Primary Beliefs, Peripheral Beliefs

I did a little research on "Seventh Day Adventists" the other day. It came about because a young lady (18 or so years old) came to the door selling cookbooks for an organization called "Youth Education Scholarship" -- YES for short, apparently dedicated to raising money for helping low income kids to attend college. I fell for the pitch mostly because I'm a sucker when it comes to teenagers like that selling ... it takes guts to go door to door. I'm even more of a sucker if the kid is obviously nervous but willing to try hard.

Anyway, the sales pitch included an offer for another book called "The Great Controversy," which she had a copy of. I thumbed through it really quickly and saw references to Martin Luther, the Catholic Church and tons and tons on the book of Revelation. So right away I knew something was up ... it wasn't just a straight cookbook sale. Long story short, I bought the cookbook (a vegetarian cookbook, it turns out, but I didn't realize it at the time) and the "Great Controversy" book.

I looked more closely at the "Great Controversy" book and came across some references to Saturday worship and "Seventh Day Adventists" came to mind. I found the Seventh Day Adventist website, and their "what we believe" section had nothing that was clearly heretical. More searching yielded a description of them as borderline -- some feel them a "cult," others feel they're just a sect within Christianity. The most significant departure from orthodoxy is that they hold the founder of Seventh Day Adventistism (a woman named E.G. White) was divinely inspired and inerrant in her writings. That's a form of "additional revelation" over and above Scripture. Whether it contradicts Scripture or not I can't say ... but I doubt it. If her writings were clearly contradictory (as Mormon writings are), there'd be a strong condemnation of them as a cult.

Anyway, back to my title ... the idea of battle over Saturday or Sunday as the day for Worship is one of those "peripheral matters" I find so tiresome. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the main theme and thrust of Scripture, and I can't seem to sense there's much of a focus on small issues like this. Jesus was pretty clear in what the issue was:

• You're all sinners
• I'm the Messiah
• Trust in me and my atoning work and be saved
• Turn from your sins and follow me in discipleship

I realize that's a bit superficial and somewhat irreverent, but you get the point. Excessive focus on detailed matters like "Saturday vs. Sunday" strikes me as a form of legalism. Plus, thinking one day is exceptionally more important than the others leads some to think that's the only day to be dedicated to God, when we're called to live our every breathing moment in communion with the Holy Creator of the universe, not just one day out of seven.

But I digress. Yes, I am capable of that! :-)

Seventh day adventist?

Doing a word search on biblegateway for the word "Sunday" returns zero hits so I doubt it's from The Bible.

The first day of the week was sunday and it did seem to be a significant day for the disciples:

Eg. Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

But also in the Acts they were meeting daily so I am not sure how significant this is.

I guess it's possible that it's Sunday because the first Jewish converts to Christianity were no longer Jews, they were now gentiles and so would not have been allowed into the synagogue on the Sabbath, but would have been allowed in the day afterwards.

I know someone who thinks that worshipping on Sunday is a false doctrine that was started by Origen in 220 AD. I have no idea whether that it is the case. He subscribes to the Didache http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html I think these people are seventh day adventists who want to bring the Sabbath back as Saturday and believe the Sunday worshippers have the mark of the Beast.

It's all too much for me! I suspect Man's word, not God's word.

The Sabbath

Any idea why the Christian faith adopted Sunday as the day of rest and worship? Given that Christianity has a direct lineage to Judiasm, and for the Jew the 7th day -- Saturday -- is the Holy day of obligation. Here in the United States there are Christian sects that strongly insist upon Saturday still being the Sabbath, yet most of Christiandom views Sunday. (And Muslims, Friday.)

My guess is because Jesus rose again on Sunday, the first day of the Jewish week. We know that he was crucified on Friday, and there was a sense of urgency to have the three crucified that day dead and down from the crosses before sundown (hence the breaking of the legs of the two criminals who were not yet dead). Saturday would have been the Jewish sabbath in which Jesus lay in the tomb. Mary Magdalene was on her way to the tomb on that Sunday morning to finish the job of preparing the body for entombment -- a job apparently not done by sundown Friday and therefore forbidden to be done on the Sabbath itself.

* * *
I liked the Star Trek episode about the Horta. Spock doing the Vulcan mind-meld with the creature, and Dr. McCoy patching the wound with a cement trowel and some silicone patch.

Did you hear that the man who played Mr. Scott died just recently? Apparently he was an actor rather adept at mimicking accents. He was given the choice which he wished to use for the role. He chose his Scottish accent. I guess they named the character after that.

"It's life Jim, but not as we know it"

You wrote:

What is their legal standing?

Good question, reminds me of that episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where Jean Luc was arguing that the android "Data" was not "property" and as "he" displayed "human" emotions -- such as love -- should be given the same legal rights as a human.

I would hope that "enhanced" humans would also be afforded the same rights as us, but you just know the lawyers are going to have a field day on this one. If you really want to see a person in the service of Satan just go and see a divorce lawyer (for instance). You may know what I am talking about, these people are the ugliest and most reprehensible pariahs of human misery. I think that just about covers it :-)

and

Who are their parents?

I guess you could argue that when the donors of say >50% of the childs genome can be identified then those donors could be considered to be "the parents". But you're right, the concept of "parents" in the genetic sense will become meaningless in the long term (one may be able to watch this unfold over the millenia from Heaven, but I don't have a good handle on the nature of Heaven so I am not sure about that). In any case, there are many people who consider themselves to be "parents" of children that they look after - even though there is no genetic link, so it maybe that "creche parent" will be the way the nomenclature goes.

When do they become "human" -- when they are lifted out of amniotic bath?

Well I guess they don't. If they have a different genome then by definition they are of a different species.

It's Sunday, let's praise the Lord for our lives and our talents. Amen.

Peace Brother :-)

Atheism and the ACLU

You asked: "is it ok for the atheists to attempt to destroy non-Christian religions?" If they were consistent in their efforts I'd have a bit more respect for them. But their focus is squarely on Christianity. They cloak their agenda somewhat in the more generic term "religion." Given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, it makes sense they would target it. But I don't think it's a purely tactical consideration.

The other question you ask is whether the "separation of church and state" would apply to all religions, not just Christianity. The answer is yes, of course. But the focus of the lawsuits is virtually always Christian. I can't think of a single ACLU lawsuit challenging some Jewish or Muslim exercise of religion.

The proper interpretation of the First Ammendment would yield decisions that said, in essence: "The government won't sponsor your religious activity, but you're free to exercise it." Sponsorship has been defined through the various court cases as "if it occurs on school property." Hence the prohibition in many cases of after-school Bible study.

My belief is that the ACLU is under the influence of Satan, and they're extending their energy against Christianity because that is Satan's enemy. But that's just my opinion.

