bob Menendez and Jon Tester are desperately seeking a bureaucrat with a large checkbook to rescue them from their self-made political disaster. Last Thursday they wrote Mr. Bernanke asking him to accept student loans as collateral under the Fed's new Term Securities Lending Facility. They sent a similar letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson asking him to order the Federal Financing Bank to buy student-loan-backed securities.

So having raised solemn alarms when the Fed began to accept dodgy mortgage-backed securities as collateral, the Senators are now demanding that the Fed accept dodgy student-loan paper too. The Senators helpfully note in their letter that a virtue of their proposals is that they can be implemented quickly. Indeed, November is just around the corner.

Needless to say, none of this legislative history is appearing in the multiple media sob stories about students who can't get loans. But like airline passengers stranded this month due to panicky inspections, the current student loan "crisis" didn't have to happen. It is entirely a product of Congress.

Sin is Additive, not Multiplicative

2008-11-07T08:35:00.007-06:00

When you add two negative numbers, the result is always another negative number. Sin is the same way. My mom taught me this when I was a little boy with the aphorism, "Two wrongs don't make a right." I couldn't do math at the time, but I learned this principle at an early age. As I grew up and became a Christian I discovered the truth of this saying. Sin is additive. So is good.

I continue to be astonished by how many Christians buy into the idea that the lesser-of-two-evils can somehow overcome the greater evil. Apparently these Christians are unfamiliar with their Bibles where in Romans 12 the truth is clearly stated.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

It seems that Christians today have a mistaken notion that sin is multiplicative. By the magic of moral relativism or "situational ethics" they desperately cling to the mistaken idea that multiplying a little evil with greater evil will somehow overcome all evil. It simply won't work, but they keep trying. Alan Keyes eloquently explains how this results in Christian voters denying their faith. The result of multiplying even a little evil with other evil is much greater evil. That's how sin works. Stop it! Avoid all evil, even the lesser-of-two-evils, particularly when you vote. Do the math!

Obedience unto Relationship

2008-11-05T14:25:00.003-06:00

Howard Hendricks, speaking in terms of spiritual knowledge, says the opposite of ignorance is not knowledge but obedience. His point, I think, is that God wants to move us from ignorance, to knowledge, to obedience which hopefully leads to salvation along the way. There are dangers if we try to take short cuts around knowledge or worse yet stop short of applying the truth we possess by never actually living it out in our daily lives.

The short cut from ignorance directly to obedience by skipping knowledge is risky because you really don't know if your behavior is true obedience if you have no actual knowledge of the truth. However, this isn't nearly as problematic or as common as people who get stuck on knowledge without application. With a few rare exceptions, most modern Christians have far more knowledge of the truth than we have application of the truth. That's why the world views the church as being full of hypocrites.

James tells us that knowledge without application is like a man who looks in a mirror then goes away and forgets what he looks like. Self-knowledge is lost when theoretical knowledge is not applied. Spiritual ignorance that blossoms into spiritual knowledge without the requisite obedience results in hypocrisy and spiritual pride. The Apostle Paul addressed this problem when he wrote "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." Apparently, the antidote to puffy knowledge is love. But what is love?

Love in the biblical sense has very little to do with romance, sex, or feelings. Love is a decision to submit my own desires to the needs of another. Love in its purest form is submission. What does this have to do with obedience and relationship? By submitting our lives in obedience to the Truth, we discover who God is and who we are and how we can be rightly related to the Creator of the Universe. This is where true happiness is found.

Ultimate Truth Fighting

2008-11-01T00:49:00.007-06:00

My 12 year old son is about to earn his black belt in Taekwondo. I'm quite proud of him, and lately we've become fans of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighting, particularly the UFC octagon. For the uninitiated, UFC MMA fighting has exploded onto the sports scene as the most popular form of professional prize fighting. It is the ultimate display of unarmed man-to-man combat.

There is no such thing as throwing in the white towel during a UFC competition, and pretty much anything goes. Kickboxing, wrestling moves of all kinds, knees & elbows, and submission holds are all fair game. There are essentially two ways to win the fight while in the ring: knock out or tap out. If neither fighter has knocked out or submitted (tapped out) his opponent by the end of the fight, it goes to the judges for a decision.

Ultimate fighting is exciting but brutal. Good manners are not rewarded. Pummeling your opponent into the ground is the name of the game. I've started to wonder if my enthusiasm for ultimate fighting might be a vicarious representation of how I engage in spiritual warfare. Even more disturbing has been my discovery that I may have misidentified my opponent in the spiritual ultimate truth fighting octagon.

I'm designed by God as someone who is highly motivated by truth, and I have a burning desire to exhort others toward truth. Truth be told, other people are not the opponent. The enemy is the Father of Lies, and too often I misidentify the POWs in his prison camp as my opponent. These POWS need to be saved, not savagely attacked. They need liberation not libel. I'm too easily frustrated with how comfortable many POWs have become in their prision of lies. Sadly, I'm much too slow to apologize or even recognize when my zeal for apologetics offends or overwhelms a POW in the camp of lies.

Recently, I have been putting a choke hold on one of my best friends who is about ready to tap out. I've been blind to the truth myself in that my all out war against untruth was directed at him instead of our common Enemy. I've been meditating on the fruit of the spirit in order to redirect my battle. This has led me to a change of heart. In Ultimate Truth Fighting, the path to power and victory comes from ones own submission to Truth.

I pray God will give me the wisdom and skill to refocus my zeal on the real opponent so I can take the war to the proper battle front and fight the right opponent. The white towel of victory is nonsensical in worldly Ultimate Fighting, but in Ultimate Truth Fighting power is found through grace, love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and even gentleness. I need to stop using so many knees and elbows on the spectators and POWs and save the submission moves for the real enemy.

More On Abortion...

2008-10-27T11:52:00.004-06:00

In a recent Facebook dialog on abortion, Jenn Koontz wrote:

> Of course you didn't address my facts about other countries with
> comprehensive public sex education and multiple contraceptive
> choices having lower abortion rates, and why would you? The facts
> speak for themselves.

This is an interesting data point because the pro-life people report the opposite effect. Of course their stats are for different states of the USA, and different school districts in the same state. I don't trust *ANY* stats when we see widely divergent reports. The first order of business is to agree on the quality of the data, but Jenn didn't have the patience to get to that part of the dialog and begged out of the discussion.

In this case it might be that the other countries Jenn reports on also have a much lower culture of sex-outside-marriage than the USA. So, their abortion rate could be lower for different reasons than her stats suggest. That's why the different states in the USA, and especially different school districts in the same state are better, because the TV-driven sex culture is much more likely to be the same.

Pro-life people consistently report that unwanted pregnancy rates are directly proportional to non-abstinence sex education in schools -- both here and in Africa. I sponsor a World Vision child in the AIDS torn area of Uganda, so I'm a little bit familiar with AIDS and sex issues in Uganda. Uganda has been one of the only countries reporting reduced AIDS and also the only country teaching ABC = Abstinance Before Condoms. Jenn needs to address that data somehow.

Finally, people with Pro-Choice political views need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Pro-Choice agenda is driven by Pro-Abortion people who are effectively racist. Abortions are heavily targeted to Black communities, with the result that black abortion rates are (I think, check this fact) some 3 times higher per capita than white.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood explicitly intended to use it to eliminate racial minorities, and their policies even today show that intent is being carried out. And it's working! Hispanics, whose Catholic dogma forbids abortion, now outnumber people of African descent in the USA.

Age of the Earth - does it matter?

2008-08-12T12:29:00.092-06:00

In the 17th century, Anglican Archbishop James Ussher developed a chronological history of the world based on a literal reading of the Bible. He concluded human history began around 4,000 B.C. and is often credited as being the father of Young Earth Creationism. It turns out Ussher was neither the first or last to come up with these estimates for the age of the Earth.

The Venerable Bede, who died in the year 735 A.D., made similar estimates a millennium earlier. Highly respected scientists like Kepler and Newton developed chronologies not too unlike Ussher's. This age of the Earth time frame was conventional wisdom for many of the best minds on our planet for more than a millennium. Prior to Darwin, men of science didn't need "billions of years" for evolution to take place, nor did these great minds in the "age of reason" (i.e. The Enlightenment of the 18th century) see conflict between scientific exploration and Biblical revelation. Even Galileo Galilei's famous conflict with the Roman Catholic church centuries earlier was about church dogma in Biblical interpretation not Biblical authority itself.

Today, many Christians believe the Earth is vastly older than 6,000 solar years because the Darwinist viewpoint requires "billions of years." Science is considered more authoritative than the Bible in our increasingly post-modern culture. Most scientists (not all) believe the universe is around 14 billion years old, and modern scientific dogma dates the Earth at about 4.5 billion years. Still, one must keep in mind that science changes her mind frequently. After all, that is how science works. It is a process of continuous discovery and refinement of knowledge based on empirical evidence and experiment. Or, at least it should be. Unfortunately, science has become as dogmatic about its unproven assumptions as the Roman Catholic church was when it excommunicated Galileo.

The Genesis account of creation talks about a beginning. But, since Darwinism requires "billions of years" late 19th and early 20th century science favored an eternal or steady-state theory of the universe, a universe with no beginning. So, Genesis was out of step with science. Then everything changed. In the mid 20th century, the highly touted Big Bang Theory flip-flopped scientific dogma in favor of a universe with a beginning. Today, we see science back in line with the Bible on the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning. This has happened in my lifetime.

Studying the complementary nature of Divine and natural revelation in pursuit of truth is a worthy objective, but unfortunately we moderns tend to bifurcate our truth seeking. It doesn't have to be this way. Archeology has some great examples of how science and the Bible can work together in the pursuit of truth. The Bible has been proven accurate time and time again by archeological discoveries. Lack of evidence for the ancient Hittites led some people to question the accuracy of the Bible. Then, in the early 1900s, archeological discoveries proving the existence of the ancient Hittites once again vindicated the Bible. Other naysayers claimed the Bible's accuracy deteriorated as the text was transmitted over the ages via hand written copies, but the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 1900s proved the transmission of the Biblical text was more accurate than the naysayers claimed.

Science is the empirical discovery of the natural world. The Bible is divine revelation of truth. Both are legitimate means of discovering reality. Isaac Newton clearly understood this. He was a devout Christian and accomplished theologian who was literally obsessed with unlocking the connection between the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation. Many of his early life scientific accomplishments, particularly in astronomy, were put to use in his extensive and rarely acknowledged theological studies. Newton is considered one of the greatest if not *the* greatest scientific mind in all of human history.

Newton apparently didn't have a problem including both natural sciences and biblical revelation in his worldview. He was a product of the end of the Renaissance, and he personally set the stage for the age of Enlightenment. Since his time, science has become much more fractured and specialized as the pace of technology and discovery accelerates. Few moderns have even a fraction of the breadth of knowledge of Newton, and I'd suggest most of us have very fragmented and often incoherent worldviews. We live in the information age where it is impossible to know it all. If a fragmented understanding of reality is the best we can do with a worldview based purely on science and technology, then cognitive dissonance is sure to follow.

In college back in the late 80s, I wrote a paper on recent discoveries about the mass of the neutrino. While doing research for this term paper, I realized how many untestable assumptions go into scientific theories. That's why they are merely theories and not laws. In the popular scientific press, layperson explanations often appear straight forward and absolute, but my research for this neutrino paper led me to question these layperson explanations, particularly when it came to the age of the universe. I saw what amounted to a patch work of untestable assumptions like the elusive "dark matter" that ensures the equations work out as needed.

The deeper I dug, the more disturbing it became. Nobody ever seemed to have definitive knowledge within their own chosen field of scientific study that absolutely proved the age of the earth or confirmed Darwinian evolution. PhDs are well aware of the lack of proof and hard evidence within their own disciplines, yet they have abounding, even admirable faith some other scientific discipline had the "missing links." This results in what amounts to a giant finger pointing game when it comes to definitive evidence for Darwinism.

The Darwinists have so much faith in the finger pointing game they've confused their naturalistic assumptions with conclusions. Naturalistic materialism is a useful metaphysical presupposition for conducting a scientific experiment, but the circular reasoning to naturalistic conclusions from naturalistic presuppositions results in scientism, not real science. Science done correctly holds conclusions tenuously because scientific truth is rare. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified by experiment, it is not subject to the scientific method. This means all scientific conclusions can potentially be proven wrong by a future experiment or new evidence. Certainty is as unlikely as a miracle for a real scientist.

So what does this have to do with the age of the earth? The Bible gives specific ages of every person in the line of Christ from Adam until the Babylonian captivity, including at what age they begat their next in line. We have secular dates for the captivity. Do the math. A few people could have dropped out of the biblical genealogies, but not billions of years. This puts the Bible in conflict with Darwinian scientism which is the scientific dogma of our day. If the Bible truly is God's Word, we'll eventually discover the Bible is right. The Darwinists are already in retreat. A new breed of scientists is turning the tide with compelling ideas like Intelligent Design. Truth will prevail.

So, does the age of the earth really matter? I gave up worrying about it. What worries me more are people who unwittingly or even consciously adopt atheistic presuppositions in their worldview because they are afraid of looking foolish or being "unscientific" in their viewpoints. So I ask, who are you going to believe,

(1) an omniscient and omnipotent God and his revealed Word, or
(2) fallible human scientists who change their mind frequently?

If your worldview is not based on a solid biblical foundation then informed by science, I would suggest you have little hope for discovering true reality. Scientific understanding fluctuates, but the Word of God is eternal. When Christians and even non-Christians get this backwards, discovering truth is much more difficult if not impossible.

