So often in the Christian faith we are required to just take things on faith. I am very aware of that as I start my first full week in a job that is not yet official. I am present in the laboratory; I am working on work; my supplies and books bear evidence of habitation. There is the appearance of "official", but is it really? Will the paperwork come through and back date this month's work to make it official or will something happen and I will realize it was only an illusion? Only time will tell and until then I must work by faith that this is what I am supposed to be doing and trust that, in time, things will right themselves in the paperwork world of bureaucracy.
This certainly reminds me of other areas of my life where I walk by faith and not by sight. Actually, it has been a great real life example for me of late as to not only the requirement that we walk by faith and not by sight, but how hard it is to do so. It also is a reminder, however, that things can appear one way when they are not that way at all. Sometimes things have the appearance of good but they are not; they are false, deceptive and evil.
Reveal to us loving, gracious and merciful heavenly Father those things on which we rely that are really false and deceptive. Fill us with your truth; help us to see our spiritual condition through Your eyes and not be deceived by "a way that seems right" (Prov 14:12; 16:25).
246 comments:
1 – 200 of 246 Newer› Newest»Nice thoughts Susan. Learning to trust Christ has mountain tops, and it has an every so often "valley of the shadow of death".
This may sound silly, but we should really trust God's Word more than we do the light switch in our homes.
The Lord's children are experimentally learning all the time, but never outside of His omnipotent and caring hand of providence.
God is with us, and so who can be against us?
You're right Don, we should! Doing so, with our finite minds, is the hard part! Maybe though, the mountain tops are even sweeter because we have lived in the valleys.
My favorite chapter of Romans!
Living in the valleys is part of embodying the gospel, which is what 2 Corinthians is all about. We in the Anointed One are given the anointing so as to live out the death and life of Jesus, that others might take in the fragrance of Jesus. I was reading on that today, on 2 Corinthians.
So that in all of Paul's weaknesses, God's strength was made perfect.
I don't think it was always easy for Jesus to walk by faith in this life, but he still did always, though not without loud cries and tears to the Father.
We have the promises, but there is just a certain ambiguity built in to a life of walking by faith in this life. Seems to be necessary for us here(?. But we do so trusting in our God, no matter what.
I like the challenge here of what we do trust in so easily, while struggling at times to really trust God.
Good to ponder....
Good post Susan. Thanks.
"we should really trust God's Word more than we do the light switch in our homes."
I really like that Don. You are absolutely right. As dependable as the lights are (at least where you live but not where I live!!) it is still a manmade invention utilizing energy provided by God. God's Word is more dependable and we should view His Word as such.
Hope you do really enjoy your new job Susan!
Just a thought on the comments we were making on your last post (sorry to be a bore, but I still need to question this further. Isn't the most important thing integrity?
If you have integrity then surely you cannot sin knowingly? You all constantly say what sinners you are (I know Luther is because he murdered a dog!!).
By our very human condition we cannot help but 'sin', although I will never go along with Donsands idea that babies are 'bundles of sin'.
Do you think that some people are born bad and whatever happens to them they will always do bad things. Converserly some people are born good and will always be good.
It has more to do with social upbringing and the morality that is instilled within you from your parenting, although some perfectly loving people I know have given birth to children who grew up to be right little horrors!
It's what life chucks at you, and how you deal with it that's important.
carrying on from my previous comment:
Walking by faith, and not by sight is actually in context that we don't see the Lord now, as well as how we must not get our focus on what is temporal, but to see everything in light of what is eternal. It's also in the context of how we as Jesus followers are to live in this world, as bearers of the light of the gospel.
I don't understand what you are saying Ted. Can you explain in simple terms?
Lorenzo and everyone,
As I'm thinking more about this, faith is essentially a relationship, it has to do with a relationship with God, and with what God wants to work in and through us in Jesus. And that's a Jesus-thing, in more ways than one!
So it comes with complexity to it, but with the simplicity of God's promises to us in Jesus.
Lorenzo,
It was a mercy killing. Like Dr. Kevorkian's work, the dog wanted to commit suicide, and I was just helped him go through with it.
Stop picking on poor Don. I believe the first person to put up the "bundle of sin" comment after my son was born was me! And I was really just fooling around with Don. It is an inside joke. A pastor at a church Don and I both attended years ago used to make that same joke. Basically, I was just reminiscing with Don about something from our mutual past, and he has been unfairly picked on by you guys about it ever since!
PS: Lorenzo,
You and I and everyone here sin every day knowingly.
Jesus taught us that the greatest commandment of all is to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength. Do you do that?? Do you love Him with this intensity every moment of every day??? If you don’t, you have broken the greatest commandment of all, which is worse than murder! You have not loved God in every decision you make, in every thought you entertain, in every action. Each of us is worse than murderers because we have not given God all the love He deserves and demands. Face the fact Lorenzo, you are a wicked sinner and so am I.
What rubbish Luther! You cannot force yourself to love anyone. I'm not saying that I don't love God. I'm a bit scared of Him actually especially as you lot are always banging on about burning people! I do love Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but they are God too, so it's all a bit confusing.
If love isn't put into your 'heart' then it is impossible to feel it. It is a gift. Therefore why punish the person who hasn't received the gift?
Ted, I understand what you say about faith. But what has that to do with sin, especially involuntary sin?
If everything Luther says is right, then no-one is saved because we have broken the first commandment, if only for a second, by thinking of other things beside God.
"If everything Luther says is right, then no-one is saved because we have broken the first commandment, if only for a second, by thinking of other things beside God." -Llama
There's great truth in this statement Llama.
Nobody on this earth can love God with all their might, soul, mind, and heart, can they?
But wait, there was a Man who did just that. He loved the Father always, perfectly, and never sinned. He then sacrificed His life, His perfect life for all those who would come to Him, and trust in His death on a cruel Cross.