* * *
Let's put all the threads together -- a cloned embryo, genetically enhanced, gestated in a manufactured womb, taken to full term and "born." Think of the implications of this:

• What is their legal standing? Who are their parents?
• When do they become "human" -- when they are lifted out of amniotic bath?

* * *

I just don't know about why dinosaurs existed. But you know me ... I have no trouble at all with the idea of a 4 billion year old planet. I don't even have a problem with the idea of gradual change over time, provided God is the guiding hand. Why he would create things like that I just can't say.

Maybe he created dinosaurs so kids could have something that provides them with endless curiosity and enjoyment. After all, kids don't seem terribly excited by trilobites or primordial slime.

Jurassic Park?

Scientists have cracked open a 190-million-year-old egg to reveal the oldest known dinosaur embryo.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=37548

In God's plan, I wonder what the purpose of the dinosaurs was? The Genesis account does indeed mention monsters, but the start of Genesis is all about the Universe being created, then the Earth, and then Man and the animals. All will be revealed !

My God is better than your God

Some questions and comments to your last four appends – thanks for keeping this blog going ..

You wrote on atheists:

“Their agenda is -- I suspect, but not in a vacuum -- to destroy organized religion as it's presently known. They have largely succeeded in their quest, though not completely ... yet.”

My question to this is, is it ok for the atheists to attempt to destroy non-Christian religions? Or should they leave them alone too? Ie. Is Islam “better” than atheism? (Or "more valid"?)

You said:

“All in the name of "separation of church and state," which really means "imposition of the atheist creed."”

Should the Church of, say Islam, be separate from the State of the USA also? If so, then isn’t it right that Christianity should be too?

You asked:

“Now let's say a slim minority of "X" finds a way to justify the murder of innocents in the name of "X."”

Justify to themselves I guess you mean here?

Does the majority of "X" have a moral obligation to condemn the actions of the few?

Absolutely Yes. “X” notices that a subset of “X” is not treating others how they themselves would wish to be treated – and as a result they should condemn that behaviour. This is what is currently happening with the Muslim Council of Britain – they are condemning the extremist bombers and saying that these people are not true Moslems.

The ACLU won’t be so vocally supportive of these “rights” when their headquarters gets wiped out in the detonation of a nuclear device that explodes in Mojique’s backpack and takes out The Whitehouse. Yes I can tell that these people are a sore point for you ! (Note: the name Mojique comes from the 1980 Talking Heads song “Listening Wind”, where Mojique was the protagonist who did this kind of anti-western terrorist thing).

Even scarier than manufactured babies are genetically “enhanced” people, it will happen, it’s not hard to forsee. Looking at the amount of spam I see on the net the first parts to be enhanced will be in the area of the genitalia. Am I concerned? Not really, it’s as inevitable as the motorcar, cars have been used for good and bad. I do think that mankind as a whole needs to carefully consider technological advancements and how they can be used for good as well as bad. But at the end of the Sun's life, we will need technology if we are going to survive.

I hope you are well this weekend my brother!

Take care.

PS. FreeBSD or Linux ?

Manufactured Babies

I came across this piece of news this morning while I was still on my first cup of coffee:

At Juntendo University of Tokyo, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara and his team of scientists have successfully removed goat fetuses from mother goats and placed them in tanks of amniotic fluid stabilized at goat body temperature, while connecting the baby goat's umbilical cord to machines that pump in nutrients and dispose of waste.

The purpose of Dr. Kuwabara's research is to provide a safe home for human fetuses prematurely expelled from the mother's womb. According to the British Guardian newspaper, it is expected that such methods capable of sustaining a child for the full nine months "will become reality in a few years."

Meanwhile, at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu and her team of scientists have been approaching the problem of fetal out-of-womb survival from the other side. She is developing a full artificial womb that can receive a just-conceived embryo -- with the hope that it will successfully gestate for the full nine months.

I find this somewhat creepy. From a technical point of view, I'm sure this is scientifically exciting stuff. But the notion of "creating" children in such a device makes my skin crawl. This is another example of mankind's scientific knowledge and abilities outrunning our ability to fully grasp the moral and ethical implications.

Imagine -- cloned embryos, gestated in these devices, perhaps without legal standing, being used as "farms" for the development of organs for harvesting. That sounds ghoulish, but I'm not so sure it's that far-fetched in our world today.

Arghhh

"The New York Civil Liberties Union is considering a federal lawsuit over New York’s new policy of randomly searching the backpacks of subway passengers. "

From last paragraph of http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050726.shtml

Incidentally, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) quite frequently represents the plaintiff -- almost always an "atheist" -- in anti-religious "separation of church and state" lawsuits.

The First Ammendment of the United States Consitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)

The United States Supreme Court has established precedent that provides "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" greater weight than "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was largely due to the efforts of the ACLU, acting as representing counsel to vocal atheists over the years.

Can you tell this is a hot-button with me?

The Responsibility to Condemn

Here's a question for you -- let's say there's a world religion that we'll call "X." The creed of that religion is, so they say, "treat others as you wish to be treated yourself." Now let's say a slim minority of "X" finds a way to justify the murder of innocents in the name of "X."

Does the majority of "X" have a moral obligation to condemn the actions of the few?

If they in fact do not condemn the few, what are we then to think of "X?"

If the majority steadfastly refuses to condemn the few, is there a point in time when we may look upon "X" as not abiding by their own creed? May we then condemn all of "X?"

Those are very serious questions.

What? Santa Doesn't Exist?

It can't be true! I got presents at Christmas! Therefore, Santa exists. The logic is flawless.

* * *
I see your point about atheism. And I'd agree with you without much reservation if people who claimed to be atheists were as benign as, say, I am in my non-belief that Mars is inhabited with small green creatures. I steadfastly believe there is no such life as that on Mars, but spend almost no time or energy whatever dedicated to that non-belief.

Not so the typical atheist. They are commonly quite energetic in their "belief" in the non-existence of God, and seek to make sure that no element of "religion" ever interferes with their existence. They are, in essence, more committed to their "faith" (in the non-existence of God) than are most people who profess belief in God.

The conflict is actually quite striking here in the United States. Lawsuits get filed nearly every day to scrub the landscape of any reference to "God." They (atheists) are a quite strident and organized bunch. Their agenda is -- I suspect, but not in a vacuum -- to destroy organized religion as it's presently known. They have largely succeeded in their quest, though not completely ... yet. They use the "separation of church and state" argument to drive any reference to God from anything even remotely connected to "government." Since government is involved in almost every aspect of society, they have succeeded in driving religion from those areas. The quest to strike the phrase "under God" from our "Pledge of Allegience" failed -- for now -- only because the atheists overreached and woke up the slumbering majority. But every day there's another case where some school is prohibited from allowing a student Bible study group to meet after school while other student groups of all shape and size -- including groups interested in the occult -- are allowed.