For further reading: Falsifiability and the Meaning of Genesis One

Big Bang Bunk

2008-05-31T05:32:00.020-06:00

I was googling around for information on another topic when I came across a web page written by Pastor Ken Silva which states:

The Big Bang theory, in it's simplest form, teaches that within a vacuum, a series of elements eventually interacted in such a way, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 billion years ago (and this time frame keeps "evolving" backward itself), that they exploded into the universe that we can now see.

The BB theory does not say the universe exploded into a vacuum, but this is a common misapprehension of people who do not understand the theory. A vacuum exists, yet the BB theory says the universe sprang into existence from a singularity out of non-existence. This is surprisingly identical to the creation ex nihilo explanation of origins we find in Genesis. Ironically, this is a much better argument for fiat creation, the very point Pastor Silva is apparently trying to make!

Additionally, Pastor Silva makes a parenthetical straw man comment claiming BB proponents argue for an increasingly old universe. This is patently false. Prior to the BB theory most educated people thought the universe had no beginning (i.e. that it was eternal). In fact, the BB theory was so offensive to naturalist scientific sensibilities that physicists tried to explain it away with ideas like the Steady State Theory. However, the preponderance of evidence has blown away these competing theories leaving us with the very interesting idea that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

Current scientific thinking dates the universe at a relatively young ~14 billion solar years, at least 25% younger than what the pastor portrays his adversaries as claiming. Pastor Silva's accusation is contrary to the actual claims of science which makes him look disingenuous or ignorant. I trust this man is a better pastor than scientist! Perhaps his error is from ignorance (which is excusable), so I emailed Pastor Silva with the hope he'd correct the errors on his web page.

We Christians really should do better in presenting the truth if we hope to win the hearts and minds of intelligent, thinking people. At the very least we should be honest. I'm hopeful the good pastor will agree and revise his web page.

The Jeopardy of Biblical Illiteracy

2008-05-08T19:53:00.004-06:00

One of my favorite TV shows is Jeopardy, the perennial quiz show. In the Double Jeopardy round yesterday in a category called "Get your 'B.A.'" the $1600 clue was this:

In John 3 Jesus said, "Except a man be this, "He cannot see the kingdom of God."

The quotes in the category title mean the answer will start with the letters B and A. None of the contestants even buzzed in! The answer is obvious to any true Christian. If you don't know the answer, I challenge you to find out. Your eternal life is at stake.

The Truth about the "Wasted" Vote

2008-01-26T12:23:00.004-06:00

Have you ever voted for a candidate who wasn't your top choice simply because you didn't want to "waste your vote" on someone who couldn't get elected? I have. I didn't feel good about it, and the "other guy" won anyway. I was scared the opposition was going to win (and they did), but I didn't want to be guilty of putting the "enemy" in office. I voted to win even though a 3rd party candidate who truly represented my views was on the ballot.

In the next election cycle I did the same thing. I voted for a major party candidate I didn't really like, but this time he won! It was a hollow victory. The elected official enacted legislation I was totally against. How could I complain? I voted for him. I would have paid more attention if the "enemy" had been in office, but the party sympathetic to my views snuck in legislation under my radar while someone "friendly" was in office. Even when I won I lost. I got so fed up I dropped out of the political process for a couple of election cycles about 20 years ago. When I started voting again, I started voting on principle. Here's why.

I believe a lot of Americans are like me. They want to care, but they feel disenfranchised due to experiences like mine. Part of the problem is the utterly illogical “conventional wisdom” about wasting your vote. This little aphorism says it all:

Voting just to beat the other guy,
Is a vote that tells a lie!

Not only did I believe the wasted vote lie, I was deceived into telling a lie when I voted for candidates that didn’t represent my views.

Here's how voting to win backfires. Many Libertarians vote for Republicans. What does the Republican Party do to reward them? They make policies to win over moderate liberals. Similarly, many people who resonate with the Green Party vote for Democrats. So, the Democrats ignore them and make policies to win over moderate conservatives. Either way, we voters don't get what we truly want, the two party system remains entrenched, and WE THE PEOPLE continue to have lousy choices at the ballot box.

The two party system uses fear tactics about the “other side” to maintain their respective power bases. If you vote for the popular candidate in either of the two main parties out of fear of losing, the optimal strategy for your party then becomes one of IGNORING you completely. Since your vote is already in hand, party leaders can concentrate on moving the platform AWAY from your positions in order to court votes from people that totally disagree with you. This is the "big tent" at work. It removes all accountability from party leadership and disrupts the free market of ideas in the political process.

Politicians don't need your approval,
so long as they have your vote!

Voting is like spending money in a free market of ideas. Your vote is the currency of your political stewardship. If millions of people keep buying something they don't like, it misleads manufacturers into making more bad product. It is simple supply and demand. The self-correcting process in the free market of ideas breaks down when demand is not accurately measured at the ballot box. If you "lie" about what you want by voting for someone who doesn't represent your views, the marketing information of your vote is lost. Alternatively, if you vote for what you really want, that information becomes part of the economy of ideas and builds demand for candidates that will represent your views.

How can we expect our politicians to honestly represent us if we aren't honest with our vote? If you want more honesty in politics, start by being honest with your vote. Your one vote is impotent in turning the results of a national election, but it represents your approval of some set of principles. Voting for what you disapprove to avoid something worse isn't winning. In fact, it is worse than losing because you are indicating support for principles with which you disagree. Not only do you waste your vote, you desecrate it.

Voting is a means of conveying information about what you believe. Concern with winning or maintaining power over standing on principle results in compromise by those in office and by those electing them. Using your vote to support the candidate whose principles match yours most closely, particularly if this is a 3rd party or "long shot" candidate, is SENDING A MESSAGE to the leaders in the two main parties.

I don't want to waste my vote, so I vote on principle. Real winning does not come by winning elections. Real winning comes from upholding the principles in which you believe. If I must apologize for the candidate I vote for, or his record, to justify my positive vote, then I have used the ballot box to tell a lie.

When I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United State of America, I do so to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God. Our republican form of government means the elected officials we elevate to high office are morally accountable to the platforms and policies they pledged to represent. By voting to win rather than voting on principle we are destroying our republican form of government which was purchased by the blood of true patriots.

If you vote on principle your vote is NEVER wasted. Get over the fear of losing. Vote for what you believe.

Traditional Truth

2007-12-27T09:15:00.001-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: Experiencing Truth

Tradition is the third branch of my developing epistemology, but this is where my analogy with the co-equal branches of the US Constitution breaks down. Tradition is not co-equal with logic and experience. Rather, it is subservient to the two pillars and essentially an extension of the pillar of experience.

I include tradition in my epistemology to avoid the cultural myopia and familiarity bias in my community of truth seekers. In the strictest sense, tradition extends experience through the lens of history. Tradition acknowledges we are "standing on the shoulders of giants" as Isaac Newton once said.

In the introduction to this series I wrote, "Discovering truth is not a solo venture." Tradition differentiates between the verified experiences shared within my truth seeking community and the collective experiences recorded by the great minds of history that have traveled the path before us.

Read the next entry in this series: What's Next? (still under development)

Experiencing Truth

2007-12-26T12:01:00.000-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: Reasonable Truth

Human beings exist within an objective reality where we think, perceive, will, and emote. Thinking leads to reason, which was my first epistemological pillar. Perceiving leads to experience which is my second pillar.

Experience is the data on which reason operates. Experience is our perception of the reality around us, and it becomes input for our logic processor, i.e. our minds. It is critical that we distinguish between experience as perception of external reality versus internal experiences or "mental states" which are not objective. If we do not make this distinction, our will and emotions muddy the clarity and certainty gained by objective experience which can be independently verified by third-party eye witnesses.

Like the first pillar of reason, I accept objective experience axiomatically as my second pillar of truth. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee our senses give reliable data, nor can we guarantee our reason will reliably override faulty perceptions. Still, I propose that reason and experience are "properly basic" tools for all objective truth seekers.

I'm open to criticisms of these two pillars of truth, but in order to critique them you would have to invoke reason and experience to deny them thereby establishing their axiomatic nature. There is one more governing branch in my epistemology, but it is not a pillar. I hold more loosely to tradition than I do the pillars of reason and experience.

Read the next entry in this series: Traditional Truth

Reasonable Truth

2007-12-25T19:58:00.003-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: Developing My Epistemology

Reason is the first pillar in my developing epistemology of checks and balances. Reason is logical thinking. You cannot be a truth seeker without sound logic. The necessity of logic is so fundamental it is "properly basic" or "axiomatic" for truth seeking. Reason is a foundational premise. Without any reason at all we become an epistemological non-entity. However, we must also recognize that logic alone is insufficient.

"[Human] logic is a good mistress but a very bad master."
-- John G. Reisinger

Read the next entry in this series: Experiencing Truth

Developing My Epistemology

2007-12-24T08:42:00.010-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: "By What Standard?"

Two years ago I set out to write this next entry in this treatise on truth. As a Christian, I had already jumped to the conclusion that the answer to the question "By What Standard?" was the Christian Bible. Each time I sat down and tried to write a reasonable approach to this conclusion that could be accepted by a non-Christian, the argument sounded circular. I could not adequately defend my conclusion without appealing to that which I already believed. I was stuck because I didn't understand my own epistemology.

I no longer believe the Bible alone is a sufficient answer to the question "By What Standard?" in an apologetical discussion with a non-believer for at least two reasons. First, while the believer may accept the Bible as inerrant and infallible on faith, the skeptic will insist on evidence. Inerrancy and infallibility can only be used as a working hypothesis, and then only if the skeptic is brave enough to test his or her reasons for belief. Second, the Bible must be interpreted which is no small matter. As I thought about these two problems, I started developing a truth seeking apparatus to help me answer the three epistemological questions at the end of the previous article in this series without an ad hoc dependence on the Bible.

I needed a governing system of checks and balances to keep my truth seeking on track and help me figure out what to do with the Biblical text. Thinking about "a governing set of checks and balances" reminded me of a document famous for this very thing.

The US Constitution is an amazing document. It defined the most successful government experiment in all of human history. The secret to the success of the US Constitution is the delicate set of checks and balances in the distribution of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. I've developed a loosely analogous set of checks and balances in my epistemological framework.

Fundamentalist folk religions and cults are often the result of uncritical acceptance of ill informed Biblical interpretations. Religion can be extremely dangerous when it is not truth based. However, with careful application of the checks and balances of reason, experience, and tradition, I believe we can find the truth.

If (as I assumed in the last article in this series) the role of religion is to help us know what the standard of moral behavior should be for humanity, we should examine the truth claims of the major religions. I cannot assume the Christian Bible and Christianity are true just because it is the religious system in which I was raised. I must consider the possibility that the Bible might not stand up to the light of truth. For example, the Book of Mormon failed and the Qur'an failed. Each sacred text must be examined on its own merits in the court of reason, the congress of experience, and under the executive process of tradition.

Read the next entry in this series: Reasonable Truth

SeekTruth Forum Guidelines

2007-11-15T09:27:00.000-06:00

If you desire more interaction than comments on a blog, please consider subscribing to the SeekTruth Email Discussion Forum which is hosted on Yahoo!Groups. We use these guidelines in the forum:

Rules-of-Engagement

1. Do not send attachments to the list.
(They are automatically deleted anyway.)

2. Do not change the subject line if you are
replying in a discussion thread unless you
are diverging the discussion

3. Please DO use a descriptive subject line when
starting a new discussion thread.

4. Only quote the relevant parts of prior messages.
Delete extraneous text at the bottom of your reply.

5. Use a signature with no more than few lines.

6. For readability, put a blank line between your
comments and a quote from a prior message.

7. Do not post excessively. Take time to reflect.

8. Be concise. Lengthy posts are discouraged.

9. Do not post email forwards or cross post from other lists.

10. Treat others in the same manner you expect to be treated.

These "Five Premises" of the moderator guide our truth seeking discussions:

A. Objective truth and objective reality exist.
B. Some objective truth is knowable.
C. All knowable truth can be expressed in natural language.
D. Some declarative statements in natural language are true.
E. Logic is reliable for determining the consistency of any 2 declarative statements.

If you agree with these Five Premises, you're welcome on SeekTruth. If you disagree with these premises, we'd like to hear your reasons why.

Googling for Truth

2007-10-08T11:35:00.000-06:00

[I've been thinking along these lines myself. Mr. Patton put my thoughts into words better than I could have. The title below is linked to the original, but I included a copy here in case the original disappears into cyberspace.]

Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World

~ C Michael Patton ~

Googling for truth can be a dangerous task. Who knows what one will find? How do you know who to trust? Before Google, before the Internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have any other alternatives to confuse the issues. The naiveté that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are Googling for truth, looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. Is there a method of discovery that produces hope and assurance, without having to retreat back to naive isolationism of the past?

It is no secret that our culture today is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. Confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. Truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of truth are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst. Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Liberal, and the most common Post-modernism. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in common—they are all “post” something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before.

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a “state of uncertainty or doubt.” Or better, “Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like.” Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious—suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. Because of these epistemological difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but Prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the “first things” of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of Prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real.

Not only this, but this disarming must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen much confusion and suspicion among believers in recent years. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. I, myself, find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose in this short essay is a method of theological inquiry that should go a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called “irenic theology” or the “irenic method” of doing theology. The word “irenic” is taken from the Greek irene which means “peace.” Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the “truth” by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means “always reforming.” The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We must be willing to reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fair well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naïve, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you, as a Protestant are going to present the Roman Catholic view on Transubstantiation, irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone. There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a postmodern world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep there people in naive ignorance. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it.

