Yes, But First Seek God's Help

"To affirm that individual and social problems can be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings."

I will agree there is a responsibility on the part of a believing Christian to offer a response to the problems of poverty, hunger and neglect. Indeed, Jesus minced few words in Matthew 25:42-45 (NIV):

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

And in many ways over the centuries followers of Christ have done just that. In fact, as I sit here and type this post I am trying to imagine any other movement in history that has resulted is so much outpouring of giving, charity and compassion as Christianity. I can think of none. Certainly none of the other faith traditions of the world -- they may have their charitable functions, but none have been as sweeping and far-reaching. For one thing, for the true Christian there should be no "us" versus "them" -- all are our neighbors.

Which is why I disagree in part with your quote which opened this post. I agree that human reason, intelligent effort and critical reasoning are important. But the missing ingredient is a belief and reliance that Christ's Spirit will pervade our faithful efforts and power us beyond what we alone can do. For with that, believers in Christ can truly move mountains.

Yes, that's magical, mystical talk there. But that's the Gospel.

One of the things we're dancing around here is a sad, sad fact that cannot be ignored: there are, increasingly, some strikingly bad examples of "Christians" in the world today. They drag the name of Christ into the dirt. They give Christianity a bad image, a poor reputation, and leave a stained impression in the minds of many non-believers.

And for millions who look upon this, the bathwater is so foul it's not worth considering whether there's a baby somewhere in the water. So out it all goes.

But the Truth of Christ does not change. And that, I think, is the starting point for all consideration to address the problems of this world.

Both you and I have been affected by poor examples of "believers." In the United States, a poll of college students revealed that 80% thought "Evangelical Christianity" was a political cause. Over here in the United States we have preachers on TV who preach a message of pure selfish greed, insisting that if viewers were to send money to ministry, then God would shower them with money and other material possessions. Millions of desperate lost souls send in their money, and the ministry grows fat and rich, flying around in private planes with the preacher living in million dollar homes.

Which is why my heart literally cries out to God -- please show me what a true follower of Christ looks like. Let me see so that I might learn and copy.

Note: the single most moving example I ever came across was a story I read in a magazine about a woman in Detroit who made it her ministry to serve in a local hospital's neo-natal unit. There, infants born to drug-addicted women lay dying of drug addiction themselves. The mothers were long gone, having abandoned their children to the care of the hospital. Her calling was to go to the hospital at night and hold in her arms those babies who were about to die. Night after night she held tiny babies in her arms so that their last experience on this planet was the warm embrace of one who loved them. That woman worked in complete obscurity until the article was published; she did what she did for one reason -- because she heard the call from Jesus and said 'yes' to His bid for service.

I do not know what my calling is in life. To be honest, I've never really earnestly sought God's guidance on this. The legs of my faith are too weak to carry me at this time. I do not think being a pastor is my calling. There is a strong theme in the Bible that God will use people at their weakest point, so that our human pride will not interfere with the work of His Spirit. I have a sense in my heart that my calling may one day be to serve the lonely, for they are vast in number. I do not feel I am equipped to do this, for my confidence in my ability to be of good company to others is weak. All I know is that when I see the face of lonely people, I sense a nudge.

I hope that both of us are able to overcome the poor images of Christianity that dog our minds, and come to understand that despite others who do shame to the name of Christ, Christ himself remains unchanged -- he was, is and will always be the God of true love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy.

Responsibility

Thank you for your moving post about the Seattle Church, perhaps you should become a pastor yourself? You would write and deliver thought provoking and uplifting sermons. And who could deny that you would be doing the will of God? Do you feel the calling?

A few years back when I was considering what path to follow as a Christian I thought of doing aid work in Africa. Two things stopped me, the first was that I have a commitment to my daughter, I feel that her life would be diminished by my not being in it for large chunks of time. The second was a young lady I know whose parents run a Church in Leeds in the UK. She absolutely loathes Christianity because she says her parents would "help a tramp but neglect the kids". She thinks that the Church is the spawn of the devil! She's not too fond of her parents either. I want to avoid my daughter thinking such things.

These reasons are quite possibly excuses of course. So for selfish me, I'll put far less than two mites on the plate.

Where are you and I, in the top 10%? The top 5% in the global education and wealth stakes? As a result of our position I believe that we have a responsibility to the less blessed.

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

Perhaps our job is not to throw up our hands and give our lives over to faith but to take responsibility for it? To affirm that individual and social problems can be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings.

Faith has a key role to play in my life, without it how could I be sure? Reason will never give surety. When times get tough I put on my Christian garb and I am sure in the fact that nothing can hurt me. This life is a precious and fleeting thing, every day let's resolve to enjoy it! :-)

The Response to Faith

Today in downtown Seattle I attended a Presbyterian church I spied from my hotel window. The building was a beautiful, large structure; constructed somewhere in the early 1960's if my eye for period architecture was correct. The sanctuary, with a soaring 50 foot ceiling, had room for perhaps 500+ people.

This Sunday morning perhaps 50 people were present.

In speaking with one of the members of the church -- an older gentleman who had been active in that particular church for decades -- he explained that once the church was indeed a thriving downtown church. But as more and more people moved out to the suburbs, the surrounding neighborhoods became less and less populated with families, and the church dwindled.

The average age in the congregation this morning was in the vicinity of 70, I'd gather.

This particular church was withering on the vine. It was dying right before the eyes of those who had been with it for years and years.

And yet, the pastor gave one of the more beautiful and moving sermons on the nature of God's Grace I've ever seen.

In addition to this, the church -- located in a downtown area as it is -- accepts homeless people within its walls to find brief respite from the elements and to use the restroom facilities. As a result, the hallways and corridors smelled of unwashed people; a rather sour and foul odor. I was simultaneously bothered by this and convicted of my ungraciousness.

All of this made me ponder the response we are to give to God in recognition of forgiveness and salvation. I stood within the walls of a church that was dying and quite likely to cease being within a few years. It offered services to the local homeless, yet would cease doing so when the church's doors closed. I stood there a visitor, unlikely to return to Seattle for years, if ever.

What should be my response?

My entire net worth would keep the doors open for perhaps a year, at most. That money would be spent to heat and maintain a large structure, largely unused, so a handful of people could worship there, and some number of homeless people could find momentary shelter.

Honestly, I was struck dumb by the juxtaposition of the beauty of the physical structure, the beauty of the faith displayed by the remnant congregation, and the apparent futility of the whole endeavor. It was sad. Deeply, disturbingly, sad.

You wrote, "When belief does not control your most important decisions it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing." I won't disagree with that because I stand condemned at the bar of judgment that sentence provides. And still I struggle: What does truth faith look like? Who may I look upon and think, "Now there's a true man of faith, one worthy of emulating?"

All I can do is fight against my natural inclination towards selfish accumulation of wealth and look to the Lord himself to chip away at the many layers of my very humanity so that perhaps he can build me back up in his image. Is that what's called for? Is that enough?

On the wall of the church today was an inscription from Proverbs 3:5-6: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." I could not help but think that within those two verses was a kernel of truth regarding God and our response. Unfortunately, the mechanics of my response to Him are faulty and unsure. I fail in the 100% test. Yet in my heart I seek him, in a faltering way.

* * *
When I wrote that the Christian faith is mutually exclusive with all others, I meant this:

• Jews do not believe Jesus was the promised messiah; the Christian faith is based on the belief that he was. Both cannot be right.
• Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified; the Christian faith is anchored in the certainty of his crucifixion. Both cannot be right.
• Hindus believe God has appeared incarnate in many different manifestations; the Christian faith is based on the belief that God was incarnate in one unrepeatable event. Both cannot be right.
• Buddhists believe man can achieve fulfillment in what he does; the Christian faith believes man is fundamentally flawed and can never achieve fulfillment on his own. Both cannot be right.

The equation really is simple: if the Christian faith is wrong, it is a complete sham, worthless and to be discarded. On the other hand, if it is right, then the implications to us are profound and cannot be ignored. One can either dismiss Christ or embrace Christ, but one cannot truly ignore him.

* * *
"I'll define supernatural as something that cannot be explained by science."

I am deeply troubled by that definition:

• That means that at one point in time the flight of a bird was supernatural.
• That means that "supernatural" is a transient state -- changing to natural once science comes up with an explanation, whether that explanation is correct or not.
  
• That means that all events must be suspect because one day -- perhaps way in the future -- science may believe it has an explanation for it.
  

* * *
I am a troubled soul this evening, deep.thought. I am troubled by a good many things, not the least of which is a profound uncertainty about what faith is and what I am to do with what little I have. I have faced the prospect of walking away from faith, but cannot fathom a walk back into the emptiness from whence I came. I see the sincere faith expressed by the pastor of a dying church and stand in complete awe. I see homeless people milling about that dying church and know not what I should do.