All in the name of "separation of church and state," which really means "imposition of the atheist creed."

That's where I'm coming from.

Santaism

Yes RC believes that God exists - but his premise for believing this is based in logic, ie. "something must have started the Universe and that something is God". I don't share that view. My premise is different, it's not based on logic it is purely ad hom and along the lines of "There is a God because I believe there is a God, and you ain't gonna convince me otherwise".

Yes please send through the mp3 if we're note breaking any laws!

Atheism and atheists. We're probably talking about slightly different things. I imagine a group of sentient beings who have never heard of God - so obviously they do not believe in Him, are they atheists? Secondly, what type of "ist" is someone who does not believe in Santa Claus? An aSantaIst? Or just "someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus"?

I suppose that I am questioning the definition of the term "theism", by questioning its opposite. Someone who believes in God is a "theist" and someone who believes in Santa is not a Santaist - historically, why did things turn out that way - that the believe in "God" got its own word, and the belief in Santa did not?

I suspect that this is something to do with the perceived importance of the topic in question.

Therefore, in computer speak, "if theism then atheism".

So by my rationale, by atheism existing, it lends importance to theism. And I think this is why it is bandied about by the likes of RC, but I'm not sure that they are aware of this motivation.

I wouldn't want to offend any religion that teaches us to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. If there is a religion out there that doesn't teach this, or teaches the opposite, and I offend it, then that does not worry me. It may be that I only object to certain parts of it's doctrine and/or message and not others however. Preaching love and not hate is generally a good thing in my opinion.

On Dr. R.C. Sproul

I felt it necessary to cycle back on a few things regarding your earlier post. Dr. Sproul is very definitely operating from a few foundational premises in his arguments:

• God exists
• The Bible is his true revelation

I've not spoken to the man, but I'm quite certain he would agree that the basis of his logical argument is dependent on those two necessary first conditions. Further, I'm quite certain that he's quite accustomed to having to cycle back and defend those two first principles. The MP3 I sent you was from a lengthy series giving an overview of the Bible. No doubt he felt anyone interested in hearing an overview of the Bible would have settled -- or at least temporarily accepted -- the idea that God exists and that the Bible is in some what related to God.

But that's not to say that R.C. Sproul is unschooled in the ways of science or philosophy (or the "isms" as you call them). He is in fact a quite intelligent man. His formal training is in philosophy and theology. He has an extraordinarily keen grasp on the historical structure of philosophical development, and in other series he goes to some length to explain where certain philosophical belief systems came from.

I just listened to one from a series titled, "Christian Worldviews" where Dr. Sproul explained where the idea of the utter separation of church and science came from (Emmanuel Kant, primarily, from a formal philosophical point of origin, it turns out). Sproul ties Kant's philosophical premises to earlier St. Augustine works, and explains how (in Sproul's opinion) Kant misunderstood what Augustine was expressing in his earlier works. Dr. Sproul finishes up with an explanation of the well-known strife between Galileo and the Catholic Church, and there makes an interesting and, in my view, credibility-building statement: "Science may very well correct the word of a theologian." The Catholic Church, at the time of Galileo, had endorsed an earlier Ptolemian view of the universe (earth-centric) and therefore had boxed itself in when the newer (and scientifically correct) Copernicun model had emerged. Science had indeed corrected the word of a theologian (collectively, the official view of the Catholic Church), but science did not correct the Word of God. For the Bible nowhere specifies that the earth (or the sun) is the center of the universe.

Sproul's talk on "Science" is actually quite interesting in that he welcomes the pursuit of scientific knowledge by believers, and offers a quite compelling argument how the two are never, ultimately, contradictory.

But it is built on the first two basic premises.

If you're interested in that MP3 (9MB in size), I can send it to you.

* * *

Contrary to your earlier post, I do believe that "Atheism" is a thing. It is very much a belief structure. They strongly -- and quite passionately -- believe in the absence of God. I fail to see how that's not a "thing" any less than "existentialism" is a thing.

* * *

I'm curious ... you seem particularly interested in not offending members of other religions. Do you draw a distinction between predominant religions and any religions? Would you be equally as concerned about the sensibilities of someone who belongs to a small sect or cult as you are about a billion-member religion? If so, why? Does the creed of the religion make a difference to you?

2D Atomic Crystals

Woah. Nice link to the University of Manchester.

I just want the entire internet to know that it is my idea to marry these to carbon nanotubes to make the space elevator a reality!

Ok so somebody else can go patent it. The Fountains of Paradise (Arthur C. Clarke) here we come!

Thank you for the link kind sir.

Chess ... A Waste of Time

I'm just kidding, of course ... I was just looking for a post title that would stand out.

Interesting that IBM has supplied those logs ... I wonder if IBM supplied them prior to the production of that movie, or after? If before, then the makers of that movie either didn't know, or intentionally lied about that aspect of the controversy. It wouldn't be the first time a filmmaker had an agenda that clouded their sense of honesty and integrity.

* * *
Here's the question ... why was the move that Deep Blue made so "un-computer like?" Was it because it offered no calculated advantage? About Kasparov's expectation that Deep Blue would "grab a pawn with 37. Qb6" ... you added, "but such a move was not optimal." Why would it be "un-computer like" to see that taking the pawn would not be optimal? Was the sub-optimal nature of taking that pawn based on something that could be calculated (or computed), or was it something only human intuition could reasonably arrive at?

* * *
Something interesting:

Scientists at The University of Manchester have discovered a new class of materials which have previously only existed in science fiction films and books.

A team of British and Russian scientists led by Professor Geim have discovered a whole family of previously unknown materials, which are one atom thick and exhibit properties which scientists had never thought possible.

Not only are they ultra-thin, but depending on circumstances they can also be ultra-strong, highly-insulating or highly-conductive, offering a wide range of unique properties for space-age engineers and designers to choose from.

Professor Andre Geim said: "This discovery opens up practically infinite possibilities for applications which people have never even thought of yet. These materials are lightweight, strong and flexible, and there is a huge choice of them. This is not only about smart gadgets. Like polymers whose pervasiveness changed our everyday life forever, one-atom-thick materials could be used in a myriad of routine applications from clothing to computers."

* * *
You wrote:

I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn't that much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly).

Three questions:

1. What constitutes a "specie?"
2. Does cross-breeding to produce polka-dot rose constitute a new specie?
3. Does human intervention in the cross-breeding of plants or animal offer "proof" of natural selection?

The author of that article was suggesting that evolution worked its way into geology not so much that biological evidence was contained therein, but that the theory of evolution applied to the changes we see in the geologic structure of the planet. The planet has changed over time, but that's a different thing from things changing due to genetic mutation and propagation of those mutations through reproductive advantage.

* * *
I agree that faith ultimately comes down to a choice, as opposed to scientific proof of something that leads one to logically arrive at it. But I do not agree that the realms of science and faith are separated entirely. You write of the theory of the "expanding and collapsing ball" as a way to get around the issue of "who started the Big Bang." That suggests that the universe "always was," and had no initial creation whatever. Fine. Then at best God -- if he exists at all -- is no better than co-equal to the universe, since by definition God didn't create it.

These are issues you and I will never, I suspect, come to an understanding on.

Peace.

Man vs Machine

Sir, enjoy your time to yourself!

On Chess

Yes I saw that movie last year, I really enjoyed it but then again I am a chess head. I was logged in chessclub.com during game two and it's true that the computer played a very un-computer like move on move 37. Kasparov said IBM cheated as they never provided the computers log, but they did, and it is here
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.html

Kasparov was expecting Deep Blue (playing white) to (evenutally) grab a pawn with 37. Qb6 , but such a move was not optimal.

Instead Deep Blue continued 37.Be4.

The IBM logs (see above) show that Deep Blue calculated


37.Qb6 Rxa2 38.Rxa2 Bc7 39.Qe6+ Kh8 40.Be4 and now

40...Rb8 41.Ra6 Qd8 42.d6 Bb6+
40...Ra8 41.Kh2 Rb8 42.g3 Qf8
40...Qf8
41.Kh1 Bd6 42.Ra6 Rd8 43.Ra7

37.Be4 Rcb8 38.g3 Qd8 39.Kg2 (39. Ra6 Rxa6 40. Rxa6 Bc7 41. Rxf6) 39...Rxa2 40.Rxa2 Bc7 41.Qa7 Bb6 42.Qa6 Qd7

So Deep Blue played 37. Be4.

Unless there is a major coverup going on at IBM, they do not appear to have cheated. What's more, if I get my Dell pentium 4 to analyse the position it starts with 37. Qb6 but soon sees the error of it's ways and changes to 37. Be4. I don't think IBM cheated.

Kasparov resigned a bit later on after 45. Ra6. A few hours after the match, Bruce Moreland, the author of the Ferret Program (which he never released yet the bar steward!) reported on chessclub.com that the game was a draw by perpetual check after 45 ... Qe3. For someone like Kaspy resigning in a drawn position was too much and I don't think he ever recovered from game 2. To date.

Which is sad. Because I am a human and not a computer (most of the time).

On genes

Q1. Sorry not familiar with introns and exons either !

Q2. I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn'tthat much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly)

Q3. No I don't think he precludes an "intelligent designer"

Note: Question: Who designed the law of Gravity?

The last part about evolution being in geology, well I guess that in the fossil record we (and British Petroleum) see lots of types of creatures that no longer exist, but how do we know that the current flora/fauna found on Earth evolved from them?

On Sproul

That announcer makes the whole thing seem like a joke! It's like "Welcome to McDonalds, Have a nice day".

RC is preaching to the converted, you have to believe to bother listening. He clearly doesn't care for how Jews, Muslims and Sikhs believe. Or anyone that doesn't believe in Christianity. He is very dismissive of the other "isms".He recognizes "atheism" as something, a "thing", which it really isn't. The hole in the polo mint isn't really anything, it's just the lack of a polo mint at that point in spacetime.

I don't tie skepticism to paganism (RC lumps them together).

He then goes onto say that there was a time the Universe did not exist, which is not necessarily true if you take the expanding and collapsing ball approach I mentioned in a previous append. He then asks "What started it?" - But does not address the question "What started God?" The questions could have the same answer could they not RC?

Then he talks about flat spacetime local phenomena such as inertia in relation to the Big Bang. A common mistake.

I do not believe that religious people should attempt these types of pseudo-scientific arguments,I believe that they should stick to scripture and not get hung up with science. One doesn't need any proof to believe, one just needs to believe. I choose to believe.
I believe that we should believe because we make the decision that we want to believe, it really doesn't matter what we believe, we all get to die so then we'll find out. Just be sure to treat others as you wish to be treated on the journey.
.
To RC - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".

"Be Cool"

My dear bride is out of town this weekend, so I'm left to play bachelor. Being the boring old sot I am, that implies little more than eating fish (Lisa hates fish) and watching DVDs. Tonight I had grilled salmon and watched the movie "Be Cool." One thing drew me to the movie: Cedric the Entertainer. I love that guy ... he's a hoot.

* * *
Did you ever listen to the entire MP3 by R.C. Sproul I sent you? Any commentary?

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue

This evening I watched a DVD called "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine." It was a documentary on the famous 1997 chess match in which the IBM "Deep Blue" computer beat Garry Kasparov in a six match tournament. The filmmakers tried very hard to draw a parallel between a chess-playing automaton from Napolean's era (called "The Turk" and, ultimately, discovered to contain a human being inside analyzing moves) and the Deep Blue computer. Kasparov himself, referring to the infamous Game 2, all but accused IBM of having a human player intervene and overrule a move suggested by the computer. The story goes that Kasparov offered a pawn in sacrifice and the computer refused to take it.

I don't know whether there's any truth to the rumor laid out in the film, though I suspect it's the stuff of conspiracy theory. IBM the company doesn't come off well in this film. Near the end of the movie Kasparov compares IBM to Enron, suggesting that before the collapse of Enron "this type of behavior" (meaning Enron's and, by comparison, IBM's during that tournament) used to be tolerated by the public.

Overall the film wasn't very good ... interesting, but a bit grating in spots as they kept cutting to this weird footage of the mechanical "Turk" moving chess pieces.

More on Evolution

I almost regret doing this, but it's a lazy Saturday afternoon, there's a thunderstorm brewing outside, the wife is back at her mother's, and I have little desire to work on my SHARE presentation. So, I shall jump back into the abyss.

Over at "Tech Central Station" (www.techcentralstation.com) there's an article on evolution. The link is here:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072205B.html

The author is defending a statement he made in a pervious article in which he claimed the theory of evolution had been proved. The author provides this:

By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another.

I have no particular objection to that definition of evolution. In fact, that definition is a rather more concise definition than the one I typically use:

Random genetic mutation that leads to reproductive advantage.

The author reports he received considerable e-mail response, both pro and con to his original article. That'll happen any time the subject of evolution is opened up. (The same holds true for discussing the question of predestination and free-will.)

This leads me to ask a few questions:

Q1: What the heck is an "intron?" The website dictionary.com provides this definition:

A segment of a gene situated between exons that is removed before translation of messenger RNA and does not function in coding for protein synthesis.

Okay. Whatever. I won't run down the rabbit trail and ask what an "exon" is. It's an oil company, isn't it?

Q2: It's my understanding that there's no fossil evidence of trans-specie mutation -- in other words, any kind of "missing link." Some argue that the reason for that is that fossils are generally rare and do not survive the eons. That strikes me as a weak argument. "The evidence doesn't stand up well over time, so we have to assume it was there originally. So therefore our theory is true." If the theory is indeed "proved," wouldn't such evidence be more abundant and readily available?

Q3: Does the author's definition of evolution allow or preclude an intelligent designer? To my eye it does not preclude it.

The author then offers this:

For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution.

I find that a rather striking assertion. If I go back to the author's own definition of "evolution," I'm not sure how "genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission" works its way into geology and chemistry. I suspect what the author has done is allow his focus to drift, and has re-defined evolution to mean "a gradual, cummulate change in scientific knowledge across time." Clearly the disciplines of geology and chemistry have benefited from work done in the past, such that the cummulative knowledge base has "evolved" across time. But that's not really the same thing as "evolution" in a genetic sense, is it? The chemical laws of nature haven't changed since the origin, have they?

Asymptotic Lines

First, let me say that if you took offense at my comment, then I apologize. I didn't wish to single you out and offer any form of judgment. The purpose of my comment was in response to what I felt was your earlier query: why doesn't God provide more solid proof? You and I are examples of people who have been blessed with fairly good experiential evidence of God's existence, yet both of us remain far short of perfect obedience to God.

The title of your previous post was "When is enough enough?" And the answer is, according to my understanding of Scripture, never. Our entire lives will be spent being sanctified; that is, tested and refined by God. The ironic thing is, I am led to understand, that the further down the trail one gets, the more one realizes how much further one has to go. It is like an asymptotic line -- one that trends toward, but never touches, the axis. Well, never touches until we are glorified in heaven.

C.S. Lewis wrote an interesting book on this subject called, "The Great Divorce." The premise of that book is that our lives represent trajectories. After death, that trajectory continues into eternity, producing either creatures of incredible glory, or creatures of horrible evil. The book got him into some measure of trouble by some fundamentalists because the story provided people in "hell" an opportunity to repent and go to heaven. ("Hell" was portrayed brilliantly in the story as like a grim, gray city that goes on forever because everyone in it can't stand one another and tend to move further and further apart from one another.)

It's a life-long journey, one of continued and incremental submission, gaining further insights and understanding, and undergoing more and more trials and testing in the act of sanctification. Or so I'm to understand. This parallels the story offered in "Pilgrim's Progress" -- the main character, "Christian," encounters repeated difficulties on his way to the "Celestial City."

Note: This notion runs somewhat contrary to contemporary evangelical Christianity -- at least within some circles -- whereby the act of regeneration is a "road to Damascus" moment, followed by perfect obedience and perfect happiness. I think that presentation is disingenuous. Well, that's being civil -- I think that presentation is flat-out wrong. I don't think Scripture supports that view, at least not at the high level. Perhaps a passage here or there could be extracted to support it, but the whole of the New Testament message is one of continued submission and refinement by the Holy Spirit.

From personal experience I can attest to this. I can only count as a blessing my awareness of my painful shortcoming. When I take the time to ponder the forgiveness offered, and what that means in terms of salvation from sin, and then compare that to my response ... well, the picture isn't pretty. The serious question I must answer is "Why?" I really don't know, other than the act of killing my former self takes time. Galatians 2:20 is not an instantaneous thing with me, I guess.

But I must keep striving towards that goal. That I know.

* * *
Here's another passage that caught my eye:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Phillipians 4:4-7, NIV

* * *
Thanks for the update on Wimbledon. I think tennis is a dead sport, sorry to say. I'm no expert on the topic, but from what I understand, part of the problem is the technology and the training, particularly in the men's category. Apparently the serves are getting to be so fast and powerful that they're almost unreturnable.

Interesting topic thread there ... what sports are "dead?" One, I think, is boxing. Certainly at the heavyweight level. I imagine there'll always be localized interest, but there'll never again be a Muhammad Ali. Hockey, here in the United States, suffered a year-long lockout over contract disputes. Television ratings for hockey here are virtually zero. The league is over-extended and the talent is too thin.

When is enough enough?

You wrote:

You claim a direct intervention from Jesus, yet you are not fully committed to God

My response is how would we know when we are fully committed to God? Is anyone fully committed to God? Even pastors and the like?

I do claim a direct intervention from Jesus, but I also believe that He put me in that state in the first place. I'm not 100% sure what for, I would think to teach me a lesson, which I am really trying to learn. I think the lesson is "always look on the bright side of life".

Roger Federer won the men's and Venus Williams the women's singles events at Wimbledon this year, but I didn't watch any of the matches. That movie was awful, I saw it on a plane earlier this year, not the best of venues admittedly but a serious lemon nontheless.

Love and peace be with you brother.

Wimbledon

First, a question ... who the heck won this year? It must be a testament to the state of the sport that the premier tournament comes and goes without the winner being common knowledge. Or perhaps its just me. I don't know who the players are anymore and I've long since stopped paying much attention.

Second, what large edible food substance meant to win Wimbledon? And who ultimately defeated it? Answer below.

Finally, we rented the movie "Wimbledon" this evening. It starred Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany. I like Paul Bettany, but I didn't much like this movie. Which is why I'm here blogging while my lovely bride continues to watch, though she has fast-forwarded a few times.

Answer: blanc mange meant to win Wimbledon. Angus Podgorney ultimately defeated the blanc mange to become the only Scotsman to ever win the tournament. (Monty Python)

Is the message true?

I was poking around on the web this morning, trying to find out more about the issue of Biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility." A lot depends on the meaning and usage of those words, I discovered. From what I can gather, some have taken the meaning of those words too far and have tried to confer upon the Bible more than some noted theologians are comfortable with. I'm not smart enough to follow all the arguments. I'm not sure I wish to try.

As you know, my view of the Christian faith tends to focus on broader themes and frameworks, not on specific passages. It's quite possible to go find two sentences from this 1000+ page book, compare them and suggest a contradiction. The same is true of any book, including anything scientific.

It's also quite possible that somewhere across time the reproduction of the Bible produced "errors," such as the age of Ahaziah reported as 22 or 42. In my mind these don't detract from the central Truth of the Bible, any more than it would detract from a Stephen Hawking book if he used the word "there" when he should have used "their" or "they're."