And also believe that this Man rose from the dead three days later. The Man Jesus Christ died for us sinners. The sinless Savior died for sinners.
We are to call out to Christ, and ask for His mercy, because we have sinned, and we are to repent and turn to Jesus alone for our salvation.
That's the Gospel Llama. Jesus Christ crucified and risen. The sinless Savior of all mankind, and to whom ever comes to Him in humility and faith. He will change your heart, and give His Holy Spirit to you, and you shall be born again, and a new creation in Christ!
It's all God! He receives all the glory, and yet we receive His love, and inherit all things to come in the new Heavens and New Earth!
Amen, Don.
To Romans for those who are "in Jesus" we have the assurance that nothing in all the universe can separate us from God's love to us, in Christ.
That is certainly in the context of salvation, as Don speaks here to you, Lorenzo.
But it is also in the context of service and holiness for us who are saved and because of God's salvation to us in Christ, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
When you study 2 Corinthians in particular, you see that this grace given in Jesus is both for holiness and service.
So that in the end, like Stephen who was martyred and many with him, and every other Christian, we can stare the last enemy, Death in the face and call "his" bluff.
So I take it to mean we have complete assurance in God's all-powerful hand in Jesus- those of us who are "in Christ", a hope that awaits with assurance God's power now, and power later in the resurrection. And knowing that we indeed are "Children of the Heavenly Father" (one of my favorite hymns)
Yes Donsands, of course Jesus loved God above all things, but he was perfect Himself, and was God! We are just people.
You make God so frightening, and as the Bible says 'perfect loves casts out fear. There is no fear in love'.
So why are you frightening us all the time. If God loves us, then we shouldn't be frightened of Him. My children are not frightened of me, yet we are told that the Father's love cannot compare with the puny love we feel for our children.
If someone as sinful as me doesn't punish my children, or at least send them away from me to the Lake of Fire, and they are not frightened of me, why should I expect God not to love me and do what's best for me, like I do for my children.
I realise this is a bit converluted, but do you see what I am getting at? I am not arguing with you as such, but we seem to have such different viewpoints on the personality of God.
Don (and others--including myself) do not see fear as an exclusive motivation in our relationship with God. But God's Word instructs us to fear the Lord. It says that many times, and in many ways, therefore we must take it seriously.
At the same time, those who are drawn close to the Father are not in constant dread of peril, but rather, these souls are the most secure, knowing that their footing is sure, and that nothing can take them away from the love of God. Remember also that the name for the Holy Spirit is "Comforter." All of that must be kept in mind, as we examine what it means to fear the Lord.
Hopefully, where our investigation lands is not "Don says..." or "Craver says..." but thus saith the Lord...
(clicking for email followup)
Dear Lorenzo,
Could it be that it is our perception that is skewed about God? If we're sinners, and we know we are, and that we are really bad in and of ourselves- even from our limited perspective and standard, how can we trust ourselves to make a good judgment on God?
And remember, God is seen in Jesus. Jesus is no less than God sacrificing himself in love, for us, because of our sins. We need to look at God's love expressed in Jesus, as well as God's holiness and judgment expressed against evil.
Lorenzo,
Have you ever pondered why the Bible gives such extremes?:
1. Peace with God, His comfort, His love, eternal life, Heaven, etc.
2. The torments of Hell, eternal suffering, the Lake of Fire, etc.
When we cling to Jesus, we get option one. When we don't, we get option two. That's how it works. Jesus is that crucial.
If you were in a plane with both engines out and it was certain to crash and the stewardess handed you a parachute, your only hope of survival, what would you do? I bet you would cling to that parachute with all your might and leap from the plane. THAT is what you need to do with Jesus. You need to cling to Him with all your strength, as if your survival depends on Him -- because it does. You have no hope without Him, but you have all hope with Him.
Jesus is the key. He is what makes the difference between receiving God's love or receiving God's wrath. Jesus is the difference between going to Heaven or going to Hell. It’s that simple.
Cling tightly to Jesus in faith as your only hope (yet your certain hope) of survival. All of us need to do that.
"Ted, I understand what you say about faith. But what has that to do with sin, especially involuntary sin?"
Sorry I missed that yesterday, Lorenzo. I hardly have access to a computer at work, and when I do, little time.
Scripture up to Jesus as the Lamb of God who by his sacrificial death takes away the sin of the world, makes atoning sacrifice for sins a necessity.
And faith accepts this word from God, and receives it for one's self. That involves a submissive faith in that we accept God's verdict about ourselves, that we are sinners. And that we then accept God's remedy and gift for our sin in Jesus. So that our sins are forgiven and we can have victory over the power of sin in our lives.
Let me add what Triston is alluding to.
There is a sense of urgency in Scripture about this.
Just like when God told Israel of old to put blood of the lambs on their doorposts so that the destroying angel would pass over their homes, so it is with us.
We only have so much time, and the danger comes when we can so still or mute the Spirit's voice in our hearts, that we become set in our ways, in another way contrary to this, which keeps us from really committing ourselves and our lives over to God through Jesus.
I will add that for most everyone (probably everyone) conversion involves a process. We come more and more to see it, or are moved toward it, even if we have trouble in, or can't accept everything, and really see it well. But we move further and further along in a certain direction, and finally there comes the time when we take the step across.
I was told that the God of the Old Testament, i.e. the terrifying Old Man went out in the New Testament because of Jesus. He didn't have to fear Him any more because He presented Himself in the face of Jesus.
I believed this and was content and happy with it, but since reading Calvinist blogs I have come to dread the Father, while still loving the Son and Spirit.
This doesn't seem right somehow. In some ways I feel you are doing as much as Maalie in disuading people from their faith.
Hi Llama dear -
Pