A Hint at Cornerstore #6

As I mentioned in my e-mails, I'm presently reading a book by Dr. Dallas Willard called, "The Divine Conspiracy." A few weeks back I finished a more recent work of his called, "Renovation of the Heart."

One of the things Dr. Willard points to as a great trouble with contemporary Christianity is the tendency among some to claim salvation through faith in Christ, yet display little if any real change in their lives to show for it. He argues that the "Kingdom of God" is not to be entered and enjoyed after our death, but rather right now. His argument is that we are called to be Christ's disciples, to strive earnestly to conform ourselves to the image of Christ, to "put on the character of Christ" in our present-day selves.

I've been pondering all this quite a bit for the last several weeks. There's a real tension here -- between "faith" and "works":

• Faith without works is "dead" according to James ... in other words, someone who claims faith in Christ but shows no external manifestation of that faith probably isn't truly trusting in Jesus.
• Works without faith is simply trying to work out my salvation on my own.

One of the things that's been tossing around in my mind for some time is this: the solution can't be a compromise between the two extremes. That would be a lukewarm faith mixed with a half-hearted display of works. Neither is effective; combined it amounts to little.

The ideal is a full measure of both -- a person deeply committed to Christ and showing that through their everyday actions and deeds.

The problem is this: how many people do you know like that? I know none.

But that's what Willard is getting at in "Renovation of the Heart" -- that our objective while alive in this life is to commit ourselves to be real disciples of Christ, to truly "follow" him (and his example), and to grow each day in that role as disciple.

That's more or less the message of my Cornerstone #6 -- "Man's Response." When I first started the cornerstone series, I envisioned #6 as what should be the response of someone who has truly contemplated the sorry state of their sinfulness and compared it against the gift of salvation through Christ. And I could think of no other response than deep, humble gratitude.

So why is it so hard? Is it because we're all not really Christians? I'd hesitate to venture that conclusion. Willard argues in "Renovation of the Heart" that we are unable to simply "will" ourselves to faithful obedience because there's more to our makeup than our will. Our will is one piece, but not the total mechanism. And if the other pieces aren't aligned to God as well, then simply exerting our will is likely to result in failure.

I can attest to the validity of that statement.

So I don't really have much argument with the basic thrust of Willard's argument. One thing troubles me, though ... his focus is so far removed from inherent sinfulness of man and salvation through Christ and Christ alone that I wonder ...

• Does he not believe that Christ is the only way?
• Or does he simply presuppose true saving faith in the work of Christ, and then get on to the issues of growing in Christ after that?

I'd like to believe the latter. I'm still pondering it and reading his writings with a keen eye.'

In any event, that's what is animating my heart right now ... I know that there are elements of my mind, my thoughts, my feelings, closely held images of myself and others ... that simply can't remain forever. They are too limiting and destructive. I honestly don't believe I can change them on my own, but I honestly believe that God can. Somewhere in the middle of all that is a cooperative and increasing surrender of myself to Christ, with the expectation (hope?) of his healing Spirit making the necessary changes to things beyond my reach.

That's my post for this evening.

"Frictionless Toilet?"

Oh, do tell ... what part of a toilet do you feel has a problem with friction? At the (very great) risk of getting too crude, two things come to mind:

1. Friction where human flesh meets toilet
2. Friction where water and "other things" attempt to make their way south

Would I be correct in guessing you mean #2?

Woah

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1312

This will inevitably lead to a whole bunch of applications. We may even see the perfectly frictionless toilet in our lifetimes! Who knows??

Welcome back buddy.

"Out of Pocket"

As the American lingo goes ... I'll be far, far away from computers for a bit. On "vacation" in our parlance, "holiday" in yours. On a cruise from Vancouver, British Columbia to Anchorage, Alaska. Lots of trees, water, mountains and glaciers. Quite a departure from the desert of southern Arizona.

Ironically enough, it's been raining "cats and dogs" (another American phrase) here for the last few days. We had 1.5" of rain in a short period of time the other day. So much so, in fact, that rain got into the "boot" of my car, filling the spare tire well with about 2" of standing water!

Take care, deep.thought!