Viewed at a higher level, the Bible provides revelation into the nature of God, the things he demands of us, the things he promises to us, and a wealth of instruction and insight into how we are to live our life. I believe that in these things the Bible is true; that is, divinely inspired and from God, therefore of God, therefore True.

As I mature -- oh, so slowly -- in the Christian Faith, I am coming to be more comfortable with my acceptance of the Bible as "true." It's not a precise definition. I don't tend to focus on minor items of apparent discrepancy ... probably because I know I'm just not smart enough to really hash out the issues at that level. Perhaps one day I will become more articulate in defending Scripture at the finer level, but I doubt it. I'm not sure I want to.

You wonder why God didn't provide a more "foolproof" (my word) method of revelation. He may have; the "garbage" genetic instructions may very well carry God's message. But here's the essential question: let's say we decoded it and it said something like this: "This is God. Trust and obey me and you shall enjoy me for eternity." Would we believe it?

There is ample evidence that we as humans do not follow instructions that even we know are true. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that inhaling the byproduct of tobacco combustion every day for year after year can't be good for our lungs, yet many do just that. The speed limit signs very clearly spell out the limit we may drive, but many -- including me -- disregard them.

On a Christian radio program here in Tucson I heard the host talk about how children often ask some of the most challenging questions about the faith. One he cited has stuck with me: "If Satan saw God face to face, why then did he disobey God?" That is an exceptionally important question to ponder. It gets to your question, and to the mine: if God very clearly made himself known, irrefutably, undeniably -- would people then turn over their lives to him? I doubt it.

I was blessed with an experience whereby God touched my mind and I truly understood, for a brief moment, the full scope and breadth of forgiveness through Christ. Yet today I am not fully committed to God. You claim a direct intervention from Jesus, yet you are not fully committed to God. So many others are the same way.

We yearn for "proof" of God's existence, yet I'm not certain it would make a difference.

There is elegance in the way God has revealed himself generally (in nature, in our consciences) and specifically (in Scripture, in Christ). It is compelling but not undeniable. It requires an extension of effort and will on our part to seek. In return, God rewards our sincere seeking with further understanding and guidance. When I willfully sin, God removes some of that and I flounder, requiring me to repent and come back to him. Each time -- and I must take care not to assume it will always be the case -- each time he provides me with a sense of his presence and assurance of his continued promise.

It appears to be God's divine plan that we are to trust him through faith, not through proof. To my eye it appears to be an progressive process, with decisive steps of faith along the way. I am firmly committed to the notion that belief in the Bible's essential truthfulness is one of those decisive steps. Doing so opens up new vistas of understanding. Such appears to be God's plan. If it were a definitive one-page declaration from God, we would quickly grow bored with it and drift.

Grace and peace be with you, brother. In Christ.

Message in a bottle

Yes, there are many examples of errors that are explained away in similar fashion, I would hold to the fact that if this causes anyone a problem (typically because they have been using Occam's razor liberally on such arguments!) then fear not, you can still believe in the fundamental message without needing your Bible to be inerrant.

Someone asked me why God would use such an inefficient and error prone method of delivering His word. They thought that if God had encoded the message in our genome then there would be much less room for misinterpretation.

Note: messages encoded in the genome could still be ignored, eg. we still would have "free will", whatever that is.

Then I got to thinking that maybe He did just that. In the genome that are sequences filled with "genetic garbage", no-one yet knows what these are for, and as a consequence are ignoring them. Perhaps the Bible *is* encoded there? It would be an optimal solution after all.

Furthermore, wouldn't it be fun if the genetic word of God, assuming it is there, acually caused us to behave in a certain way? Perhaps it gives rise to our conscience? I think C.S. Lewis referred to it as "we all have Jesus inside" or something like that?

We must keep an open mind, there is lots to learn I think.

PS. Must dig out by old gene sequencer !

The Age of Ahaziah -- 22 or 42?

The same resource -- Christian Apologetics Resource Ministry -- www.carm.org, offers the following in their "Bible Difficulties" section:

http://www.carm.org/diff/2Kings8_26.htm

I didn't copy the text to here because the explanation has to do with the way certain Hebrew words were written. CARM ascribes this to a "copyist error." I'm not sure I fully followed this explanation.

Take or leave this particular explanation. I offer it up only as one explanation. I'm sure this particular thing has been debated for years and years and years. Smart people have come down on both sides of this.

Contradiction

It's my understanding that the proponents of Biblical Inerrancy fully confess that translation errors can -- and have -- crept into the Bible. There is a tremendous amount on the web that explains the various types of translations, from literal to paraphrase and everything in between. My new favorite radio minister, R.C. Sproul -- a strong advocate of Biblical Inerrancy -- is a vocal critic of the "dynamic equivalence" translations that are out there, saying that re-phrasing the original text permits too much opportunity to modify the original intent. Some of the translations out there are, by their very admission, complete re-writes of the Bible, offering a contemporary paraphrase of the original text. There the opportunity to change the original meaning is great.

So quite often you'll hear that Biblical Inerrancy applies to the original text. This is why some -- including the likes of R.C. Sproul -- are so emphatic about going back to the original wording in the original language. Even then there's an opportunity to misunderstand the original meaning of a given Hebrew or Greek word.

The apparent contradiction you cited between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 is explained by one apologist here:

http://www.carm.org/diff/2Sam24_1.htm

The distinction that's being drawn in this write-up is one I've heard before. It goes something like this:

• Satan is always trying to get people to sin against God.
• God's Holy Spirit empowers some to resist this temptation. Absent God's Holy Spirit, our fallen nature would give into the temptation of Satan.
• If God wishes to allow a person to fall into sin (so that sin can be used to illustrate God's greater Glory), all God need do is remove the empowering of His Spirit. Then the temptation of Satan overcomes the person and they commit the sin urged upon them by Satan.

If you look at the Book of Job, it speaks of Satan telling God that Job is righteous simply because God has provided a "hedge" around Job -- protection, if you will. The Sabeans are not forced by God to go inflict misery on Job; God merely removes the empowering in their hearts that allows them to resist the temptation of Satan. Absent that, Satan is allowed to prey upon our fallen nature, and by our nature we'll do all manner of sinful things.

I fully recognize that this explanation will not be satisfying to those who wish to find fault with the Bible. Somewhere in the Bible -- I wish I could find it -- there's a passage that says that God has provided just these things in Scripture to trip up the proud and the boastful. In other words, there are elements of Scripture that seem irrational or contradictory so those inclined not to believe God are given an opportunity to exercise that unbelief.

One of the things I'm really coming to realize of late is that faith -- belief and trust extened without benefit of irrefutable truth (my definition) -- is really an elemental part of God's plan for us. The Bible is full of examples where faith is extolled and rewarded. Yesterday I came across this passage and it really hit me:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6, NIV)

In my mind the "earnestly seek him" part has, at least in some measure, an element of trust that His written word contains truth and God himself can be found through Scripture.

Perfection

Looking at The Bible and trying to answer your questions I would say the inerrancy issue only relates to errors creeping in over time, or translations. I'm not sure that the original text can be descibed to be "in error", even if it is just a story, and not representative of "The Truth", whatever that is.

My view is that errors have crept in over time, and that there have been translation errors. One that springs to mind is:

2 Kings 8:26 (New International Version)

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.

versus

2 Chronicles 22:2 (New King James Version)

Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

This is a trivial example and it's a famous one for pointing out how errors have crept into various versions of the text. I don't see that as a problem, but I personally would not want to base my faith entirely on the inerrancy of the Bible. Clearly the various copies of the first five books, known as the Torah, are the most consistent pieces of written work ever handed down from antiquity. This is largely due to the fact that when the scribes copied a piece of the scripture on an old piece of pigskin to a new one, they were very religious about it. Clearly it had been drummed into them to make exact copies, if their minds strayed in thought whilst copying, they had to destroy the new pigskin, get their minds sorted, and start again.

What is more worrying in the lack of consistency in some of the more important issues within the Bible.

For example:

2 Samuel 24:1 (New International Version)

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

versus

1 Chronicles 21:1 (New International Version)

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel

I'm sure most Christians think that God is not Satan?

True Copies Down Through Time

Something came to me today. I understand that you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I don't agree with that, but we've wrestled with our difference on this score before. But here's my question: do you believe that the Bible was errant in its original writing, or became errant down through time as manual copies were made, copy made from copy?

I ask because one of the remarkable things about the Bible is that there appears to be a remarkable accuracy in the copies that were made across time. Not 100%, but in the very high 90's, and from what I understand the differences are trivial in nature (admittedly, a subjective judgment).

Now, if the Bible became errant due to progressive infusion of agenda, then it would seem to me that what we'd see is considerably more difference between successive manuscript copies.

Note: and I'm not speaking of translations here, but letter-for-letter copies made in the same language.

Now I can see how one might argue that the original manuscripts might be agenda-laced and therefore errant, and that errancy carried down through true copies. That would align with the apparent evidence of accuracy of copies.

But revisionism tends to develop over time, and that would suggest to me that we should see more migration from the original with each subsequent copy. But we don't.

Thoughts?

Expressing Opinion

There's a real tension, isn't there? Forcefully expressing one's opinion seems to simply stir up strife and disharmony. But staying mute allows others to impose their way, which sometimes isn't a very good way. This is my central tension in life. I was not equipped with a very good sense of the balance that's needed to be strong yet gracious.

* * *
I think every person has a certain "domain" they wish to control, and they cede portions of the larger domain to others. Some people appear to want to control very large domains (CEO's, politicians), others much smaller domains (meek little dweebs like me). The question that's popping around in my mind is this: does anyone really wish to turn over their entire domain? I think that runs counter to every element of human nature.

Yet that's what the Christian faith -- at least as I understand it, and apparently many others -- calls for. The difference, of course, is that it is God Almighty to whom we are to turn over our lives. Theoretically that should be an obvious thing to do. But why is it so difficult in practice? Is there an element of unbelief in it? I think perhaps there is.

* * *
I travel today ... should be back online tomorrow.

Submission and guilt

Annoyance. Yeah I get annoyed, I used to think it happened rarely but I feel it's more often these days. I get annoyed when people treat others in a way that they themselves would not wish to be treated. Then I get annoyed and treat them in a way that I wouldn't want to be treated to show them "some kind of lesson". The "that'll learn ya" approach. Then afterwards I feel guilty and neanderthal for spreading disharmony.

I think the question is: should we bother to give our opinions forcefully? I do it, but I don't know why I bother, and it doesn't change anything, if anything it has the opposite effect, and reinforces the other persons view.

Let us pray that we can rise above this behaviour and learn a lesson.

+++

On the demand for total submission.

As a backdrop, I'm going to assume an errant Bible, because if I assume an inerrant Bible then there are billions of non-atheists who must be deluded, and I'm not so arrogant to believe that I know better than all of those people.

So where does this feeling come from that people want to submit to something? Did it start as a control control mechanism? A ruling class keeping the people down? I don't know, as it's so ingrained in me to submit, to throw my hands up and say "help", that I can't believe it can be 100% societally bred, but it could be.

Or could it come from fear? Are we so attuned to levels of danger, for purposes of survival, that we become fearful of our thoughts? And so we say we are "sinning"?

Or could it be that we make mistakes, but to avoid us saying "I'm really not that further evolved than an animal who might kill" about ourselves we say "I'm a good person really, it's just some evil spirit made me do a bad thing, and now I'm ok because God washed me clean of the bad thing because I submitted to him and repented".

Submission appears to be necessary to achieve Grace. And Grace seems to be necessary to allow us to live how we think we deserve to live. Which is without guilt.

A Knowledge That Haunts

Several years ago I read a book by John R. W. Stott, a fine Anglican pastor from your home turf. The book was called "Basic Christianity," but the book was anything but basic. It was hauntingly direct, which was precisely what I needed at that time to cut through the haze of syrupy religion that I saw all around me.

The book had a chapter titled, "Counting the Cost." The following paragraph took my breath away:

"Jesus never concealed the fact that his religion included a demand as well as an offer. Indeed, the demand was as total as the offer was free. If he offered men his salvation, he also demanded their submission. He gave no encouragement whatever to thoughtless applicants for discipleship."

John R.W. Stott, "Basic Christianity" page 107

To this day I can't get that paragraph out of my mind. In a few short sentences Stott put into words what in my heart I knew must be the center of the Christian faith -- submission to Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life.

Today's Sunday School really rattled me because Francois Fenelon's message was essentially this very thing. C. S. Lewis has written of this. St. Augustine. No doubt others have as well. There must be something to this; they can't be mere empty words. And yet in the span of 60 minutes I see us breeze over the top of this, and everyone nods assent, including me. And the Lord convicts my heart -- "Have you really surrendered? Or do you hold on to yourself?" The answer, I know, is that I hold on.

Today was a test, and I failed. I allowed the passions of pride and fear to cloud my thinking. The Glory of God reflected poorly through me today. I am ashamed.

Thank you for listening, brother.

Thank you.

Brighter Days

If I were to be honest -- and I will try to be just that -- my frustration was born out of two things:

1. Pride
2. Fear

Wow ... there's those two again. Pride because I too often consider my viewpoint to be the only viewpoint, and I get very frustrated when others don't agree. It's a real weakness of mine, particularly if I feel I am being mocked or dismissed. I am able to manage it better if the person with whom I am conversing is someone I have respect ... you, for instance. But if I've formed a negative impression of someone, that particular vice rears its ugly head with vengeance.

