Who You Callin' a Buddhist?

Sorry to hear about your leg and your ear. I can't imagine what it would be like to have persistent pain like that. I can only extrapolate, based on minor pain endured for a short time.

* * *
You wrote:

You've said twice recently words to the effect of "accept what is" or "what will be, will be". This strikes me as very Buddhist and not Christian at all. What are you up to buddy? :-)

No, I'm not going Buddhist. What I'm getting at -- in a ham-fisted way -- is an expression of my general awareness of God's sovereignty. Christians can get themselves all tangled up in knots over The Da Vinci Code, but the reality is God is not affected by it. He is not limited, stymied or frustrated by it. People can make whatever claim they want about Christ ... but nothing they say changes the reality of Christ. He is who he is; we can't alter it.

I don't see that as a "throw my hands in the air" type of sentiment. It's really more an investment in the hope that is God as the "Rock of Ages," the "Fortress," or whatever metaphor for unchanging permanence one chooses to use.

* * *
Yeah, "brisket" is a great word, isn't it? I hadn't thought of it, but it's true!

Brisket! Brisket! Brisket!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisket

* * *
"The Simpsons" is a cultural phenomenon -- not only has it lasted 17+ years, but it has stayed current without being current -- that is, they don't rely on heavy references to current events. Passing references, yes; direct references no.

My favorite scene of all time was when Bart's dressed up as Alex from "Clockwork Orange" for Halloween. The reference to the movie and to the character was fleeting and subtle. I rolled on the floor.

* * *
I wish you could find a deeper sense of appreciation for the validity of the Bible. I continue to be amazed at the very subtle connections I find all the time. My mind is able to "see" interrelatedness and conceptual associations, though I'm not always able to articulate them. All I can say is that in the Bible I see the most amazing patterns. Remarkable interplay. No human author could do it ... I'm convinced.

That doesn't mean I'm living it, though. That's my dilemma.

Glad to be here

Tonight I am. My leg hurts to HIGH HEAVEN and I cannot hear much due to this incessant RINGING in my ears (hangover from chemo saving my life, but in the process damaging my 12th cranial nerve, in 2002), a tinitus which delivers an ear splitting b-flat note to my brain that threatens my sanity sometimes.

But today I took my daughter and five of her friends to Legoland, Windsor (her 9th birthday party) and we all had a really good time - in fact they're still at it now (23:00) - they're having a sleepover, all crammed into one bedroom in my house. At last something worked out GOOD. God has granted me an ability to entertain the mind of a child and to be natural with them. Perhaps we are most happy when we're using what God has given us?

Plus the sunset was very late and very beautiful this evening.

I just wanted to say there is no gold in my statement "My faith is weak but my knowledge strong". I was just saying that I (with much guilt to be honest) do not have faith in that what is written in The Bible is God's word. I suspect it is MAN's interpretation of God, our creator. But the message I think is sound "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself", this seems to be the great test to me. Can you keep to this commandment with what you are given to work with? With the behaviour of your fellow men and women? With the circumstances that you find yourself in? "My knowledge is strong" means that I know Jesus exists, because he helped me when no-one else could. I make the logical assumption that this is the Jesus protrayed in The Bible, otherwise I have no frame of reference for who He is.

+++

On reliance of a doctor's or expert opinion, you and I both this this is generally a crock. In fact, the reason my leg hurts to high heaven and that I am literally CRIPPLED is due to a doctor cutting a chunk out of my sciatic nerve with a tru-cut biopsy needle. This happenstance was a test of me and remains so to this day, especially THIS day when I've been walking miles on it :-)

We all rely on the messages around us, this is why advertisers spend millions, we'd do well to protect ourselves from as much of the lies as we can. "Lies to children" is what Prof. Ian Stewart posits that we tell our kids. Teachers don't even realize they are doing it half of the time.

+++

Harry Potter - there is some stupid rule going around Christian households that this is "bad" for kids due to "magic" being portrayed. Whilst the same Christian households merrily let their kids watch the Lord of the Rings movies (which Potter is but a rip-off of) as they are ok, they were written by a Christian friend of C.S.Lewis. It's all fashion and whose club you belong to.

+++

Indulge in evil to know evil? No you don't need to do that. If you find yourself treating others as you would not like to be treated then you are probably doing evil. Would you like to be killed? If not, then don't kill others. Simple.

+++

You've said twice recently words to the effect of "accept what is" or "what will be, will be". This strikes me as very Buddhist and not Christian at all. What are you up to buddy? :-)

(Eg. Christians do not accept Sin, Jesus booted out the money changers, homosexual behviour is bad, etc - the opposite to accepting what "is").

+++

Never had a beef brisket but from your description would try one, my vegetarian days are at an end it would seem. Plus I love the word "brisket"!

+++

Did I tell you that my daughter and I were working our way through "The Simpsons"? Well we just finished all 17 seasons. The quality of season 17 was outstanding. A truly amazing show, we love it!

+++

Life is too short (not to watch every episode of The Simpsons in the WORLD).

Beef Brisket

Do you know what that is? From what I can gather, it's the same cut of meat used to make corned beef. (Which, incidentally, is yummy.) Here in the United States, an in Texas particularly, it's used to make barbecue ... the brisket is slow cooked in a smoker where the temperature is something around 200 degrees F for something like 14 hours.

Have you ever had authentic Texas barbecued beef brisket?

As Homer Simpson might say, "Uhhuhhuhuh ... beef brisket." :-)

Have you seen "The Simpsons?" Is that as much a cultural force there in the UK as it is here in the US?

Indulge in Evil to Know Evil

Along the same lines as the previous post ... is it required that I indulge in evil things to know what's evil? Should I murder once so I can claim from first-hand experience that it is wrong to murder?

The Necessity to Experience

The other day, when I was up in Michigan having dinner with friends, the wife of the couple commented on her brother-in-law, a Lutheran pastor and father to a 12-year old girl. Specifically, she criticized her brother-in-law for not allowing his daughter to read the "Harry Potter" books or to see the movies. Over dinner, the wife of the couple said:

"I'd have more respect for him if he had read one of the books or saw one of the movies."