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. You will see that often, because of the strengths of the arguments for alternative truth claims (such as in eschatology), the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.”

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson puts it, “Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally.” The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements may still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google suddenly gets much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will you or others see our faith and other Christians in the likeness of a used car salesman, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated, but this does not mean that they are not seeking for answers. Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He can handle honest doubt better than naïve commitment. Pursue theology irenically.

Remembering 9/11

2007-09-11T07:05:00.001-06:00

In the spirit of remembrance of those who died six years ago today, I'm continuing my search for truth on the topic of 9/11. This is a very controversial and emotional subject, and I continue to be amazed at the opposing perspectives. However, some information I've recently discovered caused me to revise my three blog entries on 9/11 to be less biased toward the alternative theories.

Revised entries are as follows:

What *really* happened on 9/11?
(includes new resource links for your own research)

Blind Squirrel Finds Nut

The Stages of 9/11 Acceptance

I still stand by my original article on The Nuclear War in Iraq.

Discovering Truth is a process, so keep digging!

The Truth About Money

2007-06-29T12:06:00.008-06:00

The Bible says a lot about money. Roughly 2,350 verses out of the 31,100 total are related to money or material possessions. That's over 7.5% of the total Biblical content. Prayer is mentioned in about 400 verses. Faith is included in around 500 verses. So, money and material possessions get five times the coverage of prayer and four times the coverage of faith and far more than twice as much coverage as God devoted to the topics of faith and prayer combined. In fact, the Bible talks about money and material possessions more than any other single topic other than God himself. About 15% of Jesus's recorded words are about money. Jesus (who is God incarnate) had more to say on this topic than any other too.

If God thinks the topic of money and material possessions is so important, shouldn't we pay attention to this matter?

"The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America" (<-- click link to view) is a fascinating historical look at the origins of money and fractional reserve banking. This video rocked my world view back in 1996 when I first saw it. It opened my eyes to the reality of the world in which we live. This video is financial education you cannot afford to miss, but you will not find this information comforting. It is very disturbing. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and the historical retrospective in this documentary is stranger than any Hollyweird production.

Additional Resources:

Purchase the video (I have no financial interest in this.)
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (book)

Related Blog Entries:

The Nuclear War in Iraq

2007-06-23T12:42:00.000-06:00

Some people are fearful of nuclear power generation. Their concerns are not without merit. Near disasters like the one at Three Mile Island or the actual disaster at Chernobyl give us good reasons for concern. Nuclear disaster sites for all practical purposes last forever.

If you take the time to look into this topic in detail, you'll soon learn that the USA and coalition forces are turning the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear disaster sites and polluting even larger parts of our global environment with nuclear waste.

Good News / Bad News

Knowledge can help us overcome fear. My degree is in physics, and nuclear physics was one of my interests when I was in college. However, even knowledgeable people can be misinformed or ignorant of the facts. Marie Curie and her husband Pierre were early pioneers in nuclear physics. The 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to the Curies and Antoine Henri Becquerel for their work in the area of radioactivity. Sadly, they didn't know much about the dangers of radioactive materials in the early 1900s, and Marie Curie died from the effects of radiation exposure.

The good news is 100 years later we know much more about the dangers of radioactivity. The bad news is the general population is terribly misinformed and even intentionally misguided about some of the most horrific risks to our environment from radioactive nuclear material.

Most people are fearful of nuclear bombs, and rightfully so. The world saw what nuclear bombs could do in World War II. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed roughly 214,000 people. In today's world, Intercontinental Ballistic Missles (ICBMs) with multiple warheads each more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan can be launched to almost anywhere on the planet within a matter of minutes. However, these sorts of strategic nuclear weapons have never been used in a war. A more pressing and real threat are the nuclear weapons actually being used in war today. What I'm specifically referring to are conventional depleted uranium weapons.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission passed two motions in 1996 and 1997 listing weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. It urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium.

So, as the world watched the Bush-Cheney Administration valiantly looking for Saddam's WMDs, they were using WMDs of their own on the Iraqi people. The USA and coalition forces using depleted uranium in the Middle East and Afghanistan have removed an evil dictator and Taliban fanatics and replaced them with another form of terror on innocent civilians - depleted uranium. It is total hypocrisy.

What is DU?

Depleted uranium (DU) is primarily U238, a low level radioactive emitter. It is called "depleted" because U238 is separated from the natural uranium ore in order to gather "enriched" U235 which is valuable. U235 and U238 are different isotopes of the radioactive element uranium. Natural uranium is about 99.3% U238 and only .7% U235. So, you process a lot of DU from natural uranium in order to get just a little bit of the enriched U235. The U235 is the more valuable fissile material for nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. However, the DU left over from uranium processing has some very impressive military applications.

The really bad news is that DU is still radioactive and still dangerous. It is used today in warfare in both armor and munitions. It was used in the first Gulf War and in the current Iraq War and Afghanistan. Yes, both wars in Iraq and our operations in Afghanistan have been nuclear wars! Although we have not used atomic bombs like the ones dropped on Japan in WWII, our military has put more radioactive material in the environment from conventional nuclear weapons than the all the nuclear bomb testing and two war-time nuclear bombs dropped on Japan combined.

One of the biggest atrocities committed against our troops is the misinformation or lack of information about the risks of DU. Our government has all but ignored the environmental disaster our military is creating in Iraq and Afghanistan with DU. The lack of attention to the significant health impact on our troops deployed in the Middle East and Afghanistan is an inexcusable atrocity.

Very few people are informed about the facts of the nuclear war in Iraq. The mainstream media mostly ignores the topic, but if you take the time to look, you can find plenty of information on the web. A few brave and highly educated scientists and medical professionals have been trying to get out the word on this important topic. Here is a short video about DU: 7 minute video.

How is DU used?

In a nutshell, metal alloys made from high-density depleted uranium are mixed with other metals to create staballoy for use in kinetic energy penetrators. These armor-piercing munitions are used by the A-10 Warthog for "tank busting" and in the famous "bunker buster" bombs. DU armor plating is used on the M1 Abrams tank. These are just a few examples of many military applications of DU. It is an amazing material with incredibly impressive characteristics that make it extremely effective in weapons and armor.

DU munitions are essentially "dirty bombs" -- not very radioactive individually, but nonetheless suspected of being capable in quantity of causing serious illnesses and birth defects. In 1991, U.S. forces fired a staggering 944,000 DU rounds in Kuwait and Iraq. I haven't found similar data for the 2nd war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I did discover that each shell fired by an American tank includes 10 pounds of DU. So that means in the first Gulf War we left about 9.5 million pounds of DU in the environment.

When DU is vaporized in combat, it becomes an aerosol which is then inhaled by anyone around it, including civilian and friendly troops. These small particles can pollute ground water, the atmosphere, and the soil. In a windy, dry, and dusty climate like Iraq, this radioactive particulate matter can even get into the upper atmosphere and spread over large areas. It cannot be effectively cleaned up. Lots of people heard about "Gulf War Syndrome" after the first invasion of Iraq. Few people were aware that many of the symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome" can be explained by DU.

Health Hazards of DU

Ingestion and particularly inhalation of DU is a known health risk. It is considered both a toxic and radioactive hazard that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste. Military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan are vaporizing hundreds if not thousands of tons of this hazardous material where it can never be cleaned up. This polluted environment will result in illness and birth defects for the inhabitants of this region for thousands of generations.

Additional Resources

For a shocking documentary rent Beyond Treason at your local video rental store. (If they don't have it, direct them to the link and ask them to put it in their inventory.)
Summary of the military applications of DU
The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children (German Documentary)
America’s big dirty secret (French Press)
International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons - United Nations Report 2006
US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal' (Scottish Press)
Dirty Weapons - Casualties From Iraq War Will Mount
Gulf War Syndrome, DU, and the Dangers of Low-Level Radiation

What's Next?

2007-06-09T08:35:00.000-06:00

What happens to us when we die? There are many opinions, but I can boil them all down into two options that cover all possible scenarios:

(A) There IS MORE to come after this life ends.
(B) There is NOTHING more. Game Over!

Pretty simple, eh? Which view do you accept? A or B? If you choose (B) then you're in the minority. Only 19% of Americans polled by Gallup believe it is all over when we die. A much larger 81% of us believe in a literal heaven or afterlife. So, chances are you're in the (A) camp.

The (A) camp is very diverse. Within this life-after-death group there are many philosophies, religions, and belief systems. However, I can also boil these down into just three possible outcomes. For the 81% of people who believe there is more to come after this life, the next life options are as follows:

(1) Whatever is next, everyone will be okay.
(2) I am good enough for what's coming next.
(3) I may not be good enough. I need some help!

Let's call option (1) the "Blind Optimist" view. About 44% of people believe that everyone has the same outcome in the next life no matter how we behaved or what we believed in this life. However, 56% of the population disagrees. I'm honestly surprised there are that many blind optimists out there.

Option (2) believers think they are good enough for what's next. 55% of the population believes they are good enough to get into heaven based on their good deeds. I find it interesting that more than half the people polled thought their good deeds were sufficient to purchase their ticket into heaven. I guess we Americans have a high opinion of our righteousness. Still, about 45% of the population rejects this view.

Option (3) is held by an overwhelming 85% of the population. This is the view that we will be judged by God upon our death. Only 15% reject this idea. I think most people intuitively understand this because it is written into our hearts by our Creator. It has been said that next to God, heaven is the second greatest idea to enter man's heart. I've met very few people who have carefully contemplated these questions and still dismiss the idea of a final judgment.

Option (3) is not only the majority view, it is the Biblical view. Polls are interesting, but truth is not determined by popular opinion. So, what do you believe and why? Leave a comment below. I'd really like to know.

The Stages of 9/11 Acceptance

2007-06-08T07:39:00.000-06:00

I'm met with all sorts of responses when I share with people the alternative theories that 9/11 could have been an inside job. There is wide disagreement on this issue, and honest people come down on both sides. However, after going through the process of explaining the alternative theories numerous times, I started noticing how people who hear about the 9/11 alternative theories tend to go through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief:

(1) Denial - Lots of people get stuck here. They tell me I'm nuts or a conspiracy theorist and then believe the "official" conspiracy theory. So much for logic.

(2) Anger - Once past denial, this is a perfectly understandable emotion. I experienced this a bit myself.

(3) Bargaining - Surely there must be a *reason* for this?! How can it be true?! Sometimes people go back to the denial stage. They have to start all over in processing the disturbing and controversial information.

(4) Depression - This is where one must relinquish his or her idealism of the USA being a benign and benevolent superpower. I gave up this naive belief 10 years go when I realized the USA is no longer a constitutional republic as designed by the Founding Fathers. Since I didn't have to struggle with this belief in the USA as "motherhood and apple pie," it sped up my transition to acceptance.

(5) Acceptance - Finally, for the few souls who make it this far, this is where you can begin moving on with your life rather than being sidelined by controversy and confusion.

Parsing through the alternative explanations of 9/11 and how they compare to the "official" conspiracy theory is a confusing and controversial endeavor. Several people who I thought were my friends have behaved very poorly in the face of this controversy. I even know one guy who moved to another country largely because of his distrust of the US government. Other people are so closed minded they won't even think about it. Their world view prevents them from discovering the truth, or maybe they just don't care.

What I find absurd is that people classify me as a conspiracy theory nut for NOT believing the "official" conspiracy theory! What sort of hypocrisy is that? Let's be honest here. The OFFICIAL story is a conspiracy theory. What I'm trying to help people do is think for themselves and at least consider that the "official" conspiracy theory the Bush-Cheney Administration would have us believe is not the full story.

According to a widely-cited poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe U.S. government officials "either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to go to war in the Middle East." Here's an interesting article that refers to this poll: Five Years Later The Official Story Falls Apart.

Blind Squirrel Finds Nut

2007-06-04T17:22:00.000-06:00

This 15 minute video is a great example of a rational, educated, and logical discussion about what really happened on 9/11/2001:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9181676883393469552

I found this clip from a BBC show on the Google Video site for the Netherlands. Sadly, the USA mainstream media almost never broadcasts information like this. And when it does strange things happen.

When Rosie talked about 9/11 she got cheers from the audience, but a few weeks later she left The View. Makes me wonder if there is any relationship between her leaving the show and the rampant censoring in the USA mainstream media. She says she was going to bring physicists from Harvard or Yale onto the show, but now that she is gone she cannot make good on the promise. Also note at the very beginning of the clip the brunette clues in that the USA is now an imperialist superpower. Welcome to reality! Even the girls on the view understand what is going on in our country. I wish conservative Christians would dig their heads out of the sand.

For the record, I cannot stand Rosie O'Donnell, and I disagree with her on just about everything she says. However, even a blind squirrel can find a nut when it is put in front of her face.

Why are people afraid to question the official story's obvious problems and get to the bottom of this controversy? Don't we at least owe the people who died the common courtesy of discovering the truth about this horrible attack?

What really happened on 9/11?

2007-05-22T08:58:00.001-06:00

The world changed on September 11th, 2001 (9/11). America was attacked. Nearly three thousand innocent people lost their lives. It was the single most important day in my generation’s history. The attacks of September 11th changed the course of history and marked the beginning of the "War on Terror." But with any crime, we have to ask qui bono? (Who benefits?) Who had the means? The motive? The opportunity?

The Bush administration and governments around the world have used the 9/11 attacks to promote the need for increased security and justify the erosion of civil rights. It was used as a pretext for war and to legitimize the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have all been told the story about what happened on that day. Nineteen Arabs (almost all Saudis not Iraqi or Afghans) conspired and hijacked planes with box cutters and crashed them into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The damage from the airplanes and the resulting jet fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. The hijackers were part of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, under the control of Osama Bin Laden, hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. This is the official conspiracy theory.

I used to believe the official conspiracy theory about 19 hijackers. Then, I looked into the alternative theories promoted by the self named "9/11 Truth Movement." I've been to both extremes in the controversy, and I'm still trying to find some balance. The official story about 9/11 has documented inaccuracies and holes, but the alternative theories don't have a completely coherent answer that explains what really happened either. The truth needs to be told. Inquiring minds want to know the truth. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know the full story.

Here are some facts. Other than on 9/11/2001, no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. On the other hand, we've never had jets that big slam into high-rise buildings either. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest jet in service at the time the towers were built. The jets that actually hit the towers were significantly larger. Alternative theories suggest that the impact damage from airplanes and jet fuel fires could not have caused the observed collapses of the WTC Towers. On the other hand, extensive investigations have come up with plausible theories that do explain how both towers collapsed symmetrically and at near free fall speed without the aid of demolition devices.

World Trade Center 7 is even more controversial. WTC 7 was a 47-story steel frame office building approximately 300 feet away from the North Tower. This third building suddenly collapsed at near free fall speed into its own footprint at 5:20pm on 9/11, roughly seven hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers. This building was not hit by an airplane, and the collapse exactly resembled a classic controlled demolition. How did that happen? We're still waiting for the definitive report from NIST on that building collapse.

Where is all the wreckage from the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania? What about the jet that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Isn't the airspace over the White House and Pentagon some of most monitored and defended airspace on the planet, yet the military only learned of the plane approaching the Pentagon minutes before the impact? The Secretary of Transportation on 9/11, Norman Mineta, testified before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney knew about the plane approaching the Pentagon with sufficient time for the military to intercept and shoot it down. These and many other unanswered questions just beg for answers.

The 9/11 attacks have been used by the U.S. Government to justify the War on Terror. This terror campaign legitimized the unconscionable occupation in the Middle East and the implementation of significant abuses to the fundamental civil liberties of US Citizens. A truly independent and open investigation is necessary to demand the release of withheld evidence and to find the truth about 9/11.

Additional Resources:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Physics 911 - A Scientific Panel Investigates Nine Eleven
9/11 Scholars - Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Capital Punishment

2007-03-30T07:34:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine forwarded me this short message:

Subject: Iran's stoning practice....in 2005!
This is a country that still lives in the 1600's.....
Link to Amnesty International Article on Stoning in Iran

I'm not sure why he picked the 1600's. It doesn't matter if it is 1600 BC, 1600 AD, or 2007. Capital punishment is perfectly fine with God. He invented it, and God's laws are timeless unless he rescinds them. Capital punishment is Biblical, and the means to carry it out given by God is stoning. Some people might think this is barbaric, but on what grounds? Who are you to judge God? Here's what my friend replied with when I emailed him back my thoughts on the Biblical foundation of capital punishment.

Yes - I know the basis but to say they are living in a civilized world today would be a stretch! And that they also condone the practice of cutting out people's tongues is also quite barbaric...

Now, since cutting out tongues is not Biblical (unless you want to push that eye-for-an-eye verse to an absurd extreme), I would agree that this practice might be barbaric. However, capital punishment is God's idea, and I think it is a good and proper part of the justice system for today's world. If we decide it is more "humane" to inject them rather than stone them, then I won't quibble over the implementation details. The good news is that God also has a solution for the sin problem through the grace of Jesus Christ. So, while there should be consequences for evil actions, we should be more concerned about saving the souls of criminals than their lives.

The real hypocrisy and injustice here is that the people who are against the death penalty for perpetrators of violent crimes are often the very same people who are very much in favor of the death penalty for innocent unborn babies. The link my friend sent me above is from Amnesty International. Here's another link explaining that Amnesty International has now decided that baby killing is a "human right" that should be available on demand. Hmmm, that does not compute. Infanticide is good, but capital punishment is bad? Talk about illogic! What hypocrites!!

The Lens to Reality

2007-03-12T17:03:00.000-06:00

There is one reality "out there" but we all have different perspectives on that reality because we view it through the lens of our world view. Our world view and the values and belief systems it contains creates a lens through which we see reality. Different people have different reality lenses. Some people view things pretty clearly through a well focused lens, but most of us need some sort of vision correction to see reality clearly. This web site is about correcting our "reality vision."

Lots of things can warp your reality vision. What you are taught, what you choose to believe, your circumstances, your genetics, and the people around you all influence how you see reality. While I would like to think my reality vision is focused and clear, I'm sure it is far from perfect. It is myopic in some places and foggy in others. The good news is that we don't need an eye surgeon to improve our reality vision. I think that is why God gave us the church. Christianity is not a solo venture, nor is seeking the truth. In fact, I would argue that seeking the truth is synonymous with Christianity.

The friends and resources (like books and other media) I value most are those that help me see reality more clearly. In my Christian world view I have confidence that I can improve in this area because my God is my Ultimate Reality, and He wants me to know Him. I honestly believe that true Reality cannot be found apart from the God of the Bible. I'm interested in what you think. Leave me a comment below.

The Paradox Principle

2007-02-18T07:51:00.000-06:00

“God works in mysterious ways.” I've always been intrigued by the paradoxical truths of the Bible. God has an amazing way of combining ideas that don't fit together in my limited mind. God is perfectly just, yet perfectly merciful. How does that work? How is God within us yet omnipresent? Or, how about the whole predestination question: God is in complete control of history, yet we are free moral agents. I can't quite get my head around that one. However, the paradox principle that tops them all is "die to live."

Robert Lewis describes "die to live" as the great paradox principle in his incredible "Men's Fraternity" studies. The biblical teachings of Robert Lewis have changed my life. Every man should make an effort to find a group of guys with whom he can walk through the battles of life. In my life, "Men's Fraternity" has filled that need. In my first entry in this DiscoverTruth blog two years ago I wrote: "Seeking truth is not a solo venture." Little did I know when I wrote that how true that statement really is!

In my short 40 years on this planet I've found relatively few close friends I could really connect with on an intimate level. Obviously, my life partner and wife is the person who knows me best. I thank God for her all the time. She makes me better and completes me where I am deficient. We are a great team. However, a guy sometimes needs other guys to process life. That is where "Men's Fraternity" and my small group within my local church has filled a huge void in my life.

"Die to Live" was exemplified by Jesus Christ. Those who follow Christ are called to "take up your cross daily" which is the clarion call to "die to live." As with every truth, there are those who pervert it. I'm not talking about the horribly misguided lies believed by terrorist suicide bombers. I'm talking about Paul's admonishment to stop sinning in 1Corinthians 15 where he describes this as "I die daily."

Do you have other people in your life that can help you see your blind spots? I hope so. It makes a huge difference in your quality of life. Just be careful that those with whom you share life deeply have a desire for healthy relationships so that you can process life based on truth, love, and mutual encouragement.

When I started this blog, I gave my favorite concise definition of truth: conformance to reality. However, over the last two years God has expanded my view of truth. C.S. Lewis said something to the effect that the truth is so big it is hard to miss all of it. My discovery is that the truth is so big you cannot completely comprehend it without assistance. Truth is more than just properly seeing reality. When the Jewish Scriptures speak of truth, they are often referring to what we would call integrity of heart, faithfulness, and reliability of character. This is much more than conformance to reality.

I think Mart De Haan sums this up nicely:

A high view of truth rises above the foothills of facts. Wisdom reminds us that we can be right in what we say, yet be wrong in the way we say it. When the Bible asks us to walk in the truth, it is not just asking us to engage in an intellectual exercise. From Genesis to Revelation, we are asked for attitudes that are as true to God as the facts He has revealed.

How Can I Understand The Bible

2006-12-08T08:22:00.002-06:00

Not too long ago I was on a road trip with a friend and work colleague when the conversation turned to matters of faith and religion. It was a very enjoyable discussion between two people with very different perspectives on life, but our core values are very similar. One of the key differences was our view of the Holy Bible. My friend is the son of a preacher, yet he said he found the bible "convoluted" and hard to understand. He questioned why God would reveal himself in such a hard to understand way. I explained that I thought the Bible was God's inspired, inerrant message telling us how to live our lives in relationship to him. After thinking about this more, here is what I've concluded.

We live in a rich society where there is a Bible in every hotel room drawer, and most people with a Christian heritage have at least one and probably many bibles in their home, usually collecting dust. Bibles are freely available for purchase in stores everywhere. Anyone reading this on the web also has access to incredible online resources and study tools for understanding the Bible. Contrast this with the foreign mission field where Christianity is growing fastest (Asia and Africa). There are millions of Believers in these countries willing to give their lives for their faith, but they don't even own a Bible or have easy access to one.

Jesus said, "Seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." However, Jesus also said, "When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required." We are a society rich in resources for understanding the Bible. We have more access and tools for unlocking God's Word than any society in history, so I believe we have a greater obligation than any society in history to utilize these resources. Conversely, I have heard many stories from the foreign mission field about God revealing himself in mighty ways to sincere seekers in countries where Christianity is persecuted and restricted or where Bibles are not freely available. If you seek, you will find, but we should not expect God to write his message in the clouds when he has clearly revealed it on the printed page.

The bottom line is that God has clearly revealed himself in the Bible. Those who study diligently with an open heart will discover that the Bible is not convoluted. The basic message and theme is consistent and clear to the sincere seeker of Truth. I hope my friend and anyone else reading this will take the time to make an eternal investment in studying the Bible. God will reward you if you do.

For a great place to start, check out this little booklet: How Can I Understand The Bible. I'm definitely not an expert on the Bible. I'm just a fellow truth seeker on the journey. However, I welcome questions and would be thrilled to discuss the importance of the Bible with anyone who is honestly trying to Discover the Truth.

Spiritual Disciplines

2006-11-27T23:39:00.000-06:00

I've been reading The Spirit of the Discplines by Dallas Willard. It is the best non-fiction book I've read this year. I'm sure I'll blog more about it as I finish reading it, but in my reading today on page 152 I came across this quote:

One of the greatest deceptions in the practice of the Christian religion is the idea that all that really matters is our internal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and intentions. It is this mistake about the psychology of the human being that more than anything else divorces salvation from life, leaving us a headful of vital truths about God and a body unable to fend off sin.

The first 150 pages of this book do a great job in putting this point in context. The disciplines of which this book speaks are the ascetic practices such as (but not limited to) solitude and silence, prayer, fasting, simple and sacrificial living, and intense study and meditation on God's word. These ascetic practices were a vital part of the Christian experience of the first century church and modeled by Christ himself. However, over the centuries, the importance of employing spiritual disciplines in a healthy, balanced manner for spiritual growth has been lost or forgotten. Willard attributes powerlessness and ineffectiveness of the nominal (or should I say "normal"?) Christian experience of modern Westerners to the loss of the disciplines.

If you haven't read this book, I highly recommend it if you have the courage confront the conventional "wisdom" about the Christian life. This is a must read book for those who are committed to working out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).

More on Word Power

2006-11-02T20:48:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine commented to me that the "sticks and stones" line really did shape his attitude toward "hurtful" words when he was growing up. His point was that words spoken to him directly only hurt him if he let them hurt him. It was the words spoken behind his back that that caused him more concern because those words can do a world of damage.

I definitely agree with the second part of these comments. Saying one thing to a person's face while reserving the not-so-nice words until the person is out of earshot is dishonest if not outright immoral. If you're not willing to say something to someone's face you shouldn't say it to someone else. On that point we definitely agree.

However, I'm still unconvinced that the average person (much less a child) can really put up the emotional defenses to completely avoid the hurt of hurtful words. Human beings have feelings and they are often not tied to reason or within the bounds of our conscious control. The premise that someone cannot hurt your feelings unless you let them seems to be based on the idea that we can control how we feel by reason. While I would agree that we can control how we respond to our feelings, I do not think we can completely control how the words of others make us feel emotionally. Let's use an analogy of physical feelings to explore this a bit.

The topic of torture has been in the news quite a bit due to the Iraq conflict. How does a person deal with physical torture? Well, if I'm a trained CIA operative, I might be able to avoid "being broken" and survive this horrific experience. However, if I'm a regular guy with a normal pain tolerance, I might not last even 5 minutes in the hands of a talented interrogator. Either way, the bottom line is that pain hurts. The CIA operative and regular guy may respond differently in the face of pain, but they both experience the pain. The CIA operative may claim that the interrogator cannot hurt him unless he let's it hurt, but that is just a mind game in order to deal with the pain. The pain is still real and it still hurts.

Hurtful words are the same way. They hurt! How we deal with that pain is another issue all together. Some people are like the trained CIA operative and they tend to cope better with the hurt. They are able to compartmentalize their emotions and responses and control their behavior to a large degree. However, the pain still hurts. The rest of us regular guys have varying degrees of pain tolerance when it comes to word abuse. Some of us deal with it better than others.

Is the healthy response to compartmentalize or try and use the mind-over-matter method to convince ones self that the pain didn't really hurt? Or, is the healthy response to feel the pain and deal with it? As someone who has tried both ways, I think we're better off dealing with the pain. The "sticks and stones" advice falls way short of that mark. It might be a clever come-back to a bully, but it doesn't do much to foster emotional health for those who are on the receiving side of hurtful words.

The Power of Words

2006-10-20T07:43:00.002-06:00

And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak. -Jesus Christ

Words matter. We've all heard the saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This pithy little phrase is offered up as solace to those who are on the receiving end of hurtful words. I don't know who came up with this moronic aphorism, but it is far from the truth. Words can hurt, and they can hurt more than sticks and stones. In time physical wounds heal, but the emotional wounds of words can last a lifetime.

Do the words you speak and write do more good than harm? Will Rogers once said, "Never miss a good chance to shut up." The older I get the more I realize the wisdom of this comment. Once words leave your mouth (or you hit "send" on that email message), you can't take it back. Words matter. They can harm or help. They can wound or encourage.

My mother used to tell me, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." While not as odious as the "sticks and stones" mantra, this bit of advice is simply not practical in many situations. Nobody likes someone who is intentionally mean or rude, and kindness goes a long way in getting your message heard, but how do we use words wisely in those not-so-nice situations? Should we say nothing at all to a spouse that has bad breath or a child that is misbehaving?

Sometimes the most important words we can speak are not so nice. Confronting a friend about a drug or alcohol problem might not be a nice conversation, but wouldn't it be better to say something instead of letting that friend self-destruct? The words we choose in dealing with not-so-nice or difficult situations are frequently the words that matter most. In times like this when emotions are high and the potential for conflict is imminent, the words we choose can change the course of a life or relationship.

So where is the balance? Once again I think that Jesus provided the answer to this question in Ephesians chapter 4 when he talked about speaking the truth in love. Speaking the truth in love isn't about sugar coating the message. True love is about putting the needs of someone else ahead of your own needs. If we speak the truth in love, we are not trying to win the argument just to show we are right.

Speaking the truth in love is about telling the truth even when it hurts or offends as long as it is done with the best interests of the other person at heart. There is no room for mean-spiritedness or judmentalism in such a conversation, and sometimes the truth is hard to hear. However, if the objective is seeking the truth then there is no other way to go about it.

... more blog thoughts on Word Power ....

Why I'm Pro-Choice

2006-01-29T17:47:00.000-06:00

Since January is Sanctity of Human Life Month I thought I would pass along some information from a good friend of mine that grabbed my attention when I read it. Today's entry was authored by Tom Pittman, and I agree 100%. Tom writes:

I believe every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body -- including those women too young to speak for themselves.

33 years ago the Supreme Court of the USA decided that human beings who have not yet breathed their first breath are not "persons" eligible for the protections of the U.S.Constitution. 116 years previous to that they made the same foolish decision -- except the poor unfortunate non-persons were descended from African slaves. The Court was wrong on both occasions. It took a bloody war to get the Dredd Scott decision turned around. What will it cost this time?

Make no mistake, It will cost. The country is hopelessly divided now as it was 150 years ago, and the Pro-Life folks have the moral high ground. Sooner or later the people of African descent will begin to realize that abortion is racist -- the major abortion provider and promoter in this country was founded with the explicit purpose of eradicating Negroes, and people of color are still disproportionately targeted. Sooner or later the people of Hispanic descent will begin to realize that the political party they voted for has values hostile to Hispanic religious and family values. Hispanics don't want abortion; why do they vote against their own conscience?

Sooner or later. I hope sooner. Give the young women a choice. Let them live!

Bush Trashes Constitution

2006-01-02T12:16:00.000-06:00

George Bush took an oath of office as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When will conservative Christians who still cherish the US Constitution realize that Bush is taking the country in the exact opposite direction from which they profess to want to go? This article from a very credible source proves once again that Bush Jr. is a globalist who doesn't give a rip about the US Constitution. Bush is not at all interested in fulfilling the oath of office he swore before God and country.

Pay attention to the signs of tyranny. If you agree with Mr. Bush's assessment of the supreme law of the land, sit back and do nothing. If you happen to cherish the best of what America was founded to be, write letters and get on the phone. A man who thinks the Constitution is "just a g*ddamned piece of paper" [yes, that is a direct quote!] which can be ignored at will is not qualified to be President of the USA and should be impeached immediately.

Intelligent Design is Good Science

2006-01-01T20:02:00.000-06:00

I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the lack of intelligence among educated people when it comes to the topic of Intelligent Design (ID) as a theory of origins. Recently in Pennsylvania, federal Judge John Jones concluded that ID is not science. Judge Jones should stick to law because he doesn't know beans about science. Judge Jones essentially blackballed the teaching of ID under the stupid contention that it was a violation of church and state.

Intelligent Design is not, as it is ignorantly believed by Judge Jones, where we draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, 'Everything outside this box we can explain only by invoking God's will.'" ID is not about "God's will" at all. ID is the scientific observation that information is being used to build a system with functional behavior that cannot be described solely on the basis of the physical properties of its components.

We see and identify Intelligent Design around us all the time. Every instance of it is either the known and provable result of intelligent (human) agents acting to cause a result that cannot occur in nature, or else a component of living beings. Forensic scientists use this scientific methodology all the time, as popularized on TV shows like CSI.

ID is not about knowing the mind of God. It is a scientific observation that opens up avenues of scientific investigation: "Wow! Here is a phenomenon that is not the result of the physical properties of its components, yet it works! I want to study how." Scientists like Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler and many other physicists believe that God wants it that way -- and then set out to understand what God did and how it works. That is true science.

(You can thank President Bush for appointing this judge to the federal bench.)

By What Standard?

2005-10-26T06:30:00.004-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: "The Value of Absolutes"

The law of gravity is a physical absolute. We can know this truth by experience and experiment. If you don't believe in the law of gravity, it matters not. The law is true. Just hop off a tall building to discover this truth! We can describe the physical universe by these sorts of truths (or laws) like the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. As far as we know, these are universal truths.

Once we know a truth, we can use logic to help us connect that truth to other truth and improve our understanding of reality. Here's an example: 1+1=2 is true. If we know the value of 1, then we can logically determine the value of 2. Or, if we know the value of a, b, and c, logic allows us to put them in proper order, for example: If a > b and b > c then a > c.

We know absolutes exist in the physical universe, and I showed above how they work in simple mathematics, but does this also work in the realm of ethics and moral behavior? And if it does, how do we discover these absolute moral truths so we can use our logic to better understand morality?

Could there be moral laws governing the universe just like we have physical laws that govern the universe? And, if those moral laws exist, what are they and where did they come from? That is what I mean with the question "By What Standard?" Is there some standard of moral behavior that is universal and absolute? I think there is.

If the role of religion is to help us know what the standard of moral behavior should be for humanity, then perhaps we should look for similarities in the major world religions. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all trace their history to the biblical story of Abraham. Maybe the Bible has a clue. It is generally agreed among civilized people that the 10 Commandments are a standard for good behavior. Are the 10 Commandments moral absolutes? Or, are they just 10 good suggestions?

In trying to understand morality it is helpful to consider three elements: (1) what moral truths we know, (2) how we know them, and (3) how we become able to know them. These three elements were brought to my attention in this well written piece adapted from a lecture by Gilbert Meilaender, Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics Valparaiso University. Once we understand these three elements, I believe we will be in a better position to answer the question "By What Standard?"

These three questions forced me to think through my own standards for truth and reject some of my earlier assumptions. In going through this introspective process, I outlined in three steps how I've developed my own knowledge of truth. I invite you to critique my approach to truth and share your own.

Read the next entry in this series: Developing My Epistemology

Being a Truth Seeker - Final Installment?

2005-08-18T09:41:00.000-06:00

This open discussion was initially agreed to be a dialogue with fellow blogger Jen Koontz on the question of "Who is Jesus?" If you want to read the whole exchange in order, here are the links:

Exchange 1, Exchange 2, Exchange 3, Jen's Unedited Response

I got sidetracked between April and August, so this is my very belated response. Just to be fair, I posted Jen's Unedited Response from early April in full (see link above). In that message Jen says she's "losing interest in this discussion." However, rather than engaging on the question at hand, she is bringing into the discussion unproven and faulty assumptions that interfere with understanding religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Jen writes:
> Religion in general was made up to explain things

and goes on to say...

> But now we have science, a far better method to attempt to explain

There you have it. Jen Koontz likes her religion because it fits her definition of religion. Make no mistake, science is for Ms. Koontz a religion, because it explains things. That's her definition. This discussion was not intended to be about religion but about a historical person, Jesus.

Other bad assumptions:

> the Gospels were all written 100-250 years after Jesus died!!

Well, if the authors were really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and we have no reason to believe otherwise), then that is not just a bad assumption, but it makes no sense. The Gospel writers were contemporaries of Jesus. So are we to believe St. John was 120 to 270 years old when he wrote the Gospel of John? (Adding 20 years assuming this was John's approximate age at the time he met Jesus.)

This late dating of the New Testament is a fairly recent claim that is unsupportable from history and from the science of textual criticism. Late dating the Gospels amounts to what would be hearsay evidence in a court case.

> Political reasons are why they want you to place blind faith

This idea of political motivations for faith is a nice theory, but the Christian documents were all solid and widely disseminated long before the Roman conquerors thought to promote Christianity for political reasons. If Rome adopted Christianity for political reasons, they did it after Christianity -- and its founding documents -- had already survived brutal persecution by those same Romans for 250 years.

Additionally, Christianity isn't blind faith. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. That is why the discussion question is "Who is Jesus?" I don't have blind faith. I've done the research to know in whom my faith is placed. Jen has built up a false dichotomy (which is promoted in our public school systems) that faith and science are mutually exclusive. This simply isn't true. In fact, the scientific method and some of the most prominent scientists of all time were devout Christians. I highly recommend the book "The Soul of Science" to help correct this misperception on the relationship between science and faith.

> Courts don't trust eyewitness accounts

Actually, courts do trust eyewitness accounts. Until the very recent advent of DNA analysis and other forensic techniques, eyewitness accounts were generally the most compelling evidence in any trial. Maybe Jen has been watching too much CSI where her religion of science rules the courts with forensic evidence. Either way, hearsay is not acceptable in court at all, no matter how recent. Late dating the eyewitness (Gospel) accounts of the life of Jesus is just heresay, and Jen provides no forensic evidence to discount the established eyewitness accounts.

Which brings us to her conclusion:

> I'm reading the Bible, but like I said it's all
> "believe that Jesus is the son of God!" and no actual teachings.

She must not be reading very much of the New Testament, because something less than 2% explicitly promotes the idea that you should believe Jesus is the son of God. Other parts contain large chunks of Jesus' teaching, and even more gives moral instruction by his example. I guess she didn't get to the Sermon on the Mount yet. A much larger part of the Bible deals with the problem of evil and offers a radical solution for it.

If Jen or anyone else is serious about investigating the claims of Jesus, here is a good starting point: http://whoisjesus.org/. Seeking the truth is not for the timid because you have to be willing to put your preconceived notions and deeply held beliefs on the line. I'm willing to do that if someone can show me objectively where I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that Jen is happy with her scientific naturalism world view. When she is ready to seriously examine the claims of Jesus, I'll be happy to engage in the discussion once again.

Where Did Dennis Go?

2005-08-15T16:29:00.000-06:00

What happened to May, June, and July? Nevermind the first half of August! Wow, the summer of 2005 just blew by my blog with no comment. Today was the first day of school for my boys, ages 9, 12, and 15. I also resigned from my job today to accept a new one starting next Monday, and I'm back blogging!

Life is good, but the last three months have been really tough. More about that later if I get around to it. I did get a reply from Jen Koontz way back on April 7th, but between baseball, a job search/change, and family commitments, I haven't responded to Ms. Koontz yet. However, just to be fair, I'm posting her full unedited reply from early April. Maybe that will give me an incentive to post a response. Here is the last communication I received from Ms. Koontz...

From: Jennifer Koontz
Date: Apr 7, 2005 12:04 PM

So I dunno. To be honest I'm losing interest in this discussion.

I'm reading the Bible, but like I said it's all "believe that Jesus is the son of God!" and no actual teachings. Which is very suspicious... if he truly was the son of God and his teachings were valid, then why do they need to prove anything? Why can't they just present the teachings and let them judge for themselves whether they have any validity? But instead it's all "Jesus did miracles, therefore you must believe him."

And why is "faith" so important?? A person can't just follow the other commandments, that's not good enough? So even if a person doesn't lie, cheat, or steal, and in all ways follows the 10 commandments except the "worship no god before me part," somehow they're still a bad person going to hell? That makes no sense... if God truly wanted us to follow these rules to be good people, I think he would value that above being worshipped.

And while there are MANY explanations for why people would make up a God and religion and try to get you to believe that Jesus is the son of God, there aren't any reasons for why people would "make-up" evolution. Why would someone invent that? I suppose you could say to subvert religion, but that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory considering how the entire scientific community has embraced it, and it's not like EVERY scientist is God-hating or something, many still are Christians, they just don't interpret the bible so strictly.

The reasons people would make up religion/God/Jesus as son of God-

-Religion in general was made up to explain things that were unexplainable to people with their limited knowledge. And, an attempt to influence these events through worship and appeal to the gods. Humans have a tendency to personify everything, as this is our best tool for empathizing with others and trying to explain motives to ourselves in order to navigate and predict future results and actions. So it makes sense that we would personify things we don't understand.

-But now we have science, a far better method to attempt to explain the unexplainable, and with reliable results when trying to influence the events too.

-Political reasons are why they want you to place blind faith in Jesus- they saw that Jesus was popular guy, who influenced a lot of people with his common sense. So they took advantage of that and decided to use his popularity to convert his followers to be used for their purposes. The "they" I'm referring to are the Roman conquerors who adapted Christianity in order to not have a religious uprising against them.

You argue that historical knowledge is what we must use as proof about Jesus, and while history can be a good tool, we all know it can also be severely twisted depending upon the teller.

And the Gospels were all written 100-250 years after Jesus died!! Eye-witnesses, huh? Courts don't trust eyewitness accounts after like 1 year, let alone 100... so even if the writer thought they were telling the truth, the events were bound to be twisted by their current motives...

So I don't know, it's just becoming really hard for me to take anything in the Bible seriously. It just MAKES NO SENSE.

But if that's what someone needs to be a good person, then fine, I'm happy they're a good person. But I personally, and many others, can be good people without it. And isn't that the point of religion, making people be good? (and by good I mean not lying, cheating, stealing, harming other people or killing...)

---end Jen's initial reply---

When I got the above reply I was on a business trip and picked it up on a wireless connection in the Tulsa airport via my gmail account. Gmail does threaded discussions, and I just now noticed that Jen also sent this brief addition a few minutes later...

From: Jennifer Koontz
Date: Apr 7, 2005 1:50 PM

However, I MUST thank you for getting me to read the Bible. I have NEVER had more fun with right-wingers than I am now, throwing bible quotes at them that totally refute their points. You're right, the Bible is GREAT as a weapon!!! :)

Hey, so I don't want to cut off contact with you just because I'm losting interest in this one particular discussion. Maybe we can talk politics? You should check out this blog stoptheaclu.blogspot.com, it's outrageous! I met this other guy there Evan who is so well-spoken and has great arguments (against the blog, of course). I bet your well-thought arguments would be great to add to the mix... if you're interested in heckling such trash, of course. I mean heckle in the most reasonable way possible. ;)

---end Jen's follow up reply---

So, there you have it from Ms. Koontz. She's losing interest in the Jesus question which isn't surprising. For those who are serious about discovering the truth behind the "Who is Jesus" question, check out http://whoisjesus.org. I hope to put together a reply to get this discussion back on track or at least wrap up this exercise in trying to reason with an atheist.

Click here to read the final installment in this dialogue with Jen Koontz.

April update

2005-04-02T14:59:00.000-06:00

March was a really busy month for me, and I only managed two blog entries during the whole month. I suppose Part 3 in the Jen Koontz "Being a Truth Seeker" series was long enough to count as several entries. Haven't heard a peep from Jen about that. Hmmm. Wonder if she gave up on truth seeking so easily. I was really looking forward to having a Part 4 in that open dialogue with Jen. Perhaps her March was as busy as mine. Spring baseball is upon us. My 8 year old is playing coach pitch ball, and we had two games last night (one was a rain-out reschedule) and another game this morning. We're having fun with it though. There are 20 more games and practices between now and May 15th when baseball season ends, so that will keep us busy. Hopefully I can carve out some more time for truth seeking after baseball. I really want to get back to my "Treatise on Truth" series, but so far I just haven't been able to make the time for it.

Being a Truth Seeker - Part 3

2005-03-15T06:53:00.000-06:00

This is an ongoing, open email discussion with Jen Koontz intended to discuss the question "Who is Jesus?" We're still dancing around the topic, but hopefully Jen will be ready to dig into the main topic in our next exchange. This is our third exchange, but you can also read Part 1 and Part 2 in earlier blog entries.

Jen Koontz writes:
Ok, here's my response. I'll get on reading those [bible] passages (though I am loathe too, since they are written by men interpreting God, not God himself, and therefore open to corruption and manipulation). However, like I said, I need more ammo. ;)

Dennis Elenburg responds:
I'm curious about your claim that the text was corrupted and manipulated. What evidence do you have for these claims? Or, is this really an unnecessary prejudice without factual basis? I would suggest that you read the Gospels as historical documents written by eyewitnesses, which they are. The Gospels are far more reliable and have far more manuscript evidence than any other ancient texts.

Jen: Maybe you could also give me a little rundown of your personal beliefs about God and all that too, just so I can better understand where you're coming from.

Dennis: I believe that Jesus really was who he claimed to be. If you want to know what those claims are, just read the source texts. Start with the Gospel of John, perhaps with the New Living Translation.

Jen: [re: on being an atheist] Are you serious? I thought it was fairly clear by now that I am firmly atheist. Although if I ever found solid proof, evidence, or even some well thought-out reasons for the existence of a deity, I might be convinced to change my mind. I feel that way about everything I believe, no matter how firmly I believe. But so far I have found none of the above to support the existence of a deity.

Dennis: Finding no evidence to support the existence of God is NOT the same as having found evidence or proof that there is no such thing as God. The atheist position (proving non-existence) is nearly impossible to defend rationally. That is why many closet atheists are openly "agnostic." They know atheism is impossible to defend rationally, so they pose as agnostics in order to deflect the logical problem with their position. However, if you're really willing to change your mind given proper evidence, then you're already talking like an agnostic. Honest agnosticism (not the closet atheist version) obligates a truth seeker to evaluate the evidence for theism. If you're really willing to take on the full risks of honest agnosticism, that would be very bold. I haven't personally met anyone that honest and bold, although I've read about such people. Are you willing to be that honest and bold?

Jen: [re: on being a rationalist] Hmm, well now I'm not sure. Remember, I got the term rationalist off of a personality test website, lol!!! I looked it up in the dictionary, and I think this definition most fits what I mean by it: a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems.

Dennis: I can go with that definition as a reasonably good one for a rationalist.

Jen: But basically, the empirical method of science is my main method for explaining the world around to myself. I use reason and apply it to empirical observation to figure stuff. For things which I have no empirical evidence of (like God), then I make educated guesses using reason and logic based upon what I already know. So that's what I mean by rationalist.

Dennis: The empirical method of testing the truth of a hypothesis by experiment works great for science, but doesn't work so well on proving a historical claim. If the scientific method was the only way to prove something, you could not prove where you were at 9am yesterday morning. We can't turn back the clock to 9am yesterday and repeat the experiment. To establish a historical fact, we must use legal-historical evidence to establish a verdict, just like a lawyer does in a court case. Legal-historical evidence includes oral and written testimony and exhibits like DNA or fingerprints. Based on the preponderance of evidence, we can come to a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. Insisting on empirical evidence to discover who Jesus was is not reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable for proving who Abraham Lincoln was either. However, we do have plenty of legal-historical evidence to make a case for who Lincoln and Jesus both were historically.

Jen: So that's why I don't see a conflict in appreciating the morals Jesus teaches, but still able to call him a loon for believing he's the son of God. That's just psychology. You can have schizophrenia but still speak truth once in a while, and sometimes even have insights into human nature that sane people don't.

Dennis: True, but you cannot base anything on schizophrenic musings because you don't have any way of substantiating them. The best you can do is look elsewhere for confirmation, which is the same as ignoring the lunatic and just looking elsewhere in the first place. If you're firmly an atheist, then it would be rational to think someone is a loon for believing they are the son of someone who doesn't exist. So, as long as you're trapped in atheism (i.e. don't allow the possibility of God), then you're forced to conclude that Jesus was crazy because you've arbitrarily eliminated the possibility that God exists. Until you move to agnosticism and allow the possibility that God may exist, you have no choice but to believe Jesus was a nut cake. However, that isn't a rationalist approach to the question. An honest rationalist would apply reason and experience to the question without axiomatically eliminating the possibility that Jesus really might have been who he claimed to be.

Jen: [re: comparting the Golden Rule (GR) and Darwinism] I don't think they are incompatible at all. The GR is just further along in our social evolution than our baser instincts, and only applicable in the right environment and circumstances. And humans always have contradictory impulses... in fact, we need them, because our environment is complicated and we can't have just one impulse to deal with it. You gotta eat, but you also gotta sleep. Sometimes those needs contradict. It doesn't mean they are incompatible.

Dennis: The incompatibility of the Golden Rule (GR) and "social evolution" is that the genetic fitness of the individual is not enhanced or propagated by the GR. The individual best propagates his own genes by other people practicing the GR and by not practicing it herself. This is generally attainable in the Darwinist (atheist) world view by lying and cheating and manipulating other people, which is the opposite of the GR. The GR may enhance the viability of a culture as a whole, but not of any particular individuals. Therefore, there are no individuals selected to practice it. The GR does not spread by natural selection in society unless it is already there and pervasive from non-Darwinian causes.

Jen: [re: God's perfect creation] If it was so perfect, it shouldn't have been corrupted. At least, that's what the philosopher was arguing--that perfectionism means it shouldn't have to or be able to change from being perfect, because then it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place. But that's just nitpicking over the definition of perfect.

Dennis: I don't think this is nitpicking. It is an important point. Immutable "perfection" is sterile and uninteresting. This is why people are more interesting conversationalists than robots. Choosing good is even more virtuous in a system that allows for evil. In fact, how would we even know what "good" means without the possibility of "evil"?

Jen: [re: evidence of Intelligent Design] And what evidence is that? Just because some event had to happen to kick-start [the universe] doesn't mean it was God. If so, then who created God? He was just sitting around in nothingness for all of eternity before he decided to start the Big Bang?

Dennis: Since God (or whatever started the universe) is outside the system, we have no basis for speculating on whom or what started God. We do have a very good reason to believe that something (or Somebody) is outside the system with enough power to kick-start an awfully big universe. This forces the rationalist away from the atheist presupposition to at least an agnostic position which is willing to examine evidence that might point to Him/it. Are you ready to move to the agnostic position, Jen?

Jen: Hmm, see I can believe in some sort of event or something that made the jump-start happen, but I can't believe there was intelligence. I think intelligence evolved so that us humans could interpret and explain the world around us. If there was nothing before God decided to jump-start the universe, then he wouldn't have needed intelligence to explain anything.

Dennis: I'm not following your logic. It's easy to postulate an anti-entropic process like evolution, but pretty hard to demonstrate any particular instance of it. I work with computers, and they don't get smarter by themselves. If they did (or could be made to do so) then every software company in the world would buy up supercomputers and set them to evolve new software. Intelligence is entropic, like energy. You don't get it for nothing, and it tends to decrease when left alone. You don't even get counter-gradient energy transfer (like refrigeration) without intelligent design (or some kind of life) behind it. It just doesn't happen. When you apply the 2nd Law to the information domain, it is very simple to see that any intelligence in the universe had to come from some sort of Intelligent Designer. Interestingly, this obvious scientific fact has been conveniently left out of public school text books.

Jen: [re: on reading the Bible] Or that's a good reason NOT to read it!! I've seen how it changes people and how they use it as a weapon!!

Dennis: Is that "weapon" effective? If so, then why not learn how to use it yourself? At least you could learn how it works, so to parry its use by others. If it's not effective, then why all this concern over some ancient book?

Jen: I also know it's been highly edited by the church, to the point of censorship of any gospels that didn't fit their idea of Jesus or how they wanted to portray him. So how can you trust anything it says at all? I would trust the Dead Sea Scrolls maybe, at least they might provide a wider picture and then one could start to try and discern the truth from made-up stories.

Dennis: We have very good early manuscripts for the New Testament, and the modern translations are based on these early manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts pre-date the ascendancy of an organized church with any power of censorship. There is no evidence of corruption. Anybody can examine the original Greek in those manuscripts (and the original Latin and Coptic of equally early copies) to see that the translations are accurate. There is no evidence of corruption in modern Bible translations. Alternatively, I can show explicit coruption in high school biology text books where provably false "scientific" information that is pro-Darwinist has been left in the book when modern science has repudiated it.

Jen: Even though it's supposed to be the Word of God, it was written, interpreted, and edited by PEOPLE. Corruptible people.

Dennis: Our entire email dialogue is written, interpreted, and edited by corruptible people (us!). However, we can discuss issues and facts with respect and dignity and without imputing malice on the writer. What's wrong with using the same starting point when examining the ancient texts? If they are corrupt, it should be pretty easy to see evidence of it like we can in biology text books. (I'm specifically talking about the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" nonsense promoted by the wishful drawings of 19th century German biologist Ernst Haeckel. These drawings still tend to show up in modern biology texts, and that is just one example of Darwinian propaganda, manipulation, and corruption of the truth.)

Jen: Hmm, you're right the GR is one theory that certainly most people don't always follow, and perhaps it is culturally attached. But this is where the conflicting instincts come in, and also human adaptability to different environments. Perhaps harsh weather and limited resources make it so that certain cultures can't follow the GR. I know you'll probably call this relativism, but it's not really. It's just a deeper more complex understanding of humans and how adaptable we are to our surroundings.

Dennis: Okay, let's look at a specific example. The weather in England is far more harsh than the weather in sub-Sahara Africa or southeast Asia, and the resources are also more limited. However, the GR and Christianity dominated England for centuries. This theory you propose does not compute.

Jen: Ok... PLEASE don't tell me you don't believe in evolution. PLEASE!!! I don't think I could ever take you seriously if you don't believe in evolution.

Dennis: Okay, I won't -- on one condition: that you find ONE research scientist with a terminal degree in his or her field doing peer-reviewed research who can show you how his/her own research supports Darwinism better than the alternatives. Just one, anyone. I have a friend with a Ph.D in information science who has been asking this question for over 20 years, and nobody has been able to answer it. You hit the nail on the head when you wrote "believe in evolution." Darwinism is an atheistic belief system based on 19th century science. Your statement is akin to me saying, "I don't think I could ever take Jen Koontz seriously if she doesn't believe in Jesus." However, I would never say such a thing.

Jen: It has tons of evidence to back it up, it is a sound scientific theory that has been tested and supported again and again, and that actually produces results if one applies it in a practical manner (unlike religion, who's only practicality is to soothe people's minds, which can be accomplished other ways as well).

Dennis: I could say the same thing about the Darwinian religion soothing the minds of atheist scientists since Darwinism has no primary evidence. Now, before you start howling about that statement, let me define some terms. Darwinism is the idea that rocks turn into reptiles which turn into monkeys which turn into human beings. Life from non-life. One species turning into another. There is no evidence for this sort of macro-evolution. Finch beaks and the variety of dog breeds (micro-evolution) are another story. I have no problem with variation within a species. I do have a problem with rocks turning into human beings. Life from non-life (Darwinism) has ZERO scientific support. It even violates the 2nd law applied to the information domain. Unfortunately, all the propaganda in our public school systems has indoctrinated most of us to believe otherwise. It took me a while to unlearn the bad science that is promoted under the guise of Darwinism.

Jen: Entire fields of study are based upon it. I've actually done experiments with fruit flies where natural selection and evolution happened before my very eyes.

Dennis: When you show me a fruit fly turning into a rabbit, I'll believe in Darwinism. Until then, I stand by my position that is it an atheistic religion. Knowing how you feel about religion, I'm surprised you are so devoted to one. :-)

Jen: I can accept (well not believe in, but at least understand) the theory that God started the universe, which led to humans evolving from cells to primates and so on, and perhaps even guided that evolution along.

Dennis: Not only do I not believe in that, I can't even understand it because it has no basis in science. Darwinism violates the 2nd Law when applied to information science. You can't get life from non-life, and you can't get information from non-information. (i.e. DNA is a program, and you can't get a program that good without an Intelligent Programmer.)

Jen: But that God just dropped us in, fully made as we are?!! UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, and can be disproven immediately. Like, if he made us as we are... then why do we have an appendix, a useless organ?? Huh!? That is clearly a byproduct of evolution. And why do our chromosomes 99% match a chimps'??

Dennis: This is getting quite a bit off the J-man topic, but I'll go with it for a moment. After googling both the creationist postings and the stuff the evolutionists put up to answer them regarding the human appendix, I found neither side particularly convincing. A vestigal appendix is certainly not as much of an argument for evolution as it was 140 years ago, and even then it suggests that monkeys are descended from rabbits with no other intervening mammals. That is, if it's really vestigial from an evolutionary ancestor. I could just as easily argue that your fingers are proof of evolution because they are known to be completely useless. Amputating a finger has no known loss of viability, and people do it all the time in modern socially evolved societies (such as Islam). Do you believe that argument? Of course not! Modus ponens is a logically correct form of reasoning, because it gives correct answers regardless what data you use. The vestigial organ argument gives patently wrong answers when you plug other data, so obviously the argument is flawed.

Jen: I attribute [my good character] to social evolution and my huge genius brain. ;) Oh yeah, and my parents' raising in general (but they taught me plenty of things about how to survive in this world and get along with my neighbors politely that had nothing to do with church, religion, or God).

Dennis: Actually, the relationship is (ahem) vestigial. Getting along with your neighbors politely is taught by church, religion, and God. There is no social evolution at work. It is merely parental Christian values being passed along to a 1st generation atheist whether or not you give credit where credit is due.

Jen: Like I said before, I think it's longing to feel connected to something larger than oneself. Which makes sense, when you look at socialness and being friendly with our human peers as having evolved as a way for us to survive better.

Dennis: I have a better explanation for it, but until you move to agnosticism and we get into the J-man topic, it won't make much sense in the context of your present world view of atheism.

Jen: [re: worshipping the Truth] Well, it's not like you would pray to, or make offerings to the Truth in some sort of ceremony. But that's not the only way to worship I guess. If by worship you mean striving to achieve it and respecting it, then I guess one could worship the Truth.

Dennis: Buddhists don't pray to their non-deity either. The function of religion is to explain:

1. Who am I?
2. Where did I come from?
3. Why should I do anything in particular?

Jen: [re: Liberal vs. Libertarian] Well, let's see, here's the definition of liberal: "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." I'm libertarian in the sense that everyone should pretty much be allowed to do what they want, but the "as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's happiness" is the liberal catch. So I'm definitely not libertarian when it comes to regulating corporations and stuff like that. I think gun rights fall under civil liberties. Alright so I'm gonna read some Bible (blegh!!) wearing an aluminum hat to protect me from being brain washed ;) and maybe you can expound upon some of your beliefs and philosophies and why Jesus is the man for you. ;) Gimme some of this evidence you've been talking about. Catch ya later!!! :)

Dennis: Start reading the source texts and you'll see the evidence. However, you'll have to think of this like a court trial rather than a scientific experiment. Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. However, the scientific method is not directly applicable in proving a historical event or claim. We'll have to approach the question of "Who is Jesus?" using legal-historical methods. When legal-historical proof is used, as in a court case, a verdict is reached based on the weight of the evidence. The Gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony, so start reading and you'll get the evidence you seek. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Click here to read the next part of this dialogue with Jen Koontz.

Are Disagreements Honest?

2005-02-28T21:53:00.003-06:00

In my "Nature of Truth" post, I originally wrote: "We may disagree on some of the particulars, but hopefully we can just agree to disagree in those areas." I was wrong. Agreeing to disagree is a dishonest way to proceed in truth seeking if we share common priors.

The title of this blog entry is from a technical paper I googled by Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson with the same title: "Are Disagreements Honest?" These authors have some interesting comments in their paper such as: "Most people fundamentally accept not being a truth-seeker" and "few people have truth-seeking rational cores." It is a fairly challenging read, but the conclusions are interesting. The authors state this in their conclusion:

We have therefore hypothesized that most disagreement is due to most people not being meta-rational, i.e., honest truth-seekers who understand disagreement theory and abide by the rationality standards that most people uphold. We have suggested that this is at root due to people fundamentally not being truth-seeking. This in turn suggests that most disagreement is dishonest.

The bottom line here is disagreement between people who have "common priors" is dishonest. In their conclusion the authors give some consideration on how one might try to become more honest when disagreeing, and as a truth seeker I'm bound by my integrity to at least investigate the truth-claims of something like that.

Being a Truth Seeker - Part 2

2005-02-22T21:15:00.000-06:00

The following is the second email exchange with Jen Koontz regarding the question, "Who is Jesus?" You can read the first exchange in my blog entry titled, "Being a Truth Seeker - Part 1."

Jen Koontz wrote:
Ok, so we both agree religion sucks. Good. But I guess religion is different than believing in God or Jesus as an immortal? See usually I equate that stuff with religion. But I guess you don't so... ok. I'll go with a stricter definition of religion.

Dennis Elenburg responds:
I'm a theist, and I also believe Jesus really was who he claimed to be. You seem to be committed to a Darwinist belief system, but not all Darwinists are consistent rationalists (i.e. they don't see the rational conclusion for Darwinism is atheism). I guess I'm still not quite sure where you fall on the spectrum from theism to agnosticism to atheism. Have you totally rejected your Catholic roots of theism?

Jen: [re: C.S. Lewis block quote in first exchange] What, so people can only tell the truth or lies? People mix it up all the time! Perhaps he was a megalomaniac who really thought he was the "son of God"; that doesn't necessarily discredit his stories or morals, as long as you take them with a grain of salt. Maybe all that God stuff is a metaphor. But whatever, the point is I can appreciate his stories and learn morals from them without having to accept that he's the son of God or immortal or supernatural. But if I do look at it your way (he can either be crazy or the son of God), then fine, he's crazy.

Dennis: Your logic is broken, but what you're basically saying is that it doesn't matter if Jesus was crazy because Jen Koontz is perfectly able to pick and choose what is true or false.

Jen: I still think one can discover all of the positive morals that he teaches by oneself.

Dennis: Exactly my point. This is essentially a post-modern relativist position in disguise. The rationalist ("truth is outside myself") position turns that around and says, "I can only recognize Truth provisionally based on logical principles like the Law of Non-Contradiction and Modus Ponens, etc." So, if the J-Man is a demonstrated loony, you cannot learn anything at all from him. C.S. Lewis was a rationalist. I try to be a rationalist. You claim to be a rationalist. The best any rationalist can do with a loony Jesus is say "it doesn't matter what he said." You cannot respect him as a "great moral teacher." That was the point C.S. Lewis is making in his argument. Jesus did not leave that option open.

Jen: Alright, since we both agree the church sucks we can just focus on the J-man. :)

Dennis: That is what I hoped to do, but based on your blog profile I thought I was dealing with a rationalist. Before we proceed, it would help me to understand where you're coming from. If you're a theist, then how do you reconcile that with Darwinism? Are you *really* a rationalist, or a post-modern relativist posing as a rationalist? I'm trying to find a coherent belief system in there somewhere. :) I'm always trying to hone my own belief system in order to root out incoherence and illogic, so don't take this as a slight. As a committed rationalist, I struggle when trying to understand and communicate with people who relate to the world in a post-modern relativistic manner. It would help me if you'd explain what you mean when you claim to be a rationalist. Maybe we just have different definitions on what it means to be a rationalist.

Jen: [re: my offer to send Jen a copy of "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell] I don't know about the book. Hmm. I'm a voracious reader, but only of pulp-style fantasy/sci-fi stuff (I know, it's awful! My guilty pleasure! And hey, I try to go for the GOOD fantasy writers. ;) Maybe I will read the Bible, as you suggest later. I've been meaning to anyway, just to sharpen my ammo, hehehehe. :) Ugh, but it's so incredibly DULL.

Dennis: It will be hard to focus on the J-man if we (a) don't have a common understanding of who he was and what he claimed, and (b) are unable to discuss this as rationalists using common definitions on what the words mean, including what it means to be a rationalist.

Jen: We'll see, maybe when I finish my current book. I don't like talking about things I don't know about, so I probably couldn't continue this discussion without reading something else anyway. :)

Dennis: Good point. Here's a place to start reading: John 1. My offer to send you the little easy-to-read (not dull) book by Josh McDowell still stands too.

Jen: [re: the Golden Rule as "natural law"] Hmm, I disagree here. First of all, it is most definitely NOT natural law. I believe Darwinism, and survival of the fittest and all that. If everything followed the golden rule, then we would all starve! So it's most not natural. [Natural law] applies only within our own social species. And even within our own species, it's only a "rule" because we have evolved to a point where we can AFFORD to do it. If we had more limited resources, we would not be able to follow it. Would that make us "evil"? Is a lion evil for eating another animal? No, this is how we survive. Since we're not competing for territory or resources as much anymore, it's in our best interest as a social species to follow the golden rule. But it's certainly NOT natural.

Dennis: I think we are saying the same thing from different directions. When I said the Golden Rule (GR) is Natural Law, I didn't mean to imply that human beings are inherently good and naturally follow the GR. In fact, it is just the opposite. It goes against human nature to follow the GR because human beings are inherently selfish. The GR goes *against* human nature. As you pointed out, the GR and Darwinism are incompatible. (So, why do you think they are both true?)

Jen: This reminds me of some philosopher I learned about in my History of Western Philosophy class. I forget his name, but not his point. In the period we were studying, all of the philosophers were trying rationalize the Bible and religion and all that (you can't, of course! They all failed miserably.) But anyway, this guy was talking about "miracles" and "acts of God" and how they didn't really prove God's power or strength at all. His basic argument was that if God created nature and natural order, why would something going AGAINST that order (as miracles do) prove his strength or power? Wouldn't it prove the weakness of his original design, and therefore his power and all that?

Dennis: Not at all. When a miracle suspends or overcomes the laws of nature, then perhaps that is just God's way of showing us his transcendence over his creation. He created the rules, and he can change or suspend them at his pleasure. The topic of miracles is also interesting when you consider what Jesus said about them in John 5:36.

Jen: Of course, this was all based on the assumption that God is perfect and therefore everything he makes must be perfect or at least the most perfect possibility.

Dennis: God's original creation *was* perfect, but the world we live in today is corrupted. That is why Jesus is so important.

Jen: Miracles were just things people couldn't explain through their normal empirical evidence, so they attributed it to "God." Which leads us back to the point that God just simply represents the unexplained or unknown. Which is not truthful at all, especially when people are personifying him!

Dennis: So, would you agree that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is "unexplained or unknown"? I didn't think so. Well, the 2nd Law *requires* some kind of kick-start on the universe *outside* the system. As far as science is concerned that kick-start is "unexplained or unknown." However, we do have evidence that supports the idea that this "unexplained or unknown" may very well indeed be the God who reveals himself in the Bible. If some people have seen such evidence and Jen Koontz has not, that does not prove those who believe in God are wrong. What a rationalist truth-seeker such as yourself should do in such a case is keep an open mind and analyze the evidence as it is encountered. I will show you the evidence, if you're willing to examine it.

Jen: However, I know that you've mentioned God and his "design", but you haven't explained what your perception of God is (if it's not the normal old-man-sitting-in-the-sky crap, which I have to assume it's not since you are smart). So we'll see what you have to say about that...

Dennis: You can rest easy. The old-man-sitting-in-the-sky idea is absurd albeit common. We must be careful not to impose our limited notions of perfection on a presumably infinite Creator. That leads to all kinds of silly contradictions, like the supposed impossibility of miracle. My perception of God is that he is the Creator of the universe, that "unexplained or unknown" jump-starter who has infinite intelligence, power, and presence. I also believe God reveals himself to those who seek him. That is why we have evidence that he does indeed exist.

Jen: Yeah, my knowledge of Jesus all stems from my Roman Catholic upbringing, so I suppose it's probably twisted. I'll see about reading that Bible...

Dennis: Most protestant denominations encourage their adherents to read the Bible more than the Catholics, so if you were raised at least nominal Catholic it isn't shocking that you haven't read the Book. You really ought to give it a shot, though. After all, it is the most widely published book in all of history. For someone who wants to be "well-read" is only makes sense to read the #1 best seller of all time! :)

Jen: Not sure what "God's general grace" is, but ok. However, I think that if someone thought of the Golden Rule to begin with, then we can certainly think of it again. And I don't accept that the original idea came from God- it's part of the social structure of our species that has enabled us to survive.

Dennis: Earlier you mentioned that the only reason we can "afford" to practice the Golden Rule (GR) is because we've evolved. I don't think the facts support that conclusion. Most of the wealth in the world is concentrated in Christianized western cultures. We can afford the GR now only because enough people followed the GR in the past to make it so. Modern western prosperity is a product of the Christianized western culture. Just look at what communism (atheism) did to Russia. Look at the rampant poverty in Islamic and Hindu nations. The wealth you claim makes the GR possible came about because of 2000 years of people practicing the GR, and not the other way around. There doesn't seem to be any GR in Islam, nor in pagan (3rd world) cultures. Nor among atheists, except 1st-generation atheists who got it from Christian parents and who didn't reject it when they rejected its logical basis.

Jen: But of course I don't accept that God created us either... so I guess you could say that he created that need in us or whatever. But not back when we were primates!

Dennis: I have no comments on your primate ancestry. :)

Jen: I do agree that children need a good upbringing to help them learn morals. And punishment and rewards help us learn the appropriate responses. But once you get to a certain age and know enough about our society and how we work together, you shouldn't need this vague threat of hell to make you be a good person. You should be a good person because you see the benefit it brings to society and ultimately, ourselves. Yes, it is ultimately selfish. I truly believe that.

Dennis: My view on hell is that the only people who will be there are those who wouldn't be happy in heaven because God is there and evil is not allowed. Hell is a place away from God where his general grace and blessings do not exist. Atheists have it easy in this world because they benefit from God's general grace even though they deny his existence.

Jen: I donate to charities because I would want someone to do the same for me if I was in the same position. I don't think that's wrong or selfish, it's just social. Good social behavior evolved to ultimately benefit the individuals and therefore the whole.

Dennis: Your Catholic upbringing has inculcated a sense of God's general grace into your character, and that is admirable. However, I find it a bit sad that you attribute your good character to social evolution instead of your mother's good job in raising you with some solid Catholic values. [Way to go, Jen's mom, if you're reading this!!]

Jen: Maybe we should define "worship". I don't think feeling connected to something larger than oneself and worshipping are the same thing.

Dennis: I believe the need to worship is built into the soul of human beings by the Designer.

Jen: Worshipping can fill that need, but it is false, because worship to me involves some element of the unknown. Once you understand it, it's not worship anymore. It's just the truth.

Dennis: Worship is reverent love and devotion accorded a deity. If that deity is the God of the Bible, then I agree that finite human beings cannot understand an infinite God. So, your definition of worship involving "some element of the unknown" makes sense in that context. What's wrong with worshipping the Truth?

Jen: Hmm, maybe we can get into the gun control issue another time. I'm pretty liberal, so I am of the opinion that everyone should pretty much be able to do what they want... as long as that doesn't interfere with someone else doing what they want. And unfortunately, it's all too easy for any bozo to get a gun at a moment's notice and kill someone whenever they're peeved (which definitely counts as interference!) I think if you want to own a gun you need to take classes on how to use it and gun safety (for more extensive then what you need now, if anything!), and be put on a waiting list, and be researched for criminal history and all that. If you're going to be able to kill me by only moving one finger, then I want assurance that you're not a loony and will only do so for a very good reason!

Dennis: You sound more Libertarian than Liberal. Look, I'm enjoying the dialogue, but I set out to deal with the J-man question. I'd love to get into these other topics, but let's try to focus the discussion. Let me know when you get in some reading on the source texts, and I'd love to continue this dialogue by focusing on the J-man question. Until next time...

[For the next installment go to "Being a Truth Seeker - Part 3"]

Being a Truth Seeker - Part 1

2005-02-16T07:36:00.000-06:00

I've received a couple of comments on my blog from a fellow blogspotter named Jen Koontz. (See the little links at the bottom of the Jan 26 and Feb 2 entries to read her comments.) Jen also sent me a detailed email. I'm not sure if she ever got my reply. She said she has many email accounts, so maybe my response got lost in a spam folder somewhere. She put so much thought into her message that it seemed a shame to keep it to myself, so here it is with my inline comments:

Jen wrote:
First of all, just let me thank you for this opportunity to discuss religion in a rational level-headed way. I find that's not possible too often! :)

Dennis replies:
I couldn't agee more. However, I'm somewhat anti-religion, depending on what you mean by religion. (I'm big on definitions since in email all you really have to go on is the meaning of words.) In general, religion is used as a tool to manipulate and control people. The book of James has a couple of points on religion (chapter 1), but other than that the Bible and particularly Jesus' message was not too kind toward the religious. In fact, it was the religious Jews who had Jesus killed.

Jen: So I'm sorry if my comment was a little abrasive, but I was peeved because I was reading all this great philosophical stuff you were laying out about the truth and getting really into it, then I saw your reference to Jesus and alarm bells immediately went off in my head. I was like, "Oh no... is this where he's heading?"

Dennis: I'm headed to the truth, of course! :-) Your comment was hardly abrasive. In fact, I was cracking up when I read it. It was quite humorous.

Jen: Don't get me wrong... Jesus and his teachings are great, and for the most part I agree with them. But I hate religion in general, especially raving fundamentalists.

Dennis: I couldn't agree more about the "fundies," depending on how you define "fundamentalists." If by fundie you mean a red-faced bible-thumping you're-going-to-hell spittle-spraying preacher who has no sense of grace, then I agree. :-)

Jen: I think Jesus should be viewed as a teacher/philosopher with some great stories and advice on how to live, nothing more and nothing less.

Dennis: Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis? I'll respond to the above point on "Jesus as a great moral teacher" with a quote from Lewis, an Oxford professor of medieval literature (who by the way started out as an atheist):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either he was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

The option of "Jesus as a great moral teacher...nothing more and nothing less" makes no rational sense at all. Since you fancy yourself as a rationalist (based on your blog self-description), I would challenge you to think through this a little deeper.

Jen: The way he's been turned into this immortal icon, and the way the Church interprets the bible and totally contradicts itself, and yet still has this huge following- I just think it's all a huge lie, that causes more hate and pain in the world than any benefit it gives (if any).

Dennis: Okay, that's a good starting point. However, you've tossed a lot into that mega sentence. If I mailed you a book (really short, also written by a former atheist), would you read it so we at least had a common starting point for discussion? The Bible is 66 books written by 40+ authors over 1400 or so years. The Christian "church" however you define it is also a rather enormous institution and many-headed topic. Those together are a bit much to tackle in an email discussion thread (or blog debate) unless we plan to go at this until we're senior citizens. If we can just focus the discussion on "Who is Jesus?" in the context of seeking the truth, I think that would be an interesting and doable discussion. It would even give me some material to continue on in my blog entries (...and here it is!)

Jen: In my opinion, religion is an antiquated way of explaining the world around us to ourselves and why it's that way. Now that we have science, we shouldn't need religion anymore.

Dennis: Interesting topic, but we'll never reach any conclusions if we open too many boxes without looking inside and carefully examining the contents of each. I'd love to engage on this topic because my college degree is in physics, so I *love* talking about science. Still, I don't have enough time to tackle a discussion on "Who is Jesus?" and "Science vs. Religion" at the same time.

Jen: Science explains everything religion does, except better and more truthfully. And the things science can't explain yet... at least it's not pretending it has the answers when it doesn't.

Dennis: As someone trained as a scientist (physicist), I couldn't disagree more unless you're a materialist and deny the existence of the supra-natural. If that is the case, we'll have to start the "Who is Jesus" discussion at a much more fundamental (not fundamentalist - there is a difference) level.

Jen: Everything that Jesus taught, I think any intelligent being can figure out for himself. It all basically comes down to the golden rule- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Dennis: That is why we call it "natural law" (see our Declaration of Independence). It is built into the fabric of the created order. God made it that way.

Jen: What more do you need than that? So that's why although I respect Jesus, I don't see him as anything that special, really.

Dennis: I think you're missing some critical information that would greatly influence a rational conclusion on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. My offer to snail mail you a book still stands. If you're willing to read it, I think this could turn into a fascinating discussion. In fact, we could also run "dueling blogs" and do it in public. (...and here it is!)

Jen: Of course, I have the benefit of being aware of the Golden Rule from an early age- perhaps I'm taking it for granted.

Dennis: Most people who live under God's general grace take if for granted.

Jen: Maybe people COULDN'T figure that out on their own before Jesus. But I highly doubt that! I think it's ridiculous that people need the threat of hell to be good people. Why?! Isn't being good for it's own sake enough?!

Dennis: Interesting point. Having three children (boys ages 8, 11, and 14) gives me a bit of a different perspective. The threat of punishment is frequently required to encourage good behavior, at least until the child has the maturity to make good choices on his own. This also begs the question of whether or not human beings are inherently good or inherently bad. I had a much different perspective before I had childen than I do now. :-)

Jen: I understand that people have a spiritual need, and want to feel connected to something larger than themselves. I feel this is why religion is still so popular, because it fills this void we have in our society now.

Dennis: Great insight. Yes, human beings have a built-in need to worship. Millions attend weekly worship in sports stadiums across the country. Millions more worship the almighty dollar. Millions worship youth and vitality. Some people believe religion is antiquated and worship at the altar of science. Some people worship themselves. The void in society is the collective void of individuals trying to fill the God-shaped hole in their lives with anything and everything. Some try to fill it with drugs and alcohol. Others try to fill it with romantic love and relationships. There is only one thing that fills the God-shaped hole in a human life, and it took me 30 years to find it.

Jen: I feel connected to the greater humanity, and the universe, and am thankful that I'm lucky enough to be here. I feel like my education and understanding of social sciences has pretty much filled that void for me.

Dennis: Oh yeah, I forgot to include "knowledge and education" in the list. Some people stuff that in the God-shaped hole. I know from experience. I studied physics in college because I figured if knowledge and education would fill that hole, then I was going to go for the full-monty. Didn't work. However, I do commend you on your attitude of gratitude. Do you thank God for that, or just "greater humanity"?

Jen: This is why I don't need religion, and feel pretty enlightened about it. I think it's fine if people want to get together once a week to feel connected and a sense of community and all that. I just wish there was an answer for everyone other than religion.

Dennis: Even Christian religions won't fill the God-shaped hole. Tried that too. Didn't work.

Jen: In my opinion, religion causes far more pain and strife than filling this void for people. People exploit it as a tool to dictate how other people should live their lives, and that's not cool at all.

Dennis: Couldn't agree more.

Jen: If they didn't have this tool which many people regard as the "ultimate authority" or whatever, then they wouldn't be able to exploit it. That's why I think religion should be abolished, the same way guns should. Or at least controlled.

Dennis: I live in Texas. I own guns. We'll have to agree to disagree on the gun control issue. :-) However, I couldn't agree with you more on religion frequently being a tool to control and exploit. God hates that. He says so in the Bible.

Jen: Well anyway, I think you get my point and where I'm coming from by now! :) I would love to hear what you think of my reasoning here... (that's why I posted this in my blog)

Dennis: I'm not pulling any punches. I think you're missing the boat on a few points, but I'm not saying that in a condescending way. Heck, I've been exactly where you are and had almost the same identical thoughts. Over time, reality just refused to let me stay there. Seeking truth changed me. I'm convinced that if you pursue it with a passion, you'll change too. It has been said that when an honest man (or woman) is confronted with the facts that prove s/he is mistaken, s/he either ceases to be mistaken or s/he ceases to be honest. My challenge to you is to passionately seek the truth and determine if you are mistaken or not. I commit to you that I will do my best to be honest with you at all levels, and if you prove to me that I'm mistaken, I'll change my views. Are you willing to do the same?

Jen: ...and how it relates to truth. I didn't get into that too much, but I think you can guess that I don't think religion is truthful, not at all. Maybe Jesus and what he says is truthful, but the way he's represented by the Church and through religion is not.

Dennis: Okay, other than reading the book I'd like to send, how about we ignore everything the Church and religion says about Jesus and just go to the source texts. Almost everything we know about Jesus is contained in the four gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). And, in order to discuss this intelligently, I would suggest that you might want to read those four short books. Start with John. It is 21 chapters. Read just 3/day, and you're done in a week. The book I am willing to send to you (unless you want to pick up your own copy) is by Josh McDowell. It is called "More Than a Carpenter." I'm sure it it on Amazon and in most major book stores (unfortunately, you'd have to look in the religion section most likely - aacckk!).

So there you have it folks. I'll leave the next step up to Jen. She is quite an articulate and funny young lady. From reading her blog, she seems like a lot of fun too. I think this would be a fascinating dialogue if she chooses to continue, but you can't force someone to seek the truth.

That is up to her...

[Jen did choose to continue. For the next installment go to "Being a Truth Seeker - Part 2."]

The Value of Absolutes

2005-01-26T23:12:00.001-06:00

Read the prior message in this series: "The Nature of Truth"

Until our conscience is informed by truth based on absolutes, we are destined to wallow around in the quagmire of post-modern relativism and situational ethics. Unless we operate from absolutes, we'll continue to be distracted and divided along issues of preference and conviction rather than basing decisions on a firm moral foundation. Without absolutes, there is no right and wrong. Without absolutes, all opinions are morally justified.

In a world of absolutes there will still be differences of opinion, differences in convictions, and differences in culture that impact how and why we choose to behave and live the way we do. There may also be passionate disagreement on what the true absolutes really are. This is why the most important question after "What is truth?" is "By What Standard?"

Read the next message in this series: "By What Standard?"

[Aside: The comment below by Jennifer Koontz led to an interesting exchange of ideas which is posted as a 5-part set of linked blog entries on "Being a Truth Seeker."]