The fear part comes from a nagging fear in my mind that I may one day simply drift away from the Christian faith if I am not properly nourished in that faith. Some might chide me for not living "in assurance of Grace," but I would counter that it is far better to be wary of the temptation to drift than to not. There is a portrait in "Pilgrim's Progress" of a man locked in an iron cage. He tells his story -- a man who for years had all the external trappings of a good Christian, yet over time developed sinful habits he chose not to repent of. A hardening of his heart set in so that one day he discovered he could not muster sincere repentance. I can easily see the message Bunyan is trying to deliver there. I fear of becoming that man in the iron cage.

Note: there's no shortage of opportunity here to argue over the question of whether Grace, once granted, can be withdrawn; and whether Bunyan intended that to be the message of his portrayal of the man in the cage. For what it's worth, what I've seen explained is that drifting away is a possible indication of never having been saved, rather than Grace being withdrawn.

Anyway, that's why I experienced what I did today.

* * *

I once went to see in person Alistair Begg, the radio minister who speaks with a Scottish accent. During his talk, he chided contemporary Christians for the "facile" subject matter of their prayers. He said that more often than not, corporate prayers end up being little more than a petty list of wants and desires.

I mention this simply because it aligns with what you wrote about your house group. I agree with you -- the things you listed would not be things I would consider worthy of prayer, particularly when so many other things in this world are crying out for prayerful consideration.

For what it's worth -- the sentiment you expressed that some (perhaps many?) embrace "Christianity" as a form of "insurance policy" against going to Hell is one I've heard preached many times as well. I suspect it's a relatively widespread approach to the "faith," such as it is.

I don't like that kind of "Christianity." It holds no particular allure for me.

* * *

You wrote: '... peace can only come when both sides realise that they are on the same side - the side of "humanity."' That is the dilemma, isn't it? The Islamic terrorists are not reasonable. They are very clever, but not reasonable. So from a Christian point of view, are we to simply allow ourselves to get slaughtered? Are we as Christians to look on while others kill innocent people, and do nothing about it? The Bible is full of examples of God using the armies of man to accomplish his goals. What's to say the military might of the civilized of this world isn't being marshalled for the destruction of evil?

We will find a brighter day

I wonder where your frustration comes from? Is it possible that you feel that Christians generally do not show the proper commitment that they should show to God and Jesus?

At the home group I attended I was stunned that the good people there prayed for things that I would consider not worthy of praying for, two examples:

1. Praying for a better relationship between a builder and a homeowner (a lady was having problems with the chap building her house extension)

2. Whether or not another couple should get an extra bathroom fitted into the house for their growing teenage daughter

Oh Lord please help us in our hour of need??

Now these prayers were carried out with the correct humilty and reverence - but I felt that they totally missed the point. We are fortunately to have our comfortable middle-class lives with our comfortable middle class problems, while people are dying around us. But we don't see the death so we pray for help with our comfortable middle-class problems.

It does appear to me that Christianity in my village is a social club, designed to protect the way people want to live (which is "comfortably"), whilst provinding some kind of insurance policy against going to Hell.

So Christianity in my village is providing some sort of a "service" -- but not one that appeals to me.

+++

Now that we've been bombed again (I say "again" as the old feelings of years of IRA attacks resurfaced) I wonder if Britain's traditional tolerance of those who would speak out for anarchy will continue? Or will the government use this as a way to pass stricter homeland-security style ammendments through Parliament? Either way, when a faction would resort to such actrocities it doesn't bode well for a peaceful solution - peace can only come when both sides realise that they are on the same side - the side of "humanity".

My Frustration Found Its Voice

And a somewhat shameful episode it was. In a Sunday school session today we were studying portions of Francois Fenelon's "A Will No Longer Divided."

Note: Franciois de Salignac de La Mothe Fenelon lived from 1651 to 1715, and was prominent in the court of King Louis the XIV. That is, until he was banished by the King and denounced by the Pope for his support of a reform movement that sought to fix some of the ills of the Catholic church of that time.

The thrust of the "A Will No Longer Divided" work is that true joy can be achieved by submitting oneself completely to the will of God; saving no element of one's own will.

Nice words ... can it be accomplished?

My frustration bubbled up because I asked that very question. I wondered aloud why it was that I'd never met anyone who even approximated a full surrendered person, let alone one who had actually accomplished it. Did such people really exist? Or was Felenon's point merely a lofty target to which one aspired, but never really approached? The conversation thereafter quickly devolved into snippets about daily exercises in faith and things like that.

Okay, fine ... I get the point about walking before running and all that. But that's not really my point. My point was really this: with so few people that mature available, how is someone new to the path can possible learn the way? It was an autobiographical question.

I am weary to the point of anger at the display of contemporary "Christianity" I see in most churches today. You've experienced a bit of that yourself, I think -- the "social club" sense you got from the church you attended. Or I see the chest-thumping triumphalism of some American evangelical churches. Or the watery "spiritualism" of others.

In other words, the type of Christianity I see called for in the page of Scripture is nowhere to be found -- people committed to Christ, humble in that role as a saved sinner, but drawing strength from Christ himself. The idea of "completely surrendering my will" to God only makes sense within the framework of a Christ-centered (and all that implies) church fellowship.

My problem is this -- I can't find that anwhere! And because of that, I am like a thirsty man in the desert (pardon the pun, given my present living locale) -- my heart is crying out a place to come to know a sense of true commitment to Christ. What does a truly committed man look like? How can I emulate them? Where are they?

So the tone and tenor of my comments and questions today was strong -- strong not in personal anger per se, but strong in frustration that my walk of faith is stalled; unable to move because there appears nobody from which I can draw guidance and counsel.

I feel terrible for having come across so strongly. I need to supress such things.

I suspect I'm not alone in this. My cousin speaks of something akin to this. And I've met more than a few intelligent men, seeking God, who are stifled by the utterly uncompelling nature of contemporary "Christianity."

Note: a best-selling book in America right now is called "Your Best Life Now." It's written by the pastor of 30,000-member strong "mega-church" in Houston. It's pure drivel -- watered down Christian sentiments about "love" and "joy" derived through simply wishing to be loving and joyful. Jesus plays little to no role in this -- it's all about the person, not God himself. I can see why that church is 30,000 strong ... Oprah Winfrey has millions of viewers for the same reason -- it's easily-digestible sugar air puffs, nothing more.

Perhaps there's a lesson deep within all this ... about trust and patience. Perhaps. The question that burns in my heart is this ... is there the possibility of me backsliding right away from Christ while I wait? Please, Lord ... no.