This got me thinking -- is it necessary to experience something to hold an opinion on it? If so, then it would seem to negate a long-standing human practice of relying on the testimony of others to form our opinions of things. For instance, the act of learning in school is largely the act of relying on the testimony of the teacher. Sure, I can read the book, but it is the teacher providing commentary and guided analysis that forms the opinion in my mind.

Similarly, in a medical setting I am very much reliant on the expert opinion of another -- a doctor -- for me to form an opinion, or judgment, on something such as the state of my health.

In a much less serious mode, we rely on the word of friends to decide whether or not to see a movie. If we decide to forego the movie based on the opinion of a friend, are we not deferring to the judgment of that friend?

So what is the difference with the brother-in-law pastor? Let's say -- and I don't know if this is the case -- that he had spoken with a respected friend and fellow pastor about the movies. Let's say the friend had seen it, and offered specific reasons why the daughter should not see the movie. Did the brother-in-law really do anything that different from what all of us do every day ... that is, relying on the trusted testimony of another to form a judgment, opinion, or decision?

Weak Faith, Strong Knowledge

I continue to dwell on this statement of yours. You wrote:

Right now I feel that there is little for me to have faith in, for the social club reasons we discussed. I know that Jesus exists, I have proof. I know He is always there and sometimes just out of reach, you need to cross a great distance to get to Him but He is there. My faith is weak but my knowledge is strong.

You seem to have been blessed with a strong personal proof of His existence, though during a time of terrible personal trial. Typically that would result in an abundance of faith, at a minimum in His presence and to some degree the value of crossing that distance to get to Him.

So I'm wondering ... are you perhaps defining "faith" as practices or activities that really have little to do with real trust in Christ? Given the choice between the two -- a real trust in a Jesus I encountered personally, or a slew of activities -- I'd take the former personally.

The other day I watched the last hour or so of "The Passion of the Christ." In particular I was mesmerized by the scene where the thief on the cross professed faith in Jesus as Lord. And in that simple act, beautifully portrayed on film, we see, I think, the essence of trusting faith.

My dilemma is, I think, of a different weave than yours. I have a head full of knowledge about doctrine and such. But I have little personal awareness of God, except in small glimpses at rare times. The fault is entirely mine ... I am woefully disobedient. And the "penalty" for that disobedience is not a loss of salvation but rather a continued distance from God ... a self-imposed distance.

Tell me about your understanding of faith, and how it relates to the statement that your faith is weak. I'm really fixated on this ... I think there's gold to be mined under that sentiment.

Volley Back

"My faith is weak but my knowledge is strong"

What a fascinating comment. I share that sentiment. I think a lot hinges on what we feel constitutes faith. Any thoughts in return?

Do you think ID is a good thing?

I think the debate over Intelligent Design is utterly off track and utterly silly. It too often devolves into a debate about whether Genesis is literal, or whether ID is "science," whatever in the world that means. I get frustrated beyond words reading the back and forth.

Note: not the back and forth with you, but the general back and forth I read elsewhere. Seemingly smart people falling prey to silly logic.

I think the way in which evolution is taught is scandalous. It is taught as "fact" when I don't think it can be said to be anything of the sort. You wrote, "Evolution can be seen in the lab. Evolution happens." That depends a great deal on what you mean by that, doesn't it? We've seen genetic modifications over time, but have we seen unassisted trans-species mutations? If so, please cite the reference. And if so, please define precisely what is meant by "species."

Note: I would be much more persuaded if someone could come up with an experiment in which something like a virus was able, over some period of time, to become a cell with DNA. One of the major arguments used by Intelligent Design advocates is the concept of developments that can not be incrementally developed. The whole system must be present or no part of the system could work. The development of the self-replicating DNA is one such thing, I would think. But I'm no biologist.

As I've stated many times before, my primary beef with those who favor evolution is they imply a sentient force behind evolution, though they won't admit it. Listen to their language. They use phrases like, "nature desired that such-and-such develop the way it did." Nature desired? Is nature a being?

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of evolution being the shaping force for mankind, provided it was God who created everything in the beginning, and it was God who guided things to where they are now. The idea of things happening purely "by chance" is silly. The complexity and elegance of it all is far, far, far too great for it all to be the product of pure random chance. I realize that's something that can't be conclusively proven. But neither can the idea of things "just happening" over time ... randomly, by chance. It takes far more an act of faith to believe that than it does to believe that God exists and created things.

All that said, I think the proponents of Intelligent Design would be best served to focus their attention on refuting specific support posts of the evolutionary theory, and to avoid making things overly-religious. In truth, that's exactly what they've done. But the press and the secularists know that they lose the debate quickly if the ID folks are allowed to remain in that light, so they paint them broadly with veiled threats of theocratic domination of schools and the like.

The auteurs of this saga said not to confuse entertainment with theology (or words to that effect).

Ah ... they do that now to insulate themselves. They certainly did not do that earlier when the book itself was taking hold. Then, Dan Brown was all too happy to encourage the notion that the book was based on historic fact.

I don't know if you had the shows over there, but here in the United States we had several prime time, national network "news" shows about "findings" revealed in "The Da Vinci Code." Not a word out of Dan Brown then about how it was "only fiction."

That said, I generally agree with your sentiment that God is above the movie, and that it would serve "Christians" well to simply ignore it. And it would be nice if religious people did "turn the other cheek." Unfortunately, in this day and age it's more likely that one particular religious group would slit my throat rather than allow their precious "prophet" to be portrayed in a way even a fraction of what's suggested in movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ," or the work of "artists" in the United States whose "art" is a crucifix with Jesus in a jar of human urine (and whose efforts are funded by taxpayer dollars, yet we can't have any reference to the Ten Commandments anywhere near public ground), or Madonna who mocks the crucifixion to promote her albums, or "The Da Vinci Code" which attacks the very heart of the Christian faith.

Ultimately, what is, is. By that I mean that Jesus Christ reigns over this madness with complete sovereignty, and one day there will be judgment. And on that day there will be "much wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Foundational Premise

Buddy I am so glad that you are getting better and I hope that you are enjoying your solo-time out there in Arizona.

Right now I feel that there is little for me to have faith in, for the social club reasons we discussed. I know that Jesus exists, I have proof. I know He is always there and sometimes just out of reach, you need to cross a great distance to get to Him but He is there. My faith is weak but my knowledge is strong.

+++

ID. I think this should be discussed in schools, not taught. I don't think it should be mentioned in the light of Genesis, the Qu'ran or any other religious texts. Perhaps the intelligent designer is above all religions? Do you think ID is a good thing? I would have thought yes as you are a strong Christian and ID came from the Christian lobby, I've been unable to discern your true position on ID.

+++

Evolution. Evolution can be seen in the lab. Evolution happens. Biogenesis (in the sense of a bunch of chemicals causing life) has not been seen in the lab. I don't think that we should necessarily connect the two.

+++

The Da Vinci Code. The auteurs of this saga said not to confuse entertainment with theology (or words to that effect). If I were of the view that God was not above the Religion of Christianity ("The Church") then I would be upset at this movie. But as it is, to me, this film doesn't even touch God. I'd like for religions not to attack those that attack it. I'd like all religious people to turn the other cheek please.

Life is so short.

Back in the Saddle

Is there any more romanticized image than that of a Canadian Mounted on horseback? All dressed in their resplendent red uniform?

I am back from the Canadian wilds, now safely ensconsed in my home office, listening to the sound of a power lawn mower in the next yard. It's 8:30 in the morning, but I do not mind the sound ... it brings back quite fond memories for me. It took me a bit to determine what was making the sound ... I didn't expect to hear the sound of a lawn mower in the Arizona desert. But my next door neighbor has grass in his back yard.

My trip to the north country was, as I mentioned to you, less than enjoyable due to the sudden cold snap that hit the area (daily highs only in the low 40's F) and a rather nagging illness that came upon me. My illness started out as flu-like symptoms: aches, chills, fever; it then morphed to fever, headache and a severe sore throat; then to a more classic head/chest cold. Today, some 10 days after the first onset of symptoms, I'm still suffering from the residual effect.

Ah, but this too shall pass.

My lovely bride is this day off with her mother in the heart of West Virginia. She reports it is a deep, lush green there.

* * *
The trouble with knowing whether to follow a commandment is determining if it truly is "from God." If we knew for certain that it was -- think Moses and the burning bush; think Isaiah in 6:1-7; think John in Revelation -- then I think there'd be little question as to our obedience. Of course we would, for if we really had a direct experience like that the overwhelming power of the presence of God would compel us. But what about when we're not absolutely certain? That's when Scripture tells us to "test" the vision against Scripture. And that, good friend, is anything but a precise, deterministic thing.

Note: The press has said much about George W. Bush saying he was "directed by God" to invade Iraq. That's not true; he never said that. What he said was that he sought God's guidance in all his decisions. That's something different than saying he asked God to "tell him" what to do. It's a subtle difference, one lost on secular journalists, but a difference nonetheless.

There's a good deal of depth and complexity to the topic of whether God's nature permits him to command others to die, and whether we today are ever called to be his agents in the death of others. I think it would be difficult to support on a personal level -- that is, "God told me to kill my neighbor." It is less difficult to support in the realm of governments going to war, for Scripture clearly says that all authorities on this earth are instituted by God -- good or bad authorities, I would gather, which then takes us into the deep waters of the distinction between "causing" and "ordaining."

One perspective I try to maintain is this: we exist at all only by the Grace of God. We have no inherent right to live or exist outside God's will that we do. Our not being completely destroyed is not an example of his justice but his mercy. Therefore, to think that God might command a death does not run counter to the very nature of God. But of course the idea that we are enemies of God outside the saving works of Christ is a foreign concept in this secular world.

There is within the Christian faith a very complex tension between the perfect love of God and his perfect wrath. We have tended to overlook the fact that God possesses devine wrath. It's not "gone" in the New Testament ... it's just that Jesus took the full brunt on the cross.

Note: and here's the controversial part, at least in this day and age: not everyone benefits from Jesus' saving works, but only those who truly trust that only Christ's work can save them. Those who reject Jesus will face God's wrath one day. The good news -- the Gospel -- is that all may come to Jesus. (Let's set aside the notion of predestination and the elect, okay?)

There are such "tensions". I usually get funny looks from people in Bible studies when I bring them up. I suspect some think I mean "contradiction" or "paradox" when I use the word "tension." I don't, but better words fail me.

* * *
In Bible study last Sunday I tried to express a false dichotomy that's often set up -- that one must believe the Bible to be "literal" or one must believe the Bible to be untrustworthy. Look at any secular article on the debate over "Intelligent Design" and you'll see this: they argue that to believe in ID, one must believe in the literal account of creation found in Genesis.

That the Bible must be taken as literal is one of the trickeries of the devil. Some of the Bible is literal, to be sure. Some is not. The point has never been that the Bible is literal, but that it is truthful.

The real offense of "The Da Vinci Code" is not that it suggests Jesus was married or had a child; the real offense is that it undermines the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.

And believing the Bible to be authoritative and sufficient is, ultimately, an act of faith. One chooses to believe it ... based, ideally, on something more than wishful thinking ... but ultimately the Bible as the "Word of God" is not a provable thing.

It is, as I'm fond of saying, a "foundational premise."

I heard R.C. Sproul say that the other day ... therefore it must be true. :-)

The Mounties

I trust that you are having fun up in Canada ... you still have to compare and contrast justice/mercy you know. It's 00:52 and I've just stopped working since Katherine left at 18:00 - I am crazy I know. I'd rather be disconnected somewhere for sure.

Thoughts about God this week are that He really does move in mysterious ways and we just have to trust in His plan. If God calls you to fight a war would you fight a war? This goes back to my earlier post "When your God says kill" or something like that. Should we fight, and perhaps kill, for what God says is Holy in The Bible?

Pleasure vs. Happiness

I've been thinking about this ... in particular, I've been wondering if it can be said that pleasure is a subset of happiness. I'm not entirely certain it is. I think there are some cases where pleasure is had at the expense of happiness. Certainly long term happiness. Specifically I'm thinking of the "pleasurable vices" such as narcotics, porn, gambling and prostitution. They may well produce some short-term pleasure. But it is really likely that people who engage in those things can really develop a long-term sense of happiness and contentment? I suspect not.

But that's not to say that all pleasure is detrimental to long term happiness.

Optimism vs. Pessimism

Why an Earth at all? - Great question, I hadn't extended my thoughts that far, but the question makes me feel that life on Earth is even more of a test.

You wrote:

Life might very well be a test. Or it might be an opportunity.

Could it be "both at the same time"? So maybe an "or" but not a "xor"?

You statement reminds me of the question about the glass being half empty or half full. Those that view life as an opportunity see the existence of the Earth as the glass being half full, those that view life as a test see the existence of the Earth as the glass being half empty? Whereas the "truth" of the matter is that we will probably hold both of these views at different times in our lives. In fact, we will probably hold both of these views at the same time due to the fact that our brains are quantum mechanical in nature and are thus allowed to have superimposed states.

Even the poorest, born physically handicapped, abused and killed child can have hope at some point in their sorry life, but why that child should be so - what is ithe word - "unlucky?" and another be born to say a king or queen says to me that this life is a test. My thinking now says that there can be no other reason, if there is a reason at all. After all, these evil (lack of good) things could have been avoided if we just had a Heaven, and we would not have lost anything, because anything good that comes out of this World could have also come out of Heaven, and magnified in glory an infinite amount to boot.

God allows bad things for a reason - his reasons are way above us - I consider it a mistake to think of Him as all-benevolent and all-good in the traditional sense that we think of goodness, but I am optimistic that it will all turn out ok in the end thanks to Him. Maybe that optimism is the test - no matter what all the bad things are, stay focussed that God is good and right and keep to the Golden Rule.

So what were your thoughts on the fireside debate topics justice/mercy and pleasure/happinesss?

Have fun in Canada buddy !

Why an Earth at All?

You wrote:

... if we still have Free Will in Heaven - but that we are perfected in some sense/way before we reach Heaven - then why couldn't God perfect us in this way before we reached Earth? I'm not trying to be flippant, but it's an important question to me. The fact that He did not leads me to believe that this life is some kind of test.

He could have ... He didn't. Why? I don't know.

We could extend that question ... why did God create the physical world at all? According to the Bible, God created both the physical world and the spiritual world. We live in the physical; angels and demons live in the spiritual. Why didn't he just stop with angels and demons? I have no idea whatever.

Life might very well be a test. Or it might be an opportunity. Recall the first question of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

• What is the chief and highest end of man?
• Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

This is an aspect of my faith that I've only experienced in small snippets, for a brief period of time. But the effect was marvelous. There is a serenity and peaceful enjoyment that can be had, if we really wish to achieve it. But it seems to me that achieving it can't be accomplished while simultaneously doing things that are opposed to God's desire for us. It's like you and your daughter having a wonderful and satisfying relationship if she did things to intentionally offend you. It just couldn't be done.

I am sometimes helped when I spend some time reflecting on God's right to rule as God. It doesn't mean I stop resisting. But when I focus on God's sovereign right as Creator and Sustainer to be just that, I find it less difficult to accept -- for short periods of time -- that some things simply are as they are.

Faith and Reason

You wrote:

I think we agreed a while ago that faith can be separate from reason. Like the division of church and state. One day I will get you to "If A then not necessarily A" as a real-world concept :-)

Several points:

• That's not to say that faith is without reason, or that reason is entirely divorced from faith. There are good, logical reasons to believe that the elements of our faith have valid basis. My point is that contemporary evangelical attempts to treat Christianity as some irrefutable claim is folly. By design, I believe. The Bible is too full of exhortations to believe without full proof for it to be true that one should believe only when full proof is given.
• The best analogy to this I've heard was from my present pastor, Dr. Joe Bettridge -- paraphrased: "Imagine a frozen lake. You look out across the ice and wonder if the ice is strong enough to support your weight. You see others out on the ice, so you have good reason to believe that it is strong enough. But you can't be entirely certain until you actually step out on the ice. So you tentatively step on the edge of the ice and test the strength at that point. As you gain confidence that the ice is indeed strong enough, you venture further still. That is the nature of faith."
• I will never concede on the "If A, then A" supposition. If for no other reason than to prove that I can be more stubborn than you, my friend.

I am preparing to depart for Canada this week to teach there, then up to my cottage with my friend from Michigan to open the cottage for the summer. I will smoke a few cigars, but have no vodka. Moderate beer and wine. I will send you some pictures upon my return.

I will have access to this Blog and e-mail up through Thursday of this week. Then I'll "go dark" for four or five days. :-)

Other posts coming ...

Privative

"Privative" is the word I was searching for, that which describes the absence of something, in the sense of the second entry at http://www.dictionary.net/privative , that is:

2. Consisting in the absence of something; not positive; negative

Apparently Bacon (Sir Francis I think, not Kevin) was attributed with the saying:

Blackness and darkness are indeed but privatives.

Now my best book #4 would probably have to be "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder - I can say it taught me (at a very high level) more about the history of philosophy and what each of the most prominent classical philosophers thought than any other text. I hear it is used by many philosophy undergraduates today searching for the answer to the question of "how do I get better grades?"

In that book I recall the discussion of the Platonic view, in that every real thing in this world has a perfect ideal somewhere - and a thing in this world, say "a horse" is like a cookie cutters impression of a "perfect horse" somewhere.

Taking you slightly out of context, you wrote:

A perfect vacuum is inconceivable because it would be, by definition, something that doesn't exist

Which is more along the lines of Aristotle. And, you know, scientists tend to agree with him. Due to the quantum nature of what we see around us, there is a certain amount of uncertainty around us. The Universe appears to us to be digital in nature, rather than analog, which leads to the impossibility of a perfect vacuum.

Imagine a light switch on a wall, it's one of those rotary knobs so as you turn it the light gets brighter or dimmer. We think of this as an analog process, there are an infinite number of brightness levels that can be achieved. By making smaller and smaller movements to the dial you can achieve any level of brightness. Except it doesn't work like that in "the real world". Regardless of the physical mechanism of that light switch, there will be a point where at really tiny increments of turn, the switch becomes digital. It will be a click, click, click switch as it jumps from one brightness setting to the next. What is in between the clicks no-one knows. It's not observable (and from a previous post made probably over a year ago - you'll see that I suspect that things like Heaven could be in this space between the clicks).

So we have no idea and no way to measure what is in between the clicks. In a vacuum, everything is pinned down to nothing, and that includes the bit of space between the clicks. Quantum Mechanics does not allow this - the mathematics (not the observation) says that a vacuum must be like an undulating foam, lots of virtual particles being created and destroyed in pairs. So when you look closely at a vacuum it is suspected to be something like the foam on the tip of a breaking sea wave. So modern science agrees with Aristotle on that vacuum thing - it's not nothing.

Your dagger:

Prove the validity and sufficiency of the Bible without referring to the Bible to support your position.

Killer! My answer to this of course is that I believe Jesus existed because he contacted me. I believe The Bible is our attempt to try to understand the various contacts points that God and Jesus have given humanity over the millennia.

This is why I have increasingly come to understand it is folly to argue the Christian faith as if it is a geometric proof -- if A and B, therefore C. :-)

Good ! I think we agreed a while ago that faith can be separate from reason. Like the division of church and state. One day I will get you to "If A then not necessarily A" as a real-world concept :-)

Thanks for those Bible quotes and your thoughts on the nature of Heaven. A further question is - if we still have Free Will in Heaven - but that we are perfected in some sense/way before we reach Heaven - then why couldn't God perfect us in this way before we reached Earth? I'm not trying to be flippant, but it's an important question to me. The fact that He did not leads me to believe that this life is some kind of test.

So the question in summary:

Free Will on Earth led to the fall. Free Will in Heaven will never lead to a fall. "Why is that?" Answer = "because in Heaven we are perfected". Question: "why could we not have been perfected on Earth?"

On the privative term "Atheism" Francis Bacon said:

I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.

That'll do me :-)

+++

Ah you paint a lovely picture for an open fired pipe debate my friend.

Justice and Mercy

My thoughts are that "Justice" would be meted out to a breaker of the "Treat others as you wish to be treated" Golden Rule. I wonder - do we have this rule so ingrained into ourselves that when we see it broken we want to redress the balance?

With "Mercy" isn't that about asking someone to forego their human nature? There is part of a human being (somewhere in the genes - survival of the fittest and all that) that will harm another if it is angered in some way by that other and has the power to do so. Showing mercy could be taking the choice to not harm that other person, and in so doing foregoing ones human nature. Being "civilized" in other words, being phenotypical rather than genotypical.

Could "mercy" be applied in the meting out of "justice"? I'm not sure. If one breaks the Golden Rule then one should understand that one deserves to be punished. Asking for mercy in this situation is probably not appropriate. If one does not break the Golden Rule and is still being punished, then asking for mercy seems entirely appropriate.

Note that the Golden Rule is not set by anyone above those giving out the justice or the mercy - it is set by the players themselves. A Nash Equilibrium.

Pleasure and Happiness

Lots of things make me happy. So by definition those things to me are pleasurable. I guess pleasure is of the senses and happiness is of the spirit?

Tell me your views please !

"Perfect" Vacuum

I got to thinking about your comment that there's a word for those things that are themselves best defined by the absence of something else. So I thought I'd go to my new source for such things ... Wikipedia! I looked up "vacuum."

What an utterly fascinating article.

Historically, there has been much dispute over whether such a thing as a vacuum can exist. Ancient Greek philosophers did not like to admit the existence of a vacuum, asking themselves "how can 'nothing' be something?" Plato found the idea of a vacuum inconceivable. He believed that all physical things were instantiations of an abstract Platonic ideal, and could not imagine an "ideal" form of a vacuum. Similarly, Aristotle considered the creation of a vacuum impossible—nothing could not be something. Later Greek philosophers thought that a vacuum could exist outside the cosmos, but not inside it.

So if "evil" is the absence of "good," does that mean that "perfect evil" is an abstract, unattainable thing? Does Satan possess a fractional unit of "good?"

My guess is "Yes". My reasoning is this: Satan is a created being. There is only one ultimate creator -- God. Therefore, God created Satan. Initially, Satan was good. But, given Free Will, Satan chose to drain himself of God's provided goodness. If Satan were to completely drain himself of God's provided goodness, Satan would cease to exist.

Boy, am I out of my depth now. That logical argument is probably weak on six different levels. But at its core, there must be an element of what the Wikipedia article alluded to with Plato. A perfect vacuum is inconceivable because it would be, by definition, something that doesn't exist. My head spins. :-)

Distinctions

Pull your rocking chair closer to the fire, light your pipe and discuss the distinction between the following pairs:

• Justice and Mercy
• Pleasure and Happiness
  

No, I don't have ready answers myself. I've heard some things that suggests there are important distinctions that exist. I have a vague sense.

Perfect Framework for Criticism

You know what? Sometimes I think the Christian faith is intentionally designed to offer what appears to be gaping holes in logic just so those who stubbornly insist on rebelling are given a full opportunity to do so. By that I mean this: the Christian faith has no shortage of apparent "chinks in the armour" ... places where a prideful man can point to and say, "Aha! See! A logical shortcoming!"

Important -- I am not thinking of you when I write this. I am thinking in general. I am a man who can play devil's advocate with the best of them. I see no lack of places where I could attack the faith logically. The dagger I still maintain in my sheath for those who think they can "prove" the faith is this: "Prove the validity and sufficiency of the Bible without referring to the Bible to support your position." :-)

This is why I have increasingly come to understand it is folly to argue the Christian faith as if it is a geometric proof -- if A and B, therefore C.

That's not to say the Christian faith is built on a fallacy ... far from it. What I am saying is that some of the presuppositions are not humanly evident. We are therefore left to trust -- to have faith -- that they are just so.

Perfected

You asked:

1. Is there any evil (or lack of good) in Heaven?
2. Is there any free will in Heaven? On the part of the worshippers there I mean.

I'm not that good at the doctrine and theology of Heaven. So all I can do is guess, based on other things I've heard and read. My guess is there is no evil in Heaven. It is a place where we are perfected in our sanctification and we are then allowed to stand in the presence of God. I am to understand that evil could not bear to be in that position ... I am thinking of the several instances in the Bible where people on Earth are given the opportunity to catch a glimpse of God. Isaiah's response:

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined!" For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." Isaiah 6:5, NIV, emphasis added.

John in Revelation writes:

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said, "Do not be afraid." Revelation 1:17, NIV, emphasis added.

That is the response of those who see the glory of God but who are not themselves fully "good." The chasm between the perfect goodness of God and the flawed nature of themselves is overwhelming. But, I am to understand, in Heaven we are perfected ... we take on the full righteousness of Christ and can then stand in the presence of the Lord.

Note: How then does Satan stand before God, as reported in Job 1:6? I have no idea. :-)

Is there Free Will in Heaven? I would guess yes. We would still be free to reject God ... but here's the key: we would not want to. In Heaven our will -- so weak and rebellious in this life -- would be perfected and our wants and desires would align with God's perfect wants and desires.

That, I think, is the heart of this -- there is a notion in this world that "free will" means the ability to do what we are not supposed to do. We want the opportunity to rebel if we choose to. But the idea is, I think, that in Heaven we will not want to rebel. Our hearts and desires will be so perfectly aligned with God's that our wants will be his, and the notion of rebellion will not be present.

This is all abstract stuff to me ... I am only reporting what I have come to understand, weakly, through reading and other sources. But I think I have a grasp on the essence of Heaven if not the details -- it will be a place where we finally come to possess the wants and desires that God designed us to have. One pastor once said: "What God wants is for us to really want what He wants for us." It is like you and your daughter: you want her to be happy and fulfilled, and in your wisdom you know that the best route to achieve that is to avoid things like drugs and abusive people and the like. You do your best to teach her these things, but you do not take steps to force her. Your desire is for her to want those same things.

The same, I think with God -- he is our Heavenly Father who knows perfectly well what is the best for us. And rather than forcing us to do what is best for us, he offers us the chance to learn what is best. He honestly and truly wants us to want what is best. But he does not make us.

When I think about the notion of Free Will and such, I think somewhere at the heart the purpose of free will is this: when I am given the opportunity to freely choose the gift God offers (Grace), I am in a better position to appreciate and value that gift. I don't have that notion any more fully formed than that ... but Free Will is itself a gift to us because it allows us the opportunity to enjoy God more completely. That is, if we choose to.

w.bloggar

Definitely a good answer to many of the problems with the Google web editor for blogger.

http://wbloggar.com/download.php

I can recommend it !

Free Will In Heaven?

I'm trying out a new windows (not web based) GUI tool that allows the creation of blog posts. Here is the blurb from the FAQ:

The w.bloggar is an application that acts as an interface between the user and one or more blog(s); in other words, it is a Post and Template editor, with several features and resources that the browser based blog editors do not offer.Because w.bloggar runs over the Windows GUI, it allows the user to edit posts without being connected to the Internet. Posts can be saved locally; and anytime the user wants to publish a new text, one click on the w.bloggar icon in the system tray brings up the editor, and one more click will post it to the weblog.Another great advantage of w.bloggar is that it is compatible with most of the weblog systems available, allowing an advanced user to have only one interface to several accounts hosted on several different sites, using different publishing systems.

So hopefully this post will make it to the blog server, I will say that this is a much better editor than the web based blogger editor so far !

You wrote:

... why God allowed badness to enter his creation. This, I'm sure, gets the question of free will ...

You are making the connection that evil (or the lack of good - I wish I could remember the word for those words that describe the lack of something, like "cold" is just a lack of "heat" (or movement) - this group of words is described by another word I just can't find it right now) is related to our free will. This leads me to ask the following two questions to ya:

1. Is there any evil (or lack of good) in Heaven?
2. Is there any free will in Heaven? On the part of the worshippers there I mean.

My point here is that if Heaven is an environment where we have free will BUT no evil (lack of good) happens, then evil (lack of good) is not necessarily caused by our free will.

I was thinking about this whilst washing up dishes this evening (I don't have an excuse for a dishwasher). I was thinking about all of the bad things that happen in the world and wondering how God could still let the perpetrators of them into Heaven. Then it dawned on me that if the perps repent - really repent - if they realized that they did a bad thing and then were so sorry for it, then those perps would have made a choice, a hard choice, but a choice nontheless.

It seems to me that this world, this Earth, this Universe, this place that has evil (lack of good) and free will is set up for us to make a choice. If we make the right choice then we go to Heaven, if we fail to make the right choice then we don't. It's screaming out to me, "test, test, test".

"Love thy neigbour as yourself" is very much along the lines of The Golden Rule "treat others as you wish to be treated". I'm all for it. Many of us though follow the path of "I'll treat this person as I think they want to be treated" or "I'll treat this person in this way or that because I am smarter or better than they are". I've been guilty of it of course, when I feel that way I now hopefully recognize it enough to take a hold of myself and stop. I rarely bite now when people are deliberately obtuse - or even try to provoke me - because I know they are letting themselves down, in just the same way as I let myself down when I am like that back.

Note: I've noticed that the more you don't bite the more some people try to get you to bite. It's quite funny (as in "ha ha" :-)

Yes I agree about actresses who fail to grow old gracefully, men seem to get away with it better somehow. Sean Connery was still pulling them in at 60+ for instance. And isn't Harrison Ford signed up to do another Raiders (4) of the Lost Ark?

Vegas, Casino and Evil

I live about an hour's plane trip from Vegas ... I'd guess I'm several hundred miles from it. Tucson is quite a ways to the south in Arizona, and Arizona is a big-old state.

* * *
The scene of the Joe Pesci character being beaten to an inch of his life and then buried alive took place in, I think, a Florida sugar-cane field. I could be wrong about that, but I think at least part of that movie took place in Florida. There's something about being left for dead in a remote place that deepens the sense of isolation.

* * *
I thought Sharon Stone did an excellent job in that movie. But I suspect her movie career days are over. "Basic Instinct 2", which she starred in and produced, can be, I think, officially labeled a "bomb." According to boxofficemojo.com, a site that tracks movie receipts, that movie has pulled only $5,851,188 in the US. The revenues from the rest of the world are in the $31M, with France and the UK being where it was most popular. From what I can deduce from the site, it's been pulled from distribution. We'll see it on DVD within a few weeks, I'm sure.

* * *
I'm intrigued by the notion of female actors transitioning from "young/attractive" to "mature/attractive" roles. It's a hard thing to do; only a handful pull it off well. Some that come to mind: Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep. Ones that seem to be having a particularly difficult time: Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, Demi Moore. Ones that I'll be interested in seeing if they can do it: Cameron Diaz.

It strikes me that it's more than just plastic surgery to maintain the look. There comes a point where no amount of plastic surgery can overcome the public perception that, "Hey, you've been around for a while ... I'm not really interested in seeing you try to act the role of a 20-something sex kitten." So there's a subtle shift from those kinds of roles to ones where there's more maturity. It can still be romantic, just not overtly sexual. That, I think, is why "Basic Instinct 2" didn't do well ... the thought of Sharon Stone, who is 46 I think, acting like some smoldering sex machine didn't appeal to many people. It was unseemly.

I don't like Susan Sarandon's politics, but I do like her acting. And I think she was very crafty in the way she started doing mother roles when she was in her late 40's. She successfully transitioned. She'll be doing roles well into her 60's and 70's. She may be American's Judith Densch.

* * *
Lisa and I watched "40 Year Old Virgin" last night. I'm almost ashamed to admit I found it quite funny. It was potty humor, to be sure, but there's a dark part of me that likes that when it's well done and clever.

* * *
I was listening to my man R.C. on the plane home from D.C. yesterday, and in particular I was listening to his series on God's providence -- which is one way of saying, "Why do bad things happen if God is supposed to be good?"

It is a long series, and I can't possibly due justice to the full logical argument Sproul made, but I found a couple of things interesting:

• He carefully drew the distinction between God causing something and God ordaining something. The former is by God's hand directly; the latter is by God holding his staying hand and allowing something to happen. But one thing Sproul would not compromise on was that nothing is outside God's control. The notion of God's sovereignty seems to be a fundamental theological cornerstone. I've always thought that was true ... I can't see how the framework of our understanding of God holds together if we take away even one iota of his sovereign rule over all things.
  
• He spoke of how over the ages one line of criticism has been: if God is the cause of all things, then whatever is must have come from God. Evil exists, therefore God must be the author of Evil. Sproul described how theologians over the years have addressed this by viewing Evil not as something, but rather the lack of something. God is perfectly good; Satan is without any good; therefore Satan's evilness is really defined by his lack of goodness. In one sense this is like vacuum (or darkness, or coldness), which itself is not a thing, but is rather the lack of something. This struck me as helpful. At least to me.
  

I'm entirely certain that view of things would be deeply unsatisfying to many people. It addresses the dilemma of how something bad could exist if God, who is good, created it. But it does not answer the question of why God allowed badness to enter his creation. This, I'm sure, gets the question of free will. As I've said before, I'm not smart enough to figure it all out.

* * *
I thought you'd like to see this:

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:9-10

That's your "treat others as you'd like to be treated" rule, isn't it? I was re-reading Romans on the recent plane trips and I came across that. I immediately thought of you.

Casino Redux

Well, I was almost at the end of the movie when I realised that I had seen it before ! The images of De Niro inside of his car (getting blown up) and Pesci and his brother getting beaten to within inches of death and then being buried alive in the desert rang alarm bells.

A very sad movie, in the same vein as The Godfather II/Goodfellas/Once Upon A Time In America. I think gangster movies manage to portray well what I can only describe as "the competitive element" that our genome has given us. For the reason of survial. But why survival should be something to be selected - I have no idea. Other than that we are supposed to survive to take a test.

You live quite near to Las Vegas right?

The De Niro character in the movie was most interesting to me, I used to try to control things until I realised that I can control very little. Sharon Stone acted out of her skin, her character reminded me of someone I used to know. Sharon looked much better in her 60's outfit than when her character passed on in the early 80's.

SOA, smesh-Oh-Ah :-)

Casino

Just started watching it.

De Niro just said

"and for a while, I believed that's the kind of love I had"

Classic line.

Then he got blown up.

Looks promising.

I will let you know.

As the movie looks so good, I paused it, and I have just made myself a stack of cheese crackers, (Jacobs) cream crackers, topped with a thin layer of butter, then a thin layer of cheese spread and THEN a big slice of extra stinky Stilton. I found a half bottle of port (from last Christmas) and have poured myself a generous glass into a fine cut crystal. I saw both of my girls this evening for way longer than my "alloted" time. This may well be as good as it gets. I am going to enjoy this pinnacle :-)

God is looking for the good-uns

We talked about the option of what might have been before The Big Bang and one of the things I said was that perhaps just before The Big Bang the Universe was collapsing to a point. The possibility of this was at least seconded by a recent article from Friday last. The reason that such a thing is being thought of is because of measurements taken in this Universe, Einstein's self confessed great mistake, "The Cosmological Constant" is 100x smaller than it should theoretically be.