I look out across the horizon of possibilities, and honestly can't see any solution. This is why, to me, the Christian faith makes sense -- the solution is not within us, but in Christ. Nothing else seems to make better sense.

My trouble is I have not yet fully counted the cost of that belief.

So I stand troubled.

It is times like this that words like "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight" ring with a validity I can't debate or defend, but merely accept and believe.

Weakly ... incompletely ... I stand in Christ.

Your brother.

Isaiah 40:22

This was Gene Roddenberry's assessment of his local Baptist Church:

"I had never really paid much attention to the sermon before, I was more interested in the deacon's daughter and what we might be doing between services. I listened to the sermon, and I remember complete astonishment because what they were talking about were things that were just crazy."

I don't know whether the scholars in Isaiah's time thought the Earth was round or not, Isaiah lived from approx. 739-686 BC and Eratosthenes of Cyrene did his famous "shadow in the well" experiment to quite accurately measure the circumference of the Earth sometime during his life (276-194 BC).

This means nothing in itself as the Isaiahian scholars looking out to sea as ships departed would have been given a clue to the Earth's shape, but just didn't know how to size it. I'm prepared to believe that they thought that the Earth was a globe, but like me they also may have been confused by the "above - in Heaven" and "below - in Hell" parts of the Bible.

This could explain the behaviour of Australians however :-)

I just get the impression from The Bible that the Earth is flat .. I have to go out of my way to find reasons fot it not to be.

By selection effect I mean we select to see and experience things because we are sensitive to and (or) have a desire to see them. Like Lowell seeing canals on Mars through his telescope because he believed so much that they were there, and they were always on his mind. If the second coming happens when the Sun engulfs the Earth then we are almost coincident with the time of the first coming when looking at the timeline. This means we live in a really special time. I mean, assuming that the Earth and mankind are still around in 4,000,000,000 years time people will look back at the records of our time and say "Wow those were the Jesus folk in 2005" ... or will they even remember us? I have no idea, but isn't it nice to live in the special time so close to when Our Lord chose to visit?

On the other hand, if the Earth is 10,000 years old, Jesus arrived at +8000 years post creation of the Earth, and if the second coming is say in 10,000 years time that gives a total span of History of the Earth of 20,000 years. In that case it's not that lucky that we are alive now living in this time to contemplate Jesus. That scenario does not smell of a selection effect.

The supernatural one is a good debate ... I'll define supernatural as something that cannot be explained by science. Can everything be explained in scientific and measurable terms? ... I doubt it. Science has the brick wall limits of the Uncertainty Princple and the Speed of Light. Beyond those veils anything is possible ... now whether anything exists beyonds these veils and whether or not anything influences our Universe from beyond those veils is a matter of belief. I don't think anything has been knowingly scientifically measured from these supernatural areas. I like to think that Love comes from these areas in some kind of fashion. But a brain chemist would disagree with me of course, after all ... they have no soul :)

When you wrote:

In fact, the Christian faith is mutually exclusive with all other faiths:

• Either Christianity is True and all other faiths are wrong, or
• Christianity is False and one of the other faiths is right, or
• All faiths are wrong and we haven't figured out what is True

I'll give you another option ... I think the "Truth" will turn out to be something different. I suspect that there were some big, seemingly supernatural, events in our past history .. some of these have been alluded to or even documented in The Bible. The "Truth" of the matter may be that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jewish tradition etc etc all contain some elements of an underlying "Truth". I suspect this is true because all of those religions have things in common and a billion Christians and a billion Muslims can't be wrong.

But as you point out, in this life we'll never know the Truth so we have to choose.

Now, as Christians, let's get onto the more important aspect of how we live our lives. I remember bugging you a few years ago with the nagging feeling that I should be doing something else as a Christian, something other than "working for the man". I think that your answer at the time, perhaps in a kind effort to console me, was that "God needs plumbers too" or words to that effect.

But God doesn't need plumbers. He doesn't need anything. This is what Scott Adams (yes Dilbert's daddy!) said on the subject:

"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.

A belief in God would demand 100 percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on Earth. But your four billion so-called believers do not live their lives in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs -- an Earthly and practical utility -- but they do not believe in the underlying reality."

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. "If you asked them, they'd say they believe."

"They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don't do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would HAVE to do.

If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing."

Current song: Pet Shop Boys "I want a dog"

"Logical. Flawlessly logical." -- Spock

That quote is from one of my favorite original Star Trek episodes, "Amok Time." That's the episode where Mr. Spock goes into his 7-year mating cycle and must return to Vulcan to join with T'Pring, his chosen one. It is a time of intense emotion; emotion, of course, contrary to Vulcan pride. Rather than marrying Spock, T'Pring invokes kalifee (the challenge) -- Spock must fight for T'Pring, and she gets to choose the challenger. Her preferred mate is Stonn, a cold-faced brute. She chooses Captain Kirk to challenge Spock. It is a fight to the death.

The fight sequence was typical Star Trek -- incredible blows to the face and nobody with so much as a bloody lip. Spock "wins," but it is a mirage -- McCoy had injected Kirk to simulate death. The battle scene is backed up by Khatchaturian's Sabre Dance.

Note: want to plumb the depths of a real miracle? Explain how McCoy always had exactly what he needed, even thought his medical kit was the size of a Palm Pilot.

Devastated by the belief he's killed not only his captain but his friend, Spock queries T'Pring about her decision choose Kirk as the kalifee.

Note: The query? select reason, explanation from T'Pring where logic_rating='100';

Her response was that by choosing Kirk, she wins regardless:

• If Kirk won, he would not want her, and she would have Stonn.
• If Spock won, there was a good probability he would no longer desire T'Pring given his killing Kirk. He would leave to face Star Fleet justice and she would get Stonn.
  
• If Spock won and still desired T'Pring, she would get Spocks name, he would return to Star Fleet, she would still have Stonn.

Spock looks at T'Pring and replies, "Logical. Flawlessly logical."

And that's the tie to this post -- I'm not sure I see T'Pring's logic as "flawless." There are several holes in it:

• Kirk might have wanted her. She was a hottie and he was a man with few moral inhibitors.
• If Spock still wanted her but then returned to Star Fleet, she would "have Stonn," but in an adulterous fashion. Given the rigid ritual of the mating ceremony, my guess is Vulcans also had a strict sense of morality regarding adultery. Plus, I have a theory: Spock was really a Eunich. Four season of Nurse Chapel throwing herself at him and not once so much as a raised eyebrow of curiosity.

Similarly, I'm not sure I see your logic as "flawless." Allow me now to elaborate.

* * *
You wrote: "The Earth should be the centre of the Universe in a Biblical world. Why would it exist out on the dull arm of some non-descript spiral galaxy structure? I don't think the Bible claims the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. Reading the text though, it would appear to me that the assumption is that the Earth is at the centre and that the Earth is a flat circular object (reference in Isaiah)."

So much to respond to here ...

• My original line of inquiry focused around whether you were diminishing the Bible's authority based on a belief it claimed the earth was the center of the universe. A reply that the Earth should be the center is a whole different thing, and leaves the authority of the Bible unchallenged.
• "Why would it exist out on the dull arm of some non-descript galaxy stucture?" The book "Case for a Creator" touches on this subject. The theory is that this is actually an ideal place to support life, and to observe the rest of the universe. If we were closer to the center of the Milky Way, various radiation effects and super novas would make supporting life on this earth untenable. And we are in a relatively sparse arm of the Milky Way, a vantage point from which we are able to view considerable portions of the universe; the theory being that God intended us to explore His creation.
• "... it would appear to me that the assumption is that the Earth is at the centre and that the Earth is a flat circular object." At the time of the writing of Isaiah it was fairly well known by scholars that the earth was a sphere. I'm not sure which passage in Isaiah you're referring to, but I suspect whatever it is, it does not explicitely state the earth is flat. This is probably another case of allegorical reference.

* * *
You wrote: "In which case when exactly will Christ come back to fix the creation?"

Answer: I don't know. Be very suspicious of anyone who claims to know. Jesus himself said that the Father did not reveal the time even to him. It is one of the few unequivocal statements in the Bible, yet it is one of the things some fundamentalist cling to in a deperate attempt to determine the time.

You wrote: "This smells suspiciously like a selection effect."

My response: Say what? Help me with that one.

* * *
You wrote: "If there are not other life forms in the Universe then it is an amazing waste of space. We're arrogant enough to think we're the only ones?"

I'm not sure I'm stated without doubt that we're the only ones. I'm simply saying that it's equally unclear that there definitely is other life. Who really knows? As for it being an amazing waste of space ... well, take that up with God. There's an enormous waste of space just within our solar system.

* * *
On miracles ... there's a set of basic questions that needs to be asked:

Do you believe there is there such a thing as the supernatural invading our natural space? If not, why not? Or are all things natural events, some simply unexplainable at the present time? If so, do you believe there is a "supernatural?"

There are fundamentally important questions because it establishes the starting point of the discussion. It would be an interesting discussion.

* * *
You wrote: "And your example does not cover the pacifist buddhist who does much good in his life but still goes to hell for not believing on the Christ."

That assumes the pacifist buddhist who "does much good" is justified in God's sight by his works and deeds, but that God, bound by his rules, must cast him into eternal fire. What about the possibility that the pacifist buddhist is by his very nature as a man woefully sinful compared to God's Holy nature. Maybe Isaiah 64:6 is onto something: "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (NIV, emphasis added)

With this point we're smack at the center of Christian theology. The doctrine of inherent sinfulness is a lynchpin around which the Christian faith revolves. There are two elements that have to be considered:

1. The Holy nature of God. I suspect many of us diminish the glory of this, and think that we as humans are not that far removed from God's glory. The Bible teaches that in fact we are vastly inferior.
2. If mankind was capable of doing well enough to be without sin for a few moments, or perhaps hours, or even perhaps days, a question arises: has the person attained perfection and total sinlessness across the entire span of his existence? If not, then how to deal with the fact he has sinned and in the face of God's perfect Holiness how should that sin be dealt with?

At its very core, that's the Gospel message: we are sinful. Our attempts at righteousness fall far short of the perfect standard set by God. We are incapable of achieving perfection. God, in his mercy and love, addressed the problem by becoming incarnate in the form of Jesus; a man perfectly sinless, and sacrificed himself as a blanket payment for the sins of mankind. All we need do is believe that it is so and trust in Christ's saving work.

That's the Christian faith at its core. To believe that man is capable of earning his way to salvation through acts of righteousness is at basic odds with this. The two are mutually exclusive. In fact, the Christian faith is mutually exclusive with all other faiths:

• Either Christianity is True and all other faiths are wrong, or
  
• Christianity is False and one of the other faiths is right, or
• All faiths are wrong and we haven't figured out what is True

But it is not possible for Christianity and some other faith tradition to be true at the same time. The Christian doctrine does not provide this.

That is the choice people face. Christ left us with no middle ground.

Some might say that that's arrogant and intolerant. But that's fuzzy thinking ... there are lots of things in this life that are mutually exclusive -- one can be right by not both. I am up-front stating that one "state" of the "finite state machine" (geek!) is that Christianity is false. That's where "faith" comes in -- believing that is in fact True. But to believe Christianity is True necessarily implies believing the others are false. (And the challenge as a Christian is to believe the others are false and not be a boorish, arrogant fool about it; but rather loving and gracious -- salt and light by Christ's words.)

* * *
You wrote: "This leaves us with a problem with the Christian view of man 'falling' does it not? How did the pre-fall perfect DNA get into the "sinful" state without genetic engineering? I've not even considered this before."

To respond to this necessarily means I need to venture hip-deep in the lake of speculation. Who really knows, other than God himself? But let me build a case based on Genesis (for that is all we have to go on with regard to God's plan "in the beginning.")

• Initially Adam and Eve did not face the prospect of death. Had they not chosen to sin, they presumably would still be living in God's perfectly created world.
• The "fall" is itself somewhat of a mystery. How a decision by Adam could introduce inherent sinfulness to all subsequent generations. But that's the doctrine. Choose to dismiss it if one wishes, but that's what the Christian faith is built upon.
  
• In one sense it appears that the "fall" involved the suspension of God's sustaining influence to maintain perfection. Here's where we get into a deep mystery ... the introduction of corrosive forces -- "non-perfection," if you will -- was that a creative act by God, or was that a case where God simply permitted Satan room to roam? Genesis leads us to understand that Satan was already in his fallen state at the time of Adam and Eve. The other parts of the Bible lead us to believe that the earth is Satan's princely domain ... until the second coming of Christ, that is.
  
• I suppose it is possible that the explanation for the corrupt DNA is this: upon Adam's decision to sin (to "fall from Grace" -- or to step outside God's protective umbrella), Adam ventured from God's world to Satan's world. God still has sovereignty over all things, but permits Satan to do certain things (this is what makes the Book of Job so challenging).
  
• Part of Satans work might have been to introduce molecular mutations at the DNA level.
• If you chart the life expectancy of the OT characters, the graph line trends downward from the 900-year range for Adam, Noah, etc. to 120 for Moses to "three score and ten" by the time the Psalms were written. The cummulative effect of corrosive mutation on God's originally perfect DNA?

And there I'll step out of the pool of wild speculation and return to some firmer footing.

Bottom line:

• I know that no matter how hard I try, I never achieve perfection.
• I sense that God is more Holy than even I can imagine.
• I have a strong sense I can't approach God's holiness in my present state.
• I have a strong sense that if I were to approach God, it would be only by his doing.
• I choose to believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Bible to reveal God to me.
• The Bible tells me God provided a way to him through Christ.
• I choose to believe that is the Truth
  
• What I am left with is a struggle to understand what those two choices mean in terms of application within my life.
  

And on that note, may you have a blessed Lord's day brother!

Tycho Magnetic Anomaly 1

I'm under time pressure here as I need to get the lunch on, however I can't resist the debate!

Keith Moon's "continuous drum solo" style - excellent description!

The Earth should be the centre of the Universe in a Biblical world. Why would it exist out on the dull arm of some non-descript spiral galaxy structure? I don't think the Bible claims the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. Reading the text though, it would appear to me that the assumption is that the Earth is at the centre and that the Earth is a flat circular object (reference in Isaiah).

250,000 years since the first human may not be a problem, if one added up the ages of the generations in The Bible, do we get approximately 250,000 years since Adam? I know Adam lived a long time (933 years).

Downtown Seattle would probably be very different if Christ had not appeared in the first place. My point is, that if the Earth is so old, it's unlikely that it's going anywhere in the near (billions of years future). In which case when exactly will Christ come back to fix the creation? 2005 years is so near to the birth of "the Saviour of the Universe" compared to the age of the Earth -- don't you think? But, 2005 years is not so near to the birth of "Saviour of the Universe" if the Earth is only say 10,000 years old. This smells suspiciously like a selection effect.

If there are not other life forms in the Universe then it is an amazing waste of space. We're arrogant enough to think we're the only ones?

The Bible was more believable back then, not because they were a superstitious lot but they had no inkling of an explanation for the miracles shown. They could not even guess at:

• Feeding the 5000 (E = mc squared)
• Resurrection (Clone + brain transfer/transplant)
• Disappearing from tomb (matter transportation, ala Star Trek and what scientists are doing right now in a Vienna lab, albeit for individual atoms)
• Walking on water (anti-gravity device, gravity is a space time curvature, flatten it out)

Now, I'm not saying these were the mechanisms used, we cannot do these things but they no longer seem like total divine magic, this is due to scientific advancements.

Yes I think people need punished for their bad deeds. But not forever. And your example does not cover the pacifist buddhist who does much good in his life but still goes to hell for not believing on the Christ.

On human DNA, yes there is something missing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I suspect that mutations + survival of the fittest go a long way to explaining the life we see today but there also seems to be an architect (this could be a failure of nerve or imagination on my part I agree).

There does not appear to be any intent on the part of genes, they seem to be slaves to the dance. Just like the incredibly simple numbers of the Mandelbrot set creating such beautiful and complex patterns -- genes play their role in defining what we look like.

Do genes define who we are? Are there behavioural genes. There does appear to be.

Your thought on a perfect DNA that went wrong and became "sinful" is interesting. How did that happen? We know that changing the phenotype does not change the genotype -- so if you cut off a finger this doesn't mean your children will be born without that finger.

This leaves us with a problem with the Christian view of man "falling" does it not? How did the pre-fall perfect DNA get into the "sinful" state without genetic engineering? I've not even considered this before.

Lunch !!

Choice Little Bits

Oh, deep.thought ... your last two posts have so many alluring bits ... like bait dangled before a hungry trout. :-)

• The Who's "Can't Explain" is their song I once read contains an excellent illustration of why Keith Moon's drumming really was the heart of their sound. At the end of the third verse there's a line that goes, "I know what it means, but ..." and then there's one beat where the instruments hang in suspense. Then out of nowhere comes Moon, with two triplets in rapid succession, like "rifle shots" was the description I'd read. There was nothing predictable about Moon's drumming. It was, as someone I know once explained, one long sustained drum solo.
• Dogs are wonderful. I would like another dog, but like you, I want to wait until I am better able to care for them.
• You wrote: "The Earth is not at the physical centre of the Universe and everything does not go around it." I'm not sure the Bible makes that claim. Are you thinking of a particular passage that seems to suggest that?
• You wrote: "Human beings have been around a long time, mitochondrial DNA has reliably and reproducibly shown us that the first human woman lived at least 250,000 years ago, in Africa." My response: "Okay." This is only troubling if one assumes the Bible claims the earth to be much younger than that. I'm not sure it does. By the way, there's considerable debate among very scholarly Bible authorities over the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. For example, a careful reading of Genesis 1 yields many things that would argue against it being a literal 24-hour period. Here's one: in Genesis 1:5 the term "day" and "night" is introduced. It's not until Genesis 1:16 -- the fourth "day" -- that God creates the Sun and the Moon and the stars.
• You wrote: "Why would the Son of the Creator appear so recently in historical time? (It is much more believable that he appeared halfway from now since time began, as given in the Creationist view)" Ah, now for this I've heard an explanation, and one that seems quite plausible to me. The timing of the arrival of Jesus coincided exactly with two other key developments that would facilitate the spreading of the Gospel: 1) a language used as "common denominator" among different peoples at that time -- Greek. In that sense, it was very much like English is today. And 2), a series of Roman roads that enabled the more rapid transport of travelers from place to place. Had Christ appeared at the time of Abraham, for instance, it's quite possible the Gospel would vanished. Now the interesting question is: why not later? Why not 2005, where jet aircraft and the Internet would have facilitated an even more rapid dispersal? My heart tells me we're way, way, way too jaded today. If Christ appeared in downtown Seattle today, he'd be ignored.
• Regarding the "Jesus Effect" and the speed of light. You're assuming there are other life forms in the universe, and you're assuming God created them "in his image" in the same manner. There's lots of life right here on earth that the message of Christ is not intended for -- my late dog, for example. It's also possible that we are in fact a unique little habitable dot in the universe. The odds may appear low that that is true ... then again, if the argument is to be believed that the odds are pretty low that even Earth exists, then maybe we are unique.
• You wrote: "Why bother creating a Universe that God knew would develop this thing 'sin' that he found abhorrent?" That is, admittedly, a mystery. The doctrine of Omniscience indicates God knew man would choose sin and create a fallen world. When then go forward? I just don't know.
• You wrote: "And why does he not perfect his Creation?" The Bible promises He will, after the second coming of Christ.
• You wrote: "Given the state of philosophy and science 2000 years ago The Bible becomes much more believable." Why? Because they were a superstitious lot, unaware of things like DNA and quantum mechanics? What particular Christian "miracle" do you think is explainable today that wasn't then? The empty tomb? The many witnesses to Christ's resurrected body? Plus, from what I can gather, scientists are quickly coming to a point where the more they discover, the more they're left unable to really explain things.
• You wrote: "If God is Abba then he is one who can bear to see his children cast into the lake of fire." He longs for every one of his created beings to be saved through the atoning work of his son Jesus. What I think you're suggesting is that if he was a truly loving God, he would grant a blanket pardon over everyone. That's the position taken by Universalists, who believe that everyone shall ultimately be saved. That's one way to look at it, though not the Bible's way to look at it. Let me ask you ... if you had a child who mercilessly abused you -- beat you, stole from you, maimed and killed others, had zero regard for you as a parent or person, and further expressed or exhibited absolutely no remorse or regret for his evil ways -- would you think, "Aw ... he's so cute, I love him so much. I think I'll deed my house to him?" Or would the sins he committed require some restitution -- a payment for the sins committed -- and some sign of remorse on his part?

Now, as to your "Lewisism" ...

First, see ... ya' gotta be careful bashing on my bro' C.S., 'cuz he's from my 'hood.

Second, your argument about DNA conjures up a ton of counter arguments. First and foremost, it is absolutely imperative it be established where in the world that "programming" of DNA came from. Because all other arguments spill out from that:

1. If our DNA -- indeed, our entire existence -- is the product of pure materialist chance -- then our DNA would have no such notion of "struggling to survive" or the possibility of the sun burning up in 6 billion years. This is one of my pet-peeves against proponents of Darwinian evolution: they ascribe to the process some kind of intent, or a goal towards which evolution is working. If we are the product of pure chance -- with no higher designer -- than an "intent" at the molecular level of DNA is not possible.
2. If our DNA is the product of God's programming, then it might very well be programmed for survival, and for some reason only He knows. Of course, that would then beg the question why our survival instincts lead us to do things otherwise categorized as "sinful." Another explanation is that originally our DNA was perfect, and that our instincts weren't quite so brutish. But then we experienced our fall into sinfulness, and the rest is what we observe -- awful behavior, cancer, sickness, etc.

You wrote: "That's what Lewis did, he argued from a standpoint that assumed the reader believed in such things as God and Sin." In a sense, yes -- he used the first chapter of "Mere Christianity" to establish that premise, and then used that to argue the remainder of his points. Now I'll readily admit that to someone who honestly believes that there is absolutely no God (a pure atheist) the idea of Grace and Sin are meaningless. But to be quite frank, I don't believe there really is such a person. I think there are a lot of people who claim to be atheists, but I doubt deep in their hearts their conviction is quite so certain. But I can't know that. It's just my guess.

What I was getting at with my statement about Christianity was that it, more than any other philosophy or outlook, best explains the basic questions we all struggle with:

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Is there a purpose to my life?
• What happens after I die?

I'll readily admit that to someone seeking incontrovertible evidence -- something they can touch, feel, see and know for certain -- then Christianity isn't going to do it. As I stated before, there comes a point where an extension of faith (defined quickly as belief and trust) is required. We do that all the time for all manner of things ... I do not see why the extension of faith to believe in Christ is any different.

Well, there is one difference ... sometimes I wonder if there is such a reluctance to have faith in God for fear what He may ask of us in return. I will confess that is a stumbling block for me. There is much I want to control and not be held accountable for. Unfortunately, Christ's offer of salvation comes with a demand: that we surrender to him as our Lord as well. And that, dear friend, is a bitter pill for some of us (me) to swallow.

Grace and peace

A Lewisism

Sorry, but I have to shoot this one down, this is exactly the conversation I would have loved to have had with Lewis about one thousand times during my reading of "Mere Christianity".

When you wrote:

Many people scoff at the notion of our being "fallen," or "inherently sinful." But honestly, does any other explanation more fully answer the basic question why we are how we are?

Er .... yeah.

1. Our genes (programming) tell us to be -- selfish genes and the fight for survival will breed killers and "bad" behaviour. They are also the only thing that will get us off of Terra before Sol engulfs us in approximately 6,000,000,000 years. Why life struggles to survive is a mystery to me, but it does.
2. "Fallen" from "Grace" assumes Grace exists, and therefore the Christian God exists.
3. "Inherently sinful" assumes "sin" exists, and therefore the Christian God exists (you need a God to have sin)

That's what Lewis did, he argued from a standpoint that assumed the reader believed in such things as God and Sin. Is that the Duke of Wellington close Mr ex-Salesman? :-)

LOVE and PEACE on you brother.

I can't explain

I know how Pete Townshend felt when he wrote that!

The kids are in bed, my daughter has a friend here for a sleepover (US translation of "slumber party"?) and they're eating popcorn and watching "Garfield" in bed. They are so excited to be together! Having children is a wonderful thing in life, you never really know how you're doing as a parent. Kids do implicitly trust you and it can be scary at times, "am I doing the right thing by them"? We're never warned of how the parental experience is really going to be. And no, she doesn't get everything she wants, just 99% of it :-)

The other thing that I've found, with your own child, is that they can improve you as a person, you see your own insecurities and fears in them and think, "they're unfounded, so why should I carry the burden of those insecurities and fears?". Parent heal thyself.

The other thing many of us do of course when we have kids is start along the journey of forgiving our own parents.

We've been swimming, and afterwards as I sat in the car park at McDonalds (coals of shame) with them I was thinking on your experience with your dog (Rusty? - a very moving tale by the way) and thought "maybe this is it!".

The dog didn't resist you saving him, he trusted you implicitly. Perhaps if he had struggled he would have made his situation worse for himself and have inadvertantly cast himself into the lake of fire? Maybe this is how it is with God? But then I thought, for that to be true, God would be bound not to save us from ourselves and God is bound by nothing. So strike that one.

In any case I would really like a dog one day when I have the time to look after one properly. There is some magical bond between people and dogs that doesn't seem to be there with other pets. Cats take all the love and get fat without giving much back on the whole. Perhaps I'm just a dog person?

I have no desire to disprove the Christian God. I would more that anything love to prove Him "Absolutely True" beyond a shadow of a doubt for all of mankind, but I don't think the story told by The Bible is beautiful enough in the light of the knowledge we have today to be "Absolutely True". I have to be honest don't I? The things that I cannot reconcile are:

The Earth is not at the physical centre of the Universe and everything does not go around it

Human beings have been around a long time, mitochondrial DNA has reliably and reproducibly shown us that the first human woman lived at least 250,000 years ago, in Africa

Why would the Son of the Creator appear so recently in historical time? (It is much more believable that he appeared halfway from now since time began, as given in the Creationist view)

The Speed Of Light is constant for all observers

NB: This property of light causes time to change for observers moving at different velocities. This means that physical objects can never travel faster than the speed of light. This constancy also means that the light from Jesus' birth (unless it went thru some kind of wormhole in space) is now surrounding the Earth as a sphere of some 2005 light years in radius. Anything that Jesus said and did cannot be outside of that sphere. Volumes go by the cube of the radius so the "Jesus effect" (in a Universe of 7 US billion light years in radius) represents 2.345 e-20 th of the volume of the Universe. This number is vanishingly small.

This whole idea about sin. Why bother creating a Universe that God knew would develop this thing "sin" that he found abhorrent? And why does he not perfect his Creation?

Free will vs. what God knows we're going to do anyway

Given the state of philosophy and science 2000 years ago The Bible becomes much more believable. Then the miracles really were miracles. Arthur C. Clarkes third law, as modified by deep.thought "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".

The Bible appears to me as Ptolemys Circles do to explain the motion of the planets.

I have studied The Bible a lot, I don't have your knowledge or your eidetic ability but I do see errors in there. I'm not looking for them but if they are there then the whole thing is a house of cards that falls apart (to me). Even Barnes says "ah, that was probably a mistranslation from the original Hebrew" at one point.

What I believe I know is that there is a powerful being that goes by the name of Jesus that is still around and can have an immense impact on our lives. I can't explain it but that much I believe. I talk to him, ask him to do stuff, and sometimes he talks back and it happens. I am sure that Jesus walked the Earth 2000 years ago and did amazing things, he is still around but I don't know the nature of Him. I believe that what was written about Him was a direct response to his "amazingness", but what was written was written by people in my agonized opinion.

It would be much easier to just believe. Jewish folk might call me goyim. The best chance I have of believing in The Bible is to suspend disbelief and reason, I can do this of course :-) I'm still asking what is really going on and as promised in Luke I will find out.

Now what else are you saying to me today ... ?

Hmm, we're enjoying our blessings of smartness :-) Hey, I never did anything, nothing of note published, no Nobel Prizes and I lose at chess. But thanks I appreciate the ego boost :-) We're smart but there are many smarter. Perhaps your colour-vision is unique though, and in a large company you have distinguished yourself with works of note, have you ever come across anyone else that does the colour-thing? PS. I think you are brilliant, and I mean that most sincerely.

Interesting point on your sales experience, but most salesmen I would go out of my way to avoid. Maybe that's it though, I think that the snappy comeback happens through fast connections being made in the unconscious brain, we're just wired differently.

There are times for downtown Seattle and times for XML. Everything in balance Bagwell. You're driven to meet your commitments which is not a bad thing. I'm sure that Timothy was told to look for such people somewhere.

If God is Abba then he is one who can bear to see his children cast into the lake of fire.

Natural Drivers

You wrote:

"No my natural drivers were (and still are) to take things apart (to see how they work) -- and usually be unable to get them back together again."

You and I are similar in that regard, though you are far, far (far!) more adept at it than am I. Let my climb out of my imaginary pulpit for a minute and say something straight from the heart.

My "gift" -- if I may be permitted to say this -- is an ability to take complex things and somehow distill it down into a more comprehensible and approachable essence. I do this in a way I myself don't understand: I take a topic in over the span of what is usually weeks or months and then work on it in my mind. It's not a logical, sequential process. My mind does not "think" in precise sequential tasks. Rather, it works by turning things into shapes and colors, then establishing relationships between these objects. Over time I construct a framework in my mind, and I spend weeks looking at that thing in my mind; turning it over, looking at it from a different perspective, seeing if there are connections I hadn't seen before. It's all very intuitive ... very "right brain."

Note: this is why I was such a poor salesman -- they must be quick on their feet when confronted with new parameters. I can't operate that way. A new piece of the puzzle must be tossed over into the right brain and mulled over for a bit. In a sales setting, by then the time has passed.

What's my point? My point is this -- having spent the better part of my adult life engaging in the exercise of determining the internal framework of complex things, I then attempted to tackle the Bible and the Christian faith. Let me say this: I have never, ever wrestled with anything more multi-layered and complex in my life. It is elegant beyond description. It has internal tensions that seem like paradoxes but later turn out to be beautifully paired opposites. There are simple things that upon reflection turn out to be deep and rich. There are very complex things that in a moment of enlightenment my mind sees gorgeously simple. My mind is taxed beyond it's ability to comprehend all the shapes and relationships. It is, in a word, extraordinary.

So, Mr. Take-it-Apart-and-Analyze-It ... go ahead. God invites it. He must. He has crafted not only an extraordinarily elegant physical universe, but also an extraordinarily elegant construct of creation and redemption. God has made you one of the most intelligent people I've ever met ... surely (there's that word you hate!) he intends you to use that intelligence. I've been richly rewarded by the exercise of my God-given intelligence.

The only thing is it takes sincere exploration. Whenever I approached it with a heart hardened by a desire to prove God wrong, I've not been rewarded with much. But when I truly seek, the Bible opens up. Try this -- when you sit down to read the Bible, pray that God reveals to you not all the meaning held within your reading (that's too much -- you have a lifetime and beyond to plumb those depths), but rather to reveal that meaning which God himself knows is appropriate for you at this particular time. Do that with an open heart and I promise you you'll be rewarded. I have, time and again.

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (NIV, Luke 11:9)

Honestly, I truly believe that when it comes to asking God's help to know God better, that's a prayer he gladly rewards. The Old Testament is rich with references to "seeking God's face."

Our Children; Children of God

I'm sitting here in a Hilton hotel in downtown Seattle on a Saturday morning. I'm trying to finish a white paper on changing XML files in a WebSphere configuration. Two things are rattling around in my heart:

1. What's wrong with me? Why am I in the hotel room when downtown Seattle -- a great downtown area, by the way -- beckons?
2. The parallel between the way we look upon our own children and the way God may look upon us may be a more powerful parallel than we first give credit to.

We'll leave #1 untouched. The answer is simple: I'm an introverted workaholic nutcase. It really needs no further explanation. :-)

Let's explore the second.

Our Children

This topic is a challenge for me because I have no children. But let me pose a few questions of you, deep.thought --

• When you make rules by which your daughter must abide, do you do that to be harsh, arbitrary and restrictive? Or do you make the rules because you know them to be in her best interest?
• When your daughter abides by the rules but complains, do you feel some satisfaction knowing that perhaps even in her partial rebellion she by following the rule is learning the important lesson you intended?
• When your daughter abides by the rules and does so out of an obvious sense of devotion and obedience to you as her father, how does that make you feel?
• When your daughter asks of you to do things for her, or provide things to her, do you abide by her every request? Or do you say "no" on occasion because you know that satisfying her request would be, in the larger scheme, not in her best interest?
• What emotion goes through your heart when you see your daughter trusting in you, her father, and doing so unreservedly?

God's Children

The analogy of God being our "father" in the same way we might be fathers in this world strains under the weight of a few things:

• We may not be able to comprehend God in a direct, personal way such as our minds recollect our relationship with our fathers. If God is to our minds (as He is in some ways to me) an indiscrete deity, then applying the parallel is difficult.
• We may struggle to see God as a benevolent father if our relationship with our earthly father was something else. Such is, to some degree, the case with me.

Still, it would be difficult to simply discard the notion of God as our "father" simply because we struggle with it personally. The Bible relies too heavily on the construction, particularly the New Testament.

There is a doctrine that runs throughout the New Testament, particularly Paul's epistles, regarding our adoption. Therein lies an important Scriptural distinction, one that runs afoul of much of today's more permissive new-age thinking:

We are not by nature God's children. We are only God's children through his adoption of us based upon our saving faith and trust in the work of his son, Jesus Christ.

By adoption, God is choosing us to become part of his family, to have all the rights and privileges of such a status. This is what permits us to begin to develop a personal relationship with God, by which we can use the term "father" in the earthly sense.

Confession: this is, in many ways, still a complete mystery to me. I have experienced brief glimpses of this "personal relationship" thing. But only brief. My disobedience too often prevents me from developing it further.

In summary, while the idea of thinking of God as "our Father" seems foolish by 21st century standards, there is (or, I feel, must be) an elemental truth in it.

So Much to Think About on a Saturday Morning!

My, my, my ... your nom de plume certainly is apropos.

And what's up with me? Two French words in one sentence?

As I read over your past three posts, I see two major themes:

1. What is "worship" in the human sense -- how would we define it, what does it look like, how is it conducted, etc.
2. The relationship between "election" and "free will" as it relates to believing.

Both are deeply challenging topics. The second is so overwhelmingly so, I may just opt to avoid it altogether. But we'll see ... I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.

On Worship

The good folks over at dictionary.com offer two definitions for this word:

• "The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object"
• "The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed."

I think that's important because the two are not necessarily linked with one another. I can envision cases where people can deeply revere God and not participate in any recognizable ceremonies or activities; and I can easily imagine people engaging in "religious forms" without having any real reverent love in their hearts. Of the two, the latter is probably (or likely) more prevalent.

Cases in point: Jews and Catholics. I'm fairly confident you would find a good many people who call themselves Jews or Catholics are people who merely go through the motions. I personally know one Jewish man who faithfully observes the Sabbath and other holidays, yet confesses no particular belief in the underlying reason behind the ceremony. I've spoken with other Jewish people who confirm this to be quite common. Same thing with Catholics: they were raised to go to mass and go to confession, yet when you inquire after their personal beliefs it becomes clear they really don't have any. It's all just rote mechanics to them. That's sad.

Of the two, I more often fall into the latter category, to my discomfort and shame. And to "heap coals on my head" (Romans 12:20), I find myself engaging in the latter -- with or without true reverence in my heart -- somewhat infrequently.

The Bible makes it clear -- in many specific places and as a broad theme -- that of the two, God would prefer the former to the latter. One of the themes of the Gospels is Jesus being very critical of the Pharisees for their blind observances of ritual to the exclusion of any true sense of God or his real desire, which is that we love him with all we have and love our neighbors as ourselves.

So, what does it mean to "love God with all we have?" I don't personally know the answer to that. But I sense that it is not a binary switch. We do not one day start loving God perfectly. It is a process of learning and seeking, of trials and testing, of further seeking and continued growth.

And it strikes me that that might be the "meaning of life" -- to learn how to love God.

After all, it is, as you say, not in our nature to either worship God or to love God. Many people scoff at the notion of our being "fallen," or "inherently sinful." But honestly, does any other explanation more fully answer the basic question why we are how we are?

If I were pressed to define what "love God" means, I would distill it down to a single word: trust. To love God is to trust him completely, and when we come to recognize the benefit of that trust, we find ourselves expressing outwardly the things many people might call "worship." Now, by itself, that's not very helpful ... "trust" is no more self-revealing a word than is "love." Perhaps a few examples would help.

• Years ago, I had a dog. One night the dog had fallen down into a confined area in my basement. He was quite old at the time -- 15 or so years old. Had he fallen in head-first, he would have likely died during the night. As it was, he fell rump-first into the confined area, so while he could barely move, he was able to bark. The basement was two floors removed from where I slept, so that I even heard him bark was somewhat of a miracle. Nevertheless, I awoke with a start, heard the faint bark, and immediately went down to see what was wrong. When I found him, I saw in his eyes a recognition of who I was, and a look of trust that whatever I was to do at that point, it would be in his best interest. The only way I could lift him out of the confined area was to grab him by his fur and lift him out -- something that was no doubt painful. Yet he did not squirm, yelp or cry out. His trust in my care and concern for him was complete. I was quite moved by it at the time.
• A few years back I was scheduled to drive 11 hours up into Canada. As it would happen, the two nights prior to my departure I got no sleep whatever. That meant that on the morning I was to depart and drive the 11 hours, I had been awake for 48 hours. That was cause for some concern because to doze off at the wheel could mean my death. I remember climbing into the car the morning of my departure, sitting at the wheel for a moment, and then dropping all pretense of my having any ability to do the drive. At that moment I experienced a moment of rare sincerity in prayer, and told God that I could not honestly do it, and that I needed him. 11 hours later, I was in a hotel room up in Barrie, Ontario -- and throughout the drive I had an unusual sense of strength and alertness. The lesson here is that I honestly and truly trusted God that day.

The Bible has many, many references to God desiring that his people simply trust him without reservation. Two examples:

• In Exodus 16 is the story of God provding manna from heaven. The Bible indicates that the instructions were that the Israelites were to gather only enough manna for that day, but not more (in other words, no hoarding). "In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions." (NIV, Exodus 16:4) Or, said another way, God was testing them to see whether they would trust him to provide.
• In the Lord's prayer, we see a reference to this: "Give us this day our daily bread." Of all the things one might pray for, Jesus instructs us to pray for the very most elemental thing -- the food for this very day. Again, an instruction to trust in God.

The ultimate expression of love through trust is when we trust in Christ's saving work on the cross as an atonement for our sins. It's when we truly and honestly give up thinking that we can somehow work or earn our way out of our debts -- when drop to our knees and cry out, "Lord, I can't do it" -- that we acknowledge our trust that God, not us, is the ultimate power in this universe.

It's a hard, hard thing to trust, particularly as an adult. This may be why the NT speaks of being "like children" when we seek to believe in Christ. I suspect, deep.thought, that you've seen trust for you in the eyes of your daughter, and that investment of trust in you to do right by her probably melted your heart. Is it possible to see a parallel there in how God might view us? Perhaps that's one of the "created in God's image" things you were asking about -- in the same way we find deep satisfaction in receiving the trust of our children, God himself is deeply satisfied by our truth and faith as well.

On Worship in Heaven

One of the key things we have to remember is that in heaven we will be in our perfected, or glorified states. The struggle we now experience in trusting -- in loving, or worshipping God -- will be gone. We will stand in the presence of Christ and we will worship effortlessly and in a way that will be deeply satisfying. Or so I've come to understand, if not yet fully believe.

On Election and Free Will

Nah ... no chance I can do this justice. Not because of lack of coffee, but because of lack of knowledge. There are many, many very scholarly works that speak of this. Two I'll mention here that I have personal experience with:

• "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief" by Bruce Milne
• "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" by R.C. Sproul

Both speak of the issue of predestination, election and free will. None, I'll confess, in a manner that left me without further questions. I suspect this is another case where there's a deep mystery, one left unrevealed by God for some purpose we can't yet understand.

On Converting Non-Believers

There is a certain freedom that comes from the idea that one comes to trusting faith in Christ only by God's election -- it frees us as Christian witnesses from feeling the responsibility falls on our shoulders. All we are to do is present our human face as a reflection of Christ's, and to help the non-believer as they seek. But we cannot pursuade them to believe.

I came to Christ at the age of 43 or so. For decades before that I experienced more than a few occasions where people tried to "thump me over the head" with a Bible in an effort to convert me. It did little more than drive me away. It took the accumulated weight of my having witnessed several sincere believers -- true humble servants of Christ -- along with endless hours of seeking on my own -- to see the Truth. The message here is that God does the real work, we are simply there to be examples of humble, sincere servants of His.

Many would argue that it's important to be more forceful. Perhaps. But I feel that a more forceful, argumentative approach drives 99 away while perhaps netting 1. It may be a personal preference.

More on worship

If I were a perfect being of a father I would be delighted to not be talking to my daughter, I'd much prefer it if she bowed down and started to worship me.

But I very much do not want her to do that.

So I don't have natural urges to worship or to be worshipped.

I wonder, in which part of God's image was I created?

Choice

In your previous post, when talking about the infallibility of The Bible you said:

I choose to believe that it is.

I think this approach is a very powerful selling technique for Christianity. The way to "convert" non-Christians to the faith (and just why is there a "calling" to spread the word? Perhaps that is another discussion of The Acts?) is not to thump The Bible and say "This is Absolute Truth, you must believe!!" is it? No, that comes later :-)

And are you chosing to believe or have you been chosen? And if the latter is "true" then what does that say about free will?

We're not natural worshippers - are we?

When discussing the nature of Heaven we got into questions about what we would be doing there ...

If time is not present in Heaven then how would we do anything? Worshipping, meeting family and friends, these experiences, any experiences only make sense with a timeline. Without the passage of time everything crunches up into a single event. Like when riding the crest of light wave.

Also, if we don't take a break from Worshipping God, how would we have time to meet family and friends? I suppose we could meet them whilst Worshipping God at the same time? In that case we could play chess and golf whilst worshipping too. If Heaven is perfect then it better well have chess and golf !!!

And on the subject of worship ... I don't think it's really in my nature to worship. Growing up through childhood my parents never had the problem of me worshipping anything. Especially a God .. there was no "Deep.thought stop worshipping and come down from your room!", or "Oh no, he's worshipping again". I was never sent to the headmaster for being a little Buddha, disrupting class by facing East six times a day, or claiming that I could heal the sick.

No my natural drivers were (and still are) to take things apart (to see how they work) -- and usually be unable to get them back together again.

I may find this continual worshipping a strain ... I imagine i'd enjoy a continual journey of taking the Universe apart instead, talking to our Creator to find out how (and why) he did it.

Current song: Red Hot Chilli Peppers: "Universally Speaking"

I Ain't No Limey!

Okay, so I didn't do to well with my British slang. I think I should get points for at least getting the phrase correct, if not misuing it. Imagine the horror -- the horror -- had I written something like "the hamster's bollocks." Plus, if the implication is that the best part of a dog is his bollocks, then either you folks over there don't like dogs too much, or you like bollocks a little too much.

* * *
"There are other parts of The Bible that suggest we maintain something of our earthly identities when in Heaven and that we will see long lost family and friends again."

I have heard a good many preachers go further still -- that heaven will be a recreated physical earth where we live in recreated and perfect bodies ... but that's not until after the second advent of Christ. What heaven is between now and that time is unclear to me.

* * *
As for the general thread about what life in heaven is like, and whether after some very long period of time we might get bored with it ... I'm not sure how to respond to that. I could joke with you and say that it would take an eternity for me to figure out how to counter the Scandanvian Bollock's Gambit, or whatever. But I'll try to stay serious.

You have an interesting line in your post: "We're worshipping God. Ok we'll take a break from that and ..." From what I understand -- and what I weakly cling to -- the allure of heaven is not that we get to re-meet old friends, or play chess until we're perfect ... but that we'll get to be in the glory and presence of God. And that will be so overwhelmingly blissful that time will have no meaning, and the notion of not worshipping God or not wanting to be in his presence will not even occur to us. Or so I'm to understand.

And it occurs to me that if one doesn't savor the idea of being in the presence of God for eternity, then one probably doesn't begin to appreciate God in the first place.

Critical Disclaimer -- I am not being judgmental there. Goodness, if you could know the doubts and struggles in my heart, you'd know that I'm about the last person that would jump up on a ledge and thump my chest about the superiority of my faith over others.

Think about it ... if God's glory is limited such that we might get bored with it after some period of time, then either God himself is painfully limited (perish the thought) or our image of God is painfully limited (which is more likely the case). I know that's the case with me.

I recall someone once explaining his answer when kids ask if their dog or cat will be in heaven. He said that to the kids he answers, "If that's what you want, then they'll be there." But he said he felt that once in heaven the things we long for and desire here on earth will pale into utter insignificance. Our longing and fulfillment will instead be in standing before Christ, face to face, and experiencing that Glory. On the surface that answer might seem callous and harsh, but I think there's some merit in the answer, provided that God is as compellingly glorious as the Bible says he is. If, on the other hand, God is merely like the George Burns character in the movie "Oh, God!" then perhaps wishing for my dog back might be an option.

Again, I wouldn't want you or anyone else to think that I have this thing called "faith" figured out. I am extremely uncomfortable in the new clothes I have. I struggle with competing emotions: either a) I don't really believe it, or b) I can't possibly deserve it. But this I am certain of: something is changed in me. There is a something deep inside that flickers like a dim lamp, yet it keeps me seeking God more fully. I stumble each and every day, but not a day goes by that I don't at least think about God. Some days I more than just think; some days I almost start to yearn.

I think I agree with you on at least some level when you wrote, "I believe that FAITH is not something that lends itself to reason." I think it lends itself to reason up to a point. But not entirely. There comes a point in time -- and in many different places -- where one must stand there, as if on the edge of a dock arching over a cold lake, and say "I will step off." For instance, nobody will ever convince me that it can be "proven" the Bible is inerrant. I choose to believe that it is. There is no scientific proof that God exists, but there is ample evidence that suggests that he just might ... and it's simply a step beyond that to believe that he indeed does.

On the nature of Heaven

But first, I really do need to sort this out:

"Or any Shakespeare. My high school was the dog's bollocks."

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate the meaning of this UK saying. The DB's for want of a better euphemism/acronym is used in such manner as to indicate the best part of said beast. Therefore a high school commanding such an accolade would indeed be the best high school that the education system had to offer. Indeed one would hope that such an exalted high school would have offered (without prejudice), nay commanded, both full and unfettered access to the Bard of Avon's literary legacy.

And now we can move on.

In reading The Bible there are indeed some references to Heaven. David Byrne said that Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens but Revelation would disagree:

"... a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language before God’s throne and singing his praises (Revelation 7:9, 10)"

There are other parts of The Bible that suggest we maintain something of our earthly identities when in Heaven and that we will see long lost family and friends again.

Sidebar: I have seen many examples of people that have turned to Christianity in times of great stress, perhaps following the loss of a loved one. This attribute of meeting family and friends again in Heaven seems to be a unique for the Christian Faith, and possibly it's most appealing?

Ok so we're in Heaven. We've renewed old acquaintances. We're worshipping God. Ok we'll take a break from that and go and play some chess. Over a period of decades you finally learn the correct response to the Scandanavian Center Counter Gambit (1. e4 d5 ...) . In fact we play so much chess that we play the game out. Even though there are more chess positions than atoms in the Universe this is of no concern to us. We have the time to play them all. (And incidentally I hear that Black wins :-)

Ok that's chess then. Let's move onto golf. We get our handicaps down and down until we're going around every course with an 18, a hole in one at every hole. OK, that's golf done then. Next.

We meet everyone we ever wanted to meet, you're all lunched out with Mother Theresa, Einstein and Newton have nothing left to offer us. Can't grill Adolf Hitler as he didn't make it past St. Peter, oh hang on this is Heaven, it's perfect, if I want high tea with a Nazi genocidial maniac then I can get it!!

Next .. next .. next ... flippin 'eck this eternity lasts a long time. I miss the old days when I wasn't doing anything ... pass the nachos.

Current music: New Order "Temptation".

Clearly and Surely This Post is Silly

When you mentioned the word "Silly," I couldn't help but be reminded of a Python skit where one of the players (Michael Palin, if memory serves) says, "Well, that's just silly." And then in pops Graham Chapman, dressed up as some military stuffed shirt. "Quite agree! Quite agree! Silly, silly, silly!"

* * *
I must prefice this by mentioning that C. S. Lewis is one of my literary heroes. Aside from an occasional detour into the thickets, I found much of his writing to be concise and approachable. One exception to this was the book Miracles, which except for the first chapter was almost impenetrable. But then again, I find most philosophy imprenetable.

* * *
You wrote: "You know very well that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are silly but you're far too smart to say so." Um, actually I don't know (or not know) that they're silly. All I know is that I don't understand it, and probably never will, mostly because I have little desire to even try. Why attempt to scale Everest when even small elevations make me dizzy?

* * *
You wrote: "This is why I believe it's much more important to get the message of The Bible than the minute details. I think that it's completely pointless to focus on and mark up each individual word." I couldn't agree more. Once one has the broad themes and messages down, then one can drill into words to pick up things like tense and singular/plural to try to discern a bit more about the immediate context. Focusing on small snippets and ignoring the broader sweep is like thinking Shakespeare's Hamlet is about the verb to be.

Then again, maybe it is. I never read Hamlet.

Or any Shakespeare. My high school was the dog's bollocks.

* * *
You wrote: "Physical evidence suggests that there has only ever been one moment of creation." That implies our souls (or angels, for that matter) are comprised of physical stuff. What's to say angels (or our souls) weren't created either before or after the Big Bang?

Frankly, I don't know when our souls were created, or the nature of our souls, or really anything much at all. But what I do know is that one of the cornerstone doctrines is that only God is eternal and self-sustaining, needing nothing; all else was created and requires God to sustain it. That's why I mentioned that ... because if our souls were also eternal, then that means God didn't create us, and if God didn't create us then either something else did, or in at least one way we're peers with God. Just as quickly as you close a book after seeing the word "silly," I become wary of theological opinion that undermines critical things like the uniqueness of God's eternal nature. It's not that I'm the holder of the all the knowledge, it's just that I see how the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if certain things are undermined.

* * *
You wrote: "Once "created" will our souls last forever?" My answer -- and again, what do I know? -- is that it appears the Bible teaches that our souls are everlasting. Why God chose to do it that way, I don't really know. I do believe that our soul's everlasting nature is only because God wills it to be so. He could, I suppose, will it not to be so. But the Bible doesn't teach that (or not that I'm aware of) and thus if one relies on the Bible as a True revelation of God's will (as I do), then I'm left to believe that it is God's will. Ecce homo, ergo, elk.

Sorry ... couldn't resist throwing in another Python reference ... "Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanised mansion. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken.

If La Fontaine's elk would spurn Tom Jones the engine must be our head, the dining car our oesophagus, the guards van our left lung, the cattle truck our shins, the first class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? Over there in a box.

Shunt is saying the 8.15 from Gillingham when in reality he means the 8.13 from Gillingham. The train is the same, only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk.

La Fontaine knew its sister and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is moulting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No, there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I'm having treatment and La Fontaine can get knotted.

But I digress ...