Technology in 1966

The original Star Trek needs to be given a bit of latitude, given it was produced in 1966. I give them credit for not having silly human-like robots and spaceships that emit a flame that looks a lot like a cigarette lighter. They did some things quite well -- small plastic cards that served as memory cards (envisioning flash memory) and hot women in mini-skirts. Oh, wait ... that last example really doesn't have much to do with technology, does it?

I didn't realize one of the spin-off series was set in a time before TOS. Shows how much I know.

Somewhere, long ago, I had read something written by Gene Roddenberry, the producer of the Star Trek franchise, and he alluded to gravity "being maintained" on the ship, but offered no explanation. The use of super-dense "plates" to create gravitational pull makes some sense. But here's a question for you, Mr. Science Man ...

When gravity is being maintained, and the plates somehow have enormous mass that creates the artificial gravitational pull, it would presumably mean the entire ship's mass would be greatly increased. What effect would that have on the ships propulsion systems? Would it then take proportionally more thrust to move the ship?

There's a writer for one of my right-wing-rant sites (www.nationalreview.com) that insists that the Holodeck was a device invented for the show because the writers were running out of ideas. This writer -- Jonah Goldberg -- insists that any episode that used the Holodeck as its main plot device was an episode where the writers were just lazy. His thesis was that in the Holodeck the writer could be unconstrained by reality, and therefore just do crazy things.

Even in TOS they had the ability to transport at least from the bridge of the ship. And I think they had the capability of transporting from and to places without the transporter being involved, but perhaps it would be akin to me FTP-ing a file up to the mainframe and you FTP-ing it down to your server.

I can't believe we're seriously discussing Star Trek transporter mechanics! :-)

Another mystery from TOS:

After the Federation "acquired" (read: "stole") the cloaking device from the Romulans, you'd think they'd reverse engineer the thing and provide cloaking technology for the entire fleet ... yet we never saw that. Why?

That's enough for now ... :-)

Space, the final frontier

I get confused with Star Trek technology as there have been so many different series, each in different centuries that it's hard to remember what is and isn't available to a particular crew.

In a recent episode of "Enterprise" that I saw, Captain Jonathan Archer was floating in the shower and an ensign reported that the "gravity plating on E deck" had failed. Maybe this is some technology they got from the Vulcans whereby when passing a current through a material it behaves like a massive sheet of material and you gravitate towards it?

The personal tracking beacon is also confusing. From space in Enterprise (100 years prior to The Original Series (TOS)) they can detect life signs of their crewmen and beam them up. Did they lose this technology in TOS?

Plus in The Next Generation (TNG - 100 years after TOS) they all had badges that doubled as communicators and anyone wearing these badges could be identified and beamed up, almost achieving technological par with Enterprise 200 years earlier.

One thing that puzzled me is in TNG they are always beaming people "directly from the bridge" to somewhere or another. Why bother going to the transporter room when you can beam someone from A to B where neither A or B is the transporter room?

I liked the "transporter badge" that was introduced in the last movie (Movie 10 - Nemesis), where you don't need a transporter room at all, the badge is the transporter.

All in all Star Trek was wonderful. TOS looks a bit dated now, with Spock looking down some tube with a blue light coming out of it ...

Star Trek: Technical Difficulties Unexplained

I just finished watching a DVD of one of my favorite Star Trek original series episodes ... "A Piece of the Action." A planetary society builds its entire framework after the Chicago mobs of the 1920's, all because of a book on that subject is left behind by an earlier Federation ship.

http://www.treknation.com/episodes/tos/season2/a_piece_of_the_action.shtml

The story is pure camp, but I love the dialog and the acting of Anthony Caruso as Bela Oxmyx and Vic Tayback as Jojo Krako.

Now, here's the topic thread ... Star Trek never tried to fully explain away all things in the show. For instance, how exactly did they maintain gravity in a ship where no rotational structure was present? (As opposed to, for instance, the ship "Discovery" in 2001: A Space Odyssey.)

So here's a new topic thread ... what are some other "technical difficulties unexplained" in the original Star Trek episodes? I'll start ...

Personnel Location Devices

The Enterprise was a very sophisticated ship. The Federation had very sophisticated technology. Why is it, then, they did not have each member of the crew embedded with a location device so that when they got into a jam they could just be transported away? Episode after episode a crew member somehow worked their way into jeopardy where a simple transport back to the ship would have solved the problem ... but they couldn't locate the person to beam 'em back. Their Tricorders and Communicators were small devices, so clearly they had the ability to construct small things. Why not, then, an implated beacon device?

Intercessory Prayers

Interesting you should raise the issue of intercessory prayers. That was the topic of today's after-service study session. We were reading a summary of a work by Douglas Steere. It was a challenging read mostly because Steere was operating at a level beyond what I can understand. It appeared that he was suggesting that intercessory prayer is as much for the person doing the praying as the one for whom the prayer is meant.

The whole notion of intercessory prayer is challenging logically. On the one hand, we have to believe that there's some value in doing so, otherwise why bother. Yet on the other hand, we can't really entertain the notion of "changing God's mind" on some matter through our prayers. Therefore, how does it work? Why are we called to pray on behalf of others? Does God "need" those prayers to operate? (Answer: "No")

I don't know ... challenging stuff. But one thing that the editor of the compilation book -- Richard J. Foster -- wrote that I think ties back to our discussions: "Here, then, is a penetrating test of our devotion: if we do not pray for people -- truly pray for them -- how can we say that we love them?"

Do you remember our earlier discussions about "loving our neighbor" and, more difficult, "loving my enemy?"

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Thanks for your views on those questions. I don't know the answers but my opinion would be:

Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?

No. Because there appears to be uncertainty built into the Universe. Some call it probability, some call it statistics. Building in uncertainty is a really neat trick. It comes from small things, the realm of quantum physics, it spreads itself around into large events, like tossing a coin, or shaping a cloud, or being conscious. In fact I would go as far as to postulate that probability is probably a necessity for free will to exist. Given it's time again, the Universe may have turned out similar to this one, but not exactly the same.

If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. (emphasis added)

Another reason why I answered "no" to 1.

Does He?

I really don't know. As a Christian of course I believe He does, otherwise I would not bother praying, but that is a Faith thing. I've been asking for my leg to be healed for the last three years, and for a good Christian friend to be released from her paraplegic condition for the last two years but these things have yet to come to pass. Faith keeps me asking.

The Blind Watchmaker

First, you should know that my use of term ex nihilo was like that of a parrot ... I heard it used in the context of God creating the universe "out of nothing" and the term stuck in my head. Latin? I don't know how to spell the word.

* * *
You asked several questions, all good ones:

1. Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?
2. If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. (emphasis added)
3. Does He?

The first question gets to whether God allowed for variation to work its way into his creation. Let's leave the question of life out of the equation for the moment ... what about natural formations? For example, if the whole of the universe could be reset back to the initial conditions, would the moon's craters be exactly as we see them today? What a great question! I honestly don't know. The Bible seems to speak of God being knowing even the tiniest of details ... even the number of hairs on your head (Luke 12:7).

The second question has a slightly different flavor to my eye ... is it that God set his universe in motion and then, as the trajectory of it became more evident, God was required to intervene and correct the path? To this I would say no ... things that limit God or suggest that God is somehow imperfect send up warning flags in my mind.

The third question is different again still ... assume that God provided for diversity and outcome, and assume that the path and direction of things are known to God. Does he still intervene in the workings of his mechanical model? And the answer to that is "yes" -- these are "miracles," properly defined. (As opposed to "miracle" meaning something that can't presently be explained.) The grand miracle of all time was the incarnation -- the intersection of our reality and the spiritual reality of God himself.

* * *

Of course, I answered all those questions with a bias ... I am inclined to believe in the theological framework of God that I've come to understand. I didn't make it up ... it's the framework developed long ago and simply passed down and refined.

* * *

What about you? What are your thoughts on those three questions?

* * *

It's raining again in Tucson. :-)

Like clockwork?

You wrote:

The ex nihilo argument is addressing the former -- the "where did the universe come from?" question. But once created, where did life come from, and is it likely it developed as we see it today out of purely random forces?

Good question. And I'm pleased to see you using the correct Latin terms, you without a classical education and all :-) I guess this is along the lines of the blind watchmaker theme?

Note: I did not benefit from such an education either!

The thing that struck me here is that the four known forces that we've discovered in the Universe are not purely random in their nature. So is the question really:

"Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?"

If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. Does He?

Obedience

The word "obedience" is fraught with potential peril, that's for sure. What I have interpreted that statement as meaning is this: God reveals himself more and more to those who earnestly seek him. The merely curious get but a small taste and little more. Seeking God implies being obedient not only to the will of God -- difficult to discern -- but also to aligning one's life to him through sincere practice of things like prayer, kindness, gentleness, etc.

The common analogy is that of a sports coach and child. On any school team, there are children who are only curious about a given sport, and pay only scant attention to the coach. They run some of the drills, but only half-heartedly. They hear the words the coach is saying, but do not really take them to heart. But then there are some children who earnestly wish to do well at the sport, and they listen very carefully to what the coach is saying. They strive very hard to put into practice the things the coach is teaching. They trust that the coach knows what he's talking about, and knows that only through steadfast practice will the things being taught become second-hand reflexes rather than awkward attempts at the grace of the sport.

This presupposes that the coach is to be trusted. And of course there are probably many children who never realized their full potential because the coach they had did not know how to extract the full potential. But in the case of the Christian faith, the coach is Christ himself. And if I can't trust Christ, then I need to go back to the fundamentals and explore my ideas about Jesus.

Look ... I know the challenges of really believing this stuff is difficult. There are many days I look at this and find it all just a bunch of hooey. But then I focus in on it and some of the clarity comes through the mist. Some might call that brainwashing ... I don't agree with that assessment, but I know that I probably can't persuade someone out of that viewpoint. Unless I behave in a way that is truly different ... strikingly different ... where the outside observer sees the way I conduct myself and the way I treat others and asks themselves, "What is it about him?" And then, given the chance to answer, the answer is "Jesus Christ."

* * *
As for the "what came first" question ... I see your point. If the universe truly was created ex nihilo, then it necessarily begs the question whether God himself was created ex nihilo as well. And if one throws down the trump card of "No, God is eternal," then the counter argument is, "Well, then why can't the universe also be eternal?" Reply: "Just because."

You're missing the essential point of my argument: I'm saying it ... therefore it must be true! :-)

I'm just kidding, of course.

Honestly, I see your point.

It occurs to me that perhaps there's another level of misunderstanding that takes place when people consider the "Intelligent Design" thesis, and it is this: there is a difference between the initial creation of reality, and the development of our present reality. The ex nihilo argument is addressing the former -- the "where did the universe come from?" question. But once created, where did life come from, and is it likely it developed as we see it today out of purely random forces?

The initial creation of the universe debate necessarily requires (to my eye) that something be eternal. If indeed "in the beginning" there was truly nothing, then nothing there would still be. We face two coices: God is eternal, or the universe itself is eternal.

Note: Why not both eternal? Logically that's possible. But from a theological point of view that begs the question whether God has sovereignty over something he did not create. That's a discussion for another time, over a game of chess down at the pub.

It's the second issue -- the development of our present reality -- where the ID debate really is, I think. (Particularly if you read some of the stuff coming out of www.discovery.org -- the scientific proponents of the ID debate.) Their argument is not so much the initial creation through divine means, but rather the mechanics of developments over time since that point. So we see discussions on the uniqueness of the positioning of our planet within the universe, the "irreducible complexity" discussions, and the philosophical debates over where something like our self-awareness came from if indeed we are the product of pure chance.

I'm not smart enough to follow all the points or effectively argue them. Honestly, I'm not. I think the arguments are interesting, and I'm happy to see the debate. But as we've discussed many times, even these discussions will not logically lead one to conclude "... therefore, Jesus Christ." The Christian faith is not based entirely on scientific evidence. But nor is it devoid of any rational supporting evidence.

* * *
The act of joining the church involved going to a half-day class where they reviewed the criteria for joining the church (faith in Jesus Christ) and the government of the Presbyterian Church (a form of representative democracy). There will be a ceremony next Sunday where we're welcomed into the church family.

Being a member of a church is not, of course, a strict requirement of the faith. But there is a notion in my mind that if I wish to be serious about this faith, and my commitment to the "body of Christ" (the church ... lower-case "c" meaning the corporate collection of believers) then I need to make a gesture of commitment. It's a personal thing.

God is above all religions

The weather sounds quite cosy out there pal.

You wrote;

"God does not reveal himself to the curious, but to the obedient."

A good thing to aim for but as we have discussed - this is unachievable - it is not possible to be absolutely true to the New Covenant. Relatively true yes. I suspect that it is far more common for God to have "revealed" himself to people that have brainwashed themselves into that belief - rather than those whom God has actaully revealed Himself to.

Such a modus operandi is also fraught with danger, Islam has a similar tenet, and yet those that follow it find that they have lost eternal salvation. My point is that one has to ask one's own questions when following any leader. In an earlier foray I believe that we agreed that one can never be 100% sure of anything. Danger Will Robinson!

On the intelligent design debate you wrote:

Are you suggesting that God is himself a created being?

My point is that many Christians use the argument "this must have all come from somewhere" as an argument that a creator exists. But when asked who created the creator they forget about their initial argument, falling back upon, "God is eternal it says so in The Bible". I don't know how they can think both of those things (a bit like you not understanding how a Christian could possibly sign up for non-intelligent design). If one subscribes to the non-intelligent-design theory then this conundrum is avoided. I prefer the intelligent design theory and I cannot satisfactorily answer my own question as to "who created The Creator" so I must have Faith that it happened somehow. Was God the chicken or the egg or both I just do not know, I really hope that my consciousness finds that out one day.

I cannot answer your question above either, by definition you could mandate that The Creator was eternal, then everything is ok. Looking at the words in The Bible, Yahweh seems very powerful indeed, He has the power of life and death and can transmute energy into matter etc. He does seem rather less than I might expect from a The Creator though, for a start he is interested in some tiny planet, and some little people that live on it. And he has a name "Yahweh" - this doesn't bode well for The Creator. He suffers from human weaknesses like anger and seems trapped in the timeline along with the rest of us. He's interested in us, which doesn't tie up with all the bad things that are allowed to happen. There are many religions that have been allowed to proliferate.

To me all logic points to Yahweh being an incredibly powerful technologist with an agenda for power. BUT I refuse to believe what my logic is telling me, I prefer to follow my emotions and say that Yahweh is The Creator and try to follow and love him nonetheless. This is what Faith is all about - in my opinion. When I follow my Faith, rather than my logic, I feel much better. This is why I am very anti those Christians who argue for Christ on a logical basis, I have looked deeply into that argument and I do not like it.

My logical mind draws me inexorably to the following startling conclusion:

God is above all religions.

PS: What does "officially" joining a Church entail? Do you have to sign something? Is there an exchange of money/goods etc. Congratulations !

Rain in the Desert

Right now it's raining in Tucson. It's the "monsoon season" here, and pretty much every day it rains. But the storms are very localized, and often very intense. It's quite a sight -- the sun, still very much present, cuts through the dark rain clouds, and rainbows pop up everywhere.

* * *
So much to respond to in your last post! Let me take a crack at some of them:

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and besides, even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26, LITV)

This is a very challenging passage. As I've come to understand this, this is Jesus using a bit of hyperbole, which was (as I understand it) a common form of rhetorical speech in ancient times, particularly by the Jews. What Jesus is doing is emphasizing the critical importance of putting him first, to the exclusion of everything else. He is saying that if someone comes to him claiming to be his disciple, that someone has to get his allegiances properly sorted out. Jesus does not want disciples who view him (Jesus) as second or third in the priority list. He comes first ... and only then come the others listed above. The use of the word "hate" in that passage is jarring, but if one takes it as a rhetorical tool and not a literal command to hate one's own family, then the overall passage starts to make some sense. At least that's how I've come to understand that passage.

* * *

Each to his ability and each to his needs? Or, are all Christians equal but some are more equal than others?

There are differences in the degree and manner in which different Christians manifest their faith. Heck, all I need do is look around me and see that. But I think that's the whole process of life -- allowing the Spirit to take more and more control of our lives so that we become increasingly conformed to the image of Christ himself. That's the message of the book Pilgrim's Progress, and that's the theme of many of Paul's epistles.

I'm reminded of this from the mouth of Jesus:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27, MKJV)

This, I think, is what the Risen Christ (in Revelation) was getting at regarding those who are neither cold nor hot -- God knows what is in our hearts, and those who are simply half-hearted in their submission to Christ as Lord are like the Pharisees -- perhaps outwardly "righteous," but inside only lukewarm. They are like "whitewashed tombs" -- touched up and looking nice on the outside, but still a place of death on the inside.

Note: the comparison is faulty because the Pharisees were actually quite outwardly religious. The indictment here is what was going on inside. A lot of "lukewarm Christians" of today are neither -- outwardly no different from the unsaved, inwardly only half convinced of the truth of Christ.

I'm reminded of something I read in a Bible Study workbook, something that really stuck with me:

"God does not reveal himself to the curious, but to the obedient."

The question for me is: am I merely curious, or am I willing to put Christ first and be truly obedient? God knows what's in my heart. I pray he convicts me of whatever lukewarm-ness.

* * *

You wrote:

The general lack of belief in Jesus is more to do with the lack of evidence of Him I believe. Yes maybe science has helped close our eyes to Him.

Certainly the lack of convincing, first-hand proof of Christ's claims does hinder us. That was Thomas' problem:

Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing. And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed. (John 20:27-29)

Note: darn it ... what is the rule for possessive when a person's name ends in "s" -- should that be Thomas' or Thomas's?

But even with first-hand proof some will not believe. Judas was of the inner circle, and he did not believe. (Yes, I know that he had committed suicide prior to the resurrection, but Peter confessed Jesus as "the Christ" before the crucifixion -- Matthew 16:15-16).

I think science has definitely "raised the bar" for us, making us less likely to accept things that evidence suggests quite likely is true, but for which positive proof is lacking.

* * *

As for the issue of Intelligent Design and my claim of the refutation of that being incompatible with Christianity ... what I was getting at is that by refuting the notion of there being a creator one must (I think) necessarily be subscribing to a universe that simply is. In other words, if there is no designer, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no Christianity. Ergo, for a Christian to refute the general concept of creation being the work of God, then by my thinking that necessarily means a refutation of God himself.

Note: my guess is that what's really going on is this -- Christians who refute the concept of "Intelligent Design" are really refuting the literal account in Genesis of the six days and the creation of man in one fell swoop. They're holding to the concept of evolution, but not seeing that "in the beginning" all this stuff had to come from somewhere. Or perhaps seeing, but not tying that to their understanding of "Intelligent Design."

What I'm not clear on is your statement: "which intelligence created God?" One of the central tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith structure is the notion of God being eternal, not created, self-existent outside all other powers. An almost impossible concept to truly grasp, I'll grant you. But if the door is opened to wonder if God himself is created, then necessarily something is greater than God. And the theological house of cards comes tumbling down if that's the case.

Are you suggesting that God is himself a created being?

* * *

You wrote:

But then I got to thinking that I do actually like most people and wish to get to know them. And don't we all have a right to choose our friends? But no, a Christian must love everyone ... that's hard to do - as "miserable old b'stard" syndrome sets in, I am beginning to appreciate that more and more.

Ah ... you're in good company on this score, my brother. I must confess I simply do not fully understand how to do this. I've heard some preachers explain it like this: "You may find other Christians to be quite irritating, but you must still love them." Okay, what does that mean? How can I be irritated with someone and still love them? Honestly, I just don't get it.

* * *

Today I officially joined St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. This is the first time in my whole life that I am officially a member of a church. Why Presbyterian? No reason, especially -- I don't find the denominational differences to be worth arguing over. But when I first visited that church a year ago, I heard the name of Jesus Christ preached without hesitation, and I found that particularly refreshing. A lot of churches try to soften the message by referring to "God" but not "Jesus Christ." I don't like that ... the name "God" is too vaporous in this modern age. So when I heard the preacher unapologetically use the name of our Lord with conviction, I felt there was something here. I pray I've found a church home.

Recent contributions

Thanks for your appends this week!

+++ On "Discpleship" +++

On the "great calling" mentioned in Matthew 2:19, it's interesting that Jesus told his disciples to make discples of others - but we assume that those second generation discples must they themselves convert others. Not an unreasonable assumption, but still an assumption nontheless.

Reading your preferred Luke 14, I noticed in 26:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple

What is that all about? How can hate be a necessary prereq to becoming a discple of Jesus when the message is all about Love (see: New Covenant commandment #2).

That Revelation scripture you pointed at is indeed sobering, reading on to 3:17 - this one resonates a great deal to me and we often do realize this as our lives draw to a close, but I believe that to live in the conscious knowledge of it is not healthy. Certainly not healthy without a saviour anyway:

You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

You also wrote in that same append:

As I mentioned, I am not this type of Christian.

Isn't it odd that there are different "types" of us Christians? And of course there are. There are pastors and congregation for instance and Church Elders and sheep. Each to his ability and each to his needs? Or, are all Christians equal but some are more equal than others?

+++ On "Comment?" +++

Spot on, thanks for that reference. Yes the "club" atmosphere of Christian Fellowship groups and Sunday outings to the Church is something I have commented on before. English middle class comfortable tea parties. A long way away from Beirut on a Saturday night, or children starving in Africa. I think original article goes a bit far, if children were jeering at a funeral this is down to their lack of education from their parents, not the Church. The general lack of belief in Jesus is more to do with the lack of evidence of Him I believe. Yes maybe science has helped close our eyes to Him.

+++ "Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design" +++

Here you asked:

Honestly ... I'm not trying to assert one position or another ... I'm just trying to understand how someone can be both at the same time. Logically, they seem incompatible.

If one is a Christian and one refutes ID then one is saying that Yahweh has no intelligence. Or, that when He designed the Universe, he did so without using any intelligence. Maybe Yahweh indeed did use zero intelligence when designing the Universe, after all who can know the mind of God?

For us normal Christian mortals though, we would expect that He did indeed use intelligence to create the Universe. BUT, if one does buy into ID, the one thing Christians cannot answer, to my satisfaction anyway is, "which intelligence created God"? If one does not buy into ID then one does not have to answer this question, which I think is why a lot of people do not subscribe to ID, to avoid this question.

+++ On "Miscellaneous stuff " +++

The article, and your post contained ..

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs ...

I think this is too wide ranging. I often take the side of science when it predicts things successfully, and I always remember that science expouses theories. I am not happy with the multiverse theory for instance, because there is little evidence for it. I am happy with Bernoulli's equations, and so is everyone (little do they know it) who at this moment is flying in an aircraft! If the author is a Christian then I could easily say back to him ..

We take the side of Jesus and The Bible despite the patent absurdity that there is a watching and caring Father when babies die of cancer and 300,000 people die in a Tsunami.

Earlier we agreed that these things are part of the mystery. I think it's best not to argue in such a fashion against something that you do not happen to agree with, due to a lack of understanding of it (which I believe the author is doing).

And yes it is nice to have structure in the working day, but maybe the office environment for one day a week is enough, I really do get much more done at home, but maybe this is just how I like to work so assume everyone else does too?

In a previous post you mentioned a CS Lewis (I think) story where in the afterlife everyone moved further and further away from eachother - didn't want any contact etc. I was shopping in Tesco's today and thought that maybe I was becoming like that. I am starting to put people into boxes and thinking "I don't want to be friends with that person" (this particular individual was talking in a very loud voice to another person with regards to directions to a particular place. They both seemed agressive, had lots of tatoos, and were disrupting my harmonious shopping experience).

But then I got to thinking that I do actually like most people and wish to get to know them. And don't we all have a right to choose our friends? But no, a Christian must love everyone ... that's hard to do - as "miserable old b'stard" syndrome sets in, I am beginning to appreciate that more and more.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Two things:

From a column titled, "The intelligent design bogeyman" --

Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. … materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050805.shtml

I always kinda-sort suspected as much.

* * *
From the column you pointed me to today, where the author was suggesting that the free-wheeling world of unstructured startups was the preferred model. One thing that struck me was that there are many people who simply can't operate in an unstructured environment. To some degree I am like that ... working from home has exposed this to me. So while it may be true that the office model he deplores has its downsides, for many it's a necessity -- a needed physical separation of work and home and a place where they can find comfort in the structure and routine.

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

Here's an interesting article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508030811.asp

We've had the discussion of "Intelligent Design" vs. "Evolution" before. The thing that I simply can't understand is this: I've read articles by people who claim to be Christians, but who heatedly refute Intelligent Design. For the life of me, I can't see how that's possible. At best that suggests the "blind watchmaker" view of deity, which is utterly incompatible with the Christian worldview.

Honestly ... I'm not trying to assert one position or another ... I'm just trying to understand how someone can be both at the same time. Logically, they seem incompatible.

Comment?

From National Review Online:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_31_corner-archive.asp#071552

* * *
... the Church of England itself that is to blame for Britain losing its historic faith. By abdicating its role as moral shepherd in favor of a "modern" political role from the 70s on (in order to fill those pews, it thought, that were never particularly full in the first place), the Church left a vacuum. Other churches were not able to fill this because the Church was so interwoven with English life that they could not replicate the role it played, which was as much social as religious. So the 70% of British people who say they believe in God (a consistent figure through polls and the census) are left without adequate instruction in what that should mean in day-to-day life. There is a vast market there that the Church could tap, if it was willing. Sadly, it is not. Peter Hitchens, Christopher's conservative brother, is especially good on this in his masterpiece The Abolition of Britain, where he also points out what the "abolition of hell" means:

Almost all Anglican churches now seem to be for enthusiasts only. Few but the most determined dare enter, and many of these churches take the form of a club, unintentionally exclusive, utterly unconnected with the world outside, by tradition, language or anything else. Many young children entirely deprived of a tradition passed on without thinking by twenty previous generations have no idea at all of what goes on in churches...Children at a primary school in the Isle of Wight were spoken to sharply by their teachers in 1996, after they had mocked and jeered at a passing funeral. Nobody had told them that death demanded respect. And in a world where blinds are not drawn down, and there are no hats to doff as the hearse goes by, how were they supposed to learn and what does it matter anyway?

He summarizes:

Our religion, such as it is, has abandoned the only territory where it could not be challenged - the saving of souls, and given up troubling our individual consciences. Instead, it has joined in the nationalization of the human conscience, so that a man's moral worth is now measured by the level of taxation he is willing to support, rather than by his faith or even his good works. Other tests - opposition to apartheid or General Pinochet - are valued more highly than personal adherence to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. An adulterer, with the correct view on Nelson Mandela, is preferable to a Mother Teresa who fails to criticize the currently unfashionable regimes of the world.

As the King James Bible put it, Jesus wept.

* * *
From your vantage point, would you say that's a fair assessment?

Discipleship

Oh, goodness ... there are so many things in Scripture that point to Jesus calling us to be disciples of his -- specific passages and broad themes. There is, of course, the "Great Commission" found at the end of Matthew: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20a)

I prefer the powerful message in Luke 14:25-35. The message of these passages is that the commitment to Christ must be total -- not some comfortable compromise. So many people who claim to be Christians are really half-hearted ... and I would include myself in that accounting.

Note: There's a frightening passage in Revelation where Christ is dictating a letter to the church of Laodicea: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold, or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

This theme of total commitment to Christ is echoed through Paul's epistles. (Paul was a living example of this ... all the way to death.) Many other Christian writers have touched on this message of complete surrender to Christ and living completely submitted to the will of the Spirit.

As I mentioned, I am not this type of Christian. My commitment is weak. Part of the problem is because I have no role model to look at and say, "There ... there's a picture of a true Christian." But I can't rest on that. Most of my problem is one of lack of trust, lack of true belief, and perhaps most important -- I've really not developed a prayer life capable of allowing myself to hear God speak to me. How can I know what God wants of my life if I never take the time to listen?

The Spirit has been convicting me a great deal of late ... He is telling me to seek God's direction, and to do so humbly and patiently. What that will mean for me I really can't say. But I know I want to follow (though I am afraid).

I probably didn't answer your question. I don't really have an answer, other than "I don't know, but I yearn to find out."

Discipline

Sir, you wrote that Jesus wants us to:

Turn from your sins and follow me in discipleship

Ok on the first part, on the turning away from breaking God's law, but what does "following Jesus in discipleship" mean? For the majority of us it seems to mean carrying on with our daily jobs, whatever that may be. Maybe go to Church at the weekend, we (you and I) certainly don't do what the disciples did. I guess if we did what the disciples did we would have to leave all we have (including our wives, one of which I don't have :-) and I am not suggesting for one minute that you should leave the lovely Mrs. Bagwell) and "go on the road".

Remember what Dilberts Daddy said?

"Four billion people SAY they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions."

I don't do this. From your reading of scripture, and that eidetic memory of yours, where does it say we are called to discipleship?

Is it a direct commandment (not one of the 10) from Jesus, or Man's assumption that this is how we should act (like the disciples)?