I was discussing the possibility of such things with my daughter as we (ashamedly) drove to McDonalds this evening, and she thinks that if this is so then we are living the same life over and over again, as there is no reason why this Universe should be any different from those that came before.

Then I got to thinking that maybe that is true. And that God is waiting for us to break the cycle of what we have always done, what we did before. Some grand test that when we realise that it is a test, and what is being tested, then (and only then) do we awake from it?

Shades of why The Matrix is attractive to so many? I'm special, I worked out the answer ner ner ne ner ner ! Who knows? (and who cares?) :-)

+++

Top 3 books

1 (by a mile) Dragons Egg by Robert L. Forward. Visionary. He even manages to make an account for Jesus).

2. 2001: A Space Odyssey.

What can I say?

3. The History of The World in 10 1/2 Chapters by Julian Barnes. Exquisite. You'd like this one.

It has been pointed out by more than one reviewer that the book opens with an account of Noah and the Flood (the biblical re-creation, if not the creation of the world) and that it closes with a final chapter which envisions a contemporary form of heaven. But between chapter one's origins and chapter ten's ends the remaining eight and a half chapters do not progress chronologically. Chapter two stages a hijacking of a pleasure boat by modern Arab terrorists. Chapter three transcribes sixteenth century court records of a case in the diocese of Besançon, France. Chapter four invents the journey or crazed fantasy of a woman escaping by sea from a nuclear-ravaged West and is mildly futuristic. Chapter five is divided between a section recounting the shipwreck of the French frigate, the Medusa, in 1816, and a section analyzing the stages in the painting of the "The Raft of the Medusa" by Géricault three years later. Chapter six recounts a fictional 1840 pilgrimage of an Irish woman to Mount Ararat where she dies. Chapter seven is titled "Three Simple Stories." The first story concerns a survivor from the Titanic, the second Jonah and a sailor in 1891 both of whom were swallowed by a whale, the third the Jewish passengers aboard the St. Louis trying to escape from Nazi Germany in 1939. Chapter eight is a story about a modern film actor on location in the Venezuelan jungle (suggestive of Robert Bolt's The Mission). Next comes the half chapter, "Parenthesis," an essay on love. Chapter nine recounts another fictitious expedition in 1977 to Mount Ararat by an astronaut in search of Noah's ark.

Didn't we do our top books already - isn't that how "Enders Game" got mentioned?

+++

People slap people online a lot. It's the new way of communicating, no frills. Should we adapt or die? Darwin?

Not So Fast ...

What are your three books?

* * *
I am out of Vegas ... I bid it a farewell this afternoon and didn't look back.

My XD presentation went okay ... praise the Lord. Honestly. I asked for graciousness and humility, and that I had, my friend.

* * *
I sent a private message to the author of one of the "loud pipes" posts because I feared I came across as harsh. I asked for forgiveness if I had in fact offended. This particular person professes faith in Jesus. My PM was met with a rather startling point-by-point refutation of my note. It felt like I'd been slapped. But I'm over it.

Sodom (Soddom?)

Las Vegas is a sad indictment of human nature, of the natures of all of us. It's a shame that we weren't made perfect. God could have made us perfect but did not, so Vegas has a reason to be, just like our sinful natures have reason to be, we just don't know what the mystery of it all is.

One possible reason for Vegas is that it greatly saddens people like you at me. I spent one week there and at the end of it I felt like the loneliest soul on the planet, I refuse to go back there. Perhaps Vegas is there to remind us of how good the places we live in are? Take care there Brother.

The pipes thing simple baffles me (pardon the pun).

Hehe I had to laugh at your excellent play on words. But I'm with you, these are probably small men who want to make a loud noise. I'm not so environmentally unfriendly. The key thing is to make sure the car driver sees you and the best way to do that is to make eye contact.

On crash helmets, I was only ever stupid enough to ride without one once and that was in Madrid, Spain in 1992 for an afternoon. I and a friend rode from London to the Olympics in Barcelona and then onto the Exposition that was held that year in Seville. I must admit it felt very liberating, but was very stupid. If people who don't wear crash hats should lose cover then people who smoke (at all) and drink more than the recommended dose should also don't you think? And come to think of it, people who eat too much too and get obesity related diseases. Not an uncommon condition in your land of plenty my friend :-)

Did you get lambasted in the bikers forum?

Books, I will have to check out your 1 and 2. I have 3 on your recommendation and it's marvellous. Thanks!

My City Was Gone

Except it was never "my city." But it is definitely on the downhill slide. The city is Las Vegas. I am here for the WebSphere Services Technical Conference. The last time I was here for any extended period of time was perhaps four or five years ago. At that time the Chamber of Commerce was trying to paint Vegas as a "family town," but they have apparently given that up. Now the advertising tag line is "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." The implication is you can come to Las Vegas, be naughty, and the secret of your transgressions are safe. I have seen several television advertisements for Las Vegas that play upon this theme -- women coming home from some business meeting in Las Vegas and acting somewhat guilty in front of their husbands as they cover up what happened.

This town disturbs me greatly. On the ride from the airport I flipped through an events magazine, and one of the revues advertised showed three half-naked women with vampire teeth, Photoshopped eyes that were red and demonic-looking, and looks on their faces that might best be described as ... wicked. That was the whole point of it, of course. But there's more to this ... it's almost as if once this city gave up trying to keep the true nature of the town under wraps, it has now gone into a cycle where one level of decadence becomes boring so a new level is pursued.

This town also saddens me. I sense a sadness deep inside some of the people that are going through the motions of "having fun" in this city. It may just be me ... but I don't think so.

Last night I felt compelled to pray for those in this city -- for those who have abandoned themselves to the wickedness I prayed for God's mercy; for those who are caught up in it but in their hearts seek escape, I prayed God show them the way out.