* * *
You wrote: "I suspect that this part of the doctrine (Hell) was invented to keep folks on the right path." Or perhaps it wasn't invented, but rather revealed?

* * *
You wrote: "Hell is an encouragement to keep banging the 10% tithe into the Church coffers." Ah, you see this would not be true if people truly held to the doctrine of Grace. Because then there'd be no reason to believe my giving 10% to the church would have any bearing whatever on whether I go to hell ... only the atoning sacrifice of Christ and my faith in the truth of that does. I'll agree that the threat of damnation and hellfire definitely was (and perhaps is) used for that purpose. And may God have mercy on the souls of those who commit the sin of corrupting his message of Grace for their profit.

You wrote: "I don't think that Christians really sign up for the non-transactional nature of Christianity you mentioned before." I agree. Sometimes I don't. But when I get a glimpse of it; when I get to experience a moment's comprehension of it -- it is strikingly beautiful and liberating.

You wrote: "Christians have faith that they will be saved from Hell and enjoy Heaven through their actions and faith on Earth." The Bible speaks of our rewards in heaven being tied somehow to our works on this earth, but never our salvation. But that said, I agree that most Christians are burdened by the idea of "works righteousness." So am I ... all too often. I have to work my way back to the basics of atonement and Grace.

Note: interesting sidenote -- if covetousness is a sin, and heaven is a place without sin, and people in heaven have differing rewards ... why should I care? If I have less than someone else, presumably I won't covet or otherwise desire what the other person has. So what does it matter? I have no answer ... just a thought that popped up in my head.

The bottom line is that I have absolutely no answer for why God chooses to maintain our souls in eternal torment, rather than simply extinguish us. This problem becomes even more vexing when one holds to the doctrine of election, whereby those who have saving faith in Christ do so only because God gave them the ability to do so. All others, presumably, were destined for damnation even prior to their being created, which really begs the question, why? I'll confess at this point I'm not making a clear and concise theological argument. I pray I do not derail others with this poor display of understanding. I'm sure there are answers that have been proposed by smarter people than me.

This is Spinal Tap!

Now you're using scarlet text. Smartypants.

And your mind truly is a repository of many many facts, musical, religious, pythonesque or otherwise. I listened and that phrase really is there at the end of Eclipse, even on the CD!

Now then ... "On the problem of C.S. Lewis" (and the title of your previous append did not go unnoticed) -- I want BAGWELLS opinion here, not some regurgitated material ok? :-) You are much smarter than Mr Lewis. My claim for this is that I have read his material and anyone who uses the phrases "Clearly ...", "Surely ...", "It is well known that ..." so often is highly suspect. One of the things I've discovered in 41 years of living is that Life, The Universe and Everything are not so clear. (These people often use the word silly also, at which point I usually close the book!)

On the other hand your material is concise and to the point, in an engaging and chatty manner. Ergo, you have seen further :-) You know very well that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are silly but you're far too smart to say so.

And Mr. Lewis, how do you clearly know when The Bible is speaking metaphorically and when it is not? Is Jesus a metaphorical saviour? Nom he is a literal one - because you decided that Mr. Lewis? What magic gifts we have to know when to interpret and when to take literally nous pas ?

Having said that about him, Lewis has brought Christianity to a great many folks so I am not completely dismissing him. I think that he and I are diametrically opposed as I believe that FAITH is not something that lends itself to reason. The one thing that omnipotence is not is reasonable. This is why I believe it's much more important to get the message of The Bible than the minute details. I think that it's completely pointless to focus on and mark up each individual word (oh and I have seen Christians do this - in whatever translation they might be reading at the time) in the hope to glean some hidden secret. When I see that I get a feeling of despair inside, perhaps generated by observing such a waste of effort?

Of course I may be entirely wrong and each to his or her own. Whatever floats your boat grandma. Enough Lewis bashing and having said all of the above I will go on to quote specific passages in The Bible as if nothing has changed :-)

On the non-eternal nature of our souls .. just when were they created? Physical evidence suggests that there has only ever been one moment of creation. Usually referred to as The Big Bang. The basic building blocks of our bodies were created in The Big Bang and were refined inside of stars in fusion and nucleosynthetic processes over the last 14 billion (US) or so years. Once "created" will our souls last forever?

And your question:

"why would God feel it necessary to punish those who are not saved? Why not simply extinguish them from existence"

Yes this was exactly my question to you. There is a very big downside (the perilous position) in the Christian faith to not being a Christian. I suspect that this part of the doctrine (Hell) was invented to keep folks on the right path. The right path of course being defined by the Christian Church of man (and all roads lead to Rome). Hell is an encouragement to keep banging the 10% tithe into the Church coffers. I don't think that Christians really sign up for the non-transactional nature of Christianity you mentioned before. Christians have faith that they will be saved from Hell and enjoy Heaven through their actions and faith on Earth.

Current song: Aztec Camera: "How men are"

More on the Nature of Hell

First off ... yes, I agree that the vocal for "Great Gig in the Sky" is terrific. That's Claire Torrey, if memory serves me. Other music trivia cluttering my brain: the violinist who plays at the end of the Who's song Baba O'Reilly is Dave Arbus.

I've heard some dismiss "Dark Side of the Moon" as an overhyped anomaly from the 70's. I'm not so sure. The whole album has a hypnotic sense to it. I particularly like "Us and Them" and "Eclipse." Of course, no true fan of the album would ever listen to it on CD. Vinyl is the only way to listen to Dark Side of the Moon. And oh, by the way, at the end of the second side, turn the volume way up so you can hear the voice say, "There is no dark side of the moon, really ... matter of fact, it's all dark." On vinyl you'll have to endure all the painfully loud pops and scratches when you've got the volume up to "11."

(Quick: what movie reference did I just make there? Hint: "Smell the Glove.")

* * *
The subject of hell in the Bible is an interesting one. I would never claim to be an expert on it because, to be honest, I've never tried to delve into it too deeply. In my mind I've classified hell as "not heaven" and left it at that.

That said, the New Testament is full of references to fire and burning when it speaks of the day of judgment. For instance, in the "Parable of the Weeds" (Matthew 13:24-30) Jesus speaks of wheat and weeds growing together in a field. He says, "Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." (NIV, emphasis added) Or consider John 15:5-6: "'I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.'" (NIV, emphasis added) And of course there's the explicit reference to the "Lake of Fire" in Revelation 20:15 that you cited earlier: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

So the image of fire is definitely the preferred motif. But is it literal, or metaphorical?

Personally, I'm not a fan of reading the Bible as purely literal. For one thing, treating the Bible as entirely literal introduces enormous problems when we encounter Jesus using parables. The Kindgom of Heaven is like a mustard seed? (Matthew 13:31) Or go back two paragraphs and see that in John 15:5 Jesus says, "I am the vine; you are the branches." Clearly these are not intended to be taken literally. So if our Lord himself uses allegory and metaphor to make his points, does it not also seem likely that other parts of the Bible also make use of that tool?

I'm not a literary expert, so I'm about to falter in what I write here. But as I ponder the notion of using common things -- fire, thrones, gold -- to describe things of heaven and hell, I'm reminded of something C. S. Lewis once wrote (and I can't remember where I read this). Lewis wrote that mankind is left with no alternative but to use allusions to things in our realm when attempting to describe things outside our realm. So the use of allegory and metaphor itself does not bother me; those are the only tools available to us to describe things beyond our ability to describe.

So why fire as the tool used to describe hell? I can't be certain, but I'll offer my opinion: have you ever suffered a severe burn? It's extraordinarily painful, and the pain persists for a long time. Further, most people have suffered from a burn when many have not, for example, suffered the pain of cancer (present company excepted, of course ... and may the Lord accept my gratitude that you're here to read this). So fire is a useful tool -- everyone would be able to quickly relate to the image being created: consuming, engulfing and enduringly painful. If God was interested in providing a motivation to avoid hell, using a picture of an eternal, all-consuming fire would be a good tool.

I've read some describe hell as being the total absence of God, and therefore searingly painful because of his complete departure. That may indeed be more painful than fire, but to someone who does not really know God, it may not create much of an impression. It would be like a very rich person telling me, "Hell is like not having a manservant attend to your needs." Well, I've never had a manservant, so the absence of one would seem to be no worse than the status quo. And if the status quo ain't too bad, then maybe hell ain't too bad either. But everyone understands fire.

A more fundamental question is this: why would God feel it necessary to punish those who are not saved? Why not simply extinguish them from existence? He certain has the power -- he created our souls, he could extinguish them as well.

Note: Our souls are not eternal. "Eternal" suggests timelessness, both forward and backward. We (and our souls) are created things. "In the beginning" the devil and the angels did not exist. We (and our souls) did not exist. Only God is eternal; all else is everlasting, and then only so at the pleasure of God.

Any thoughts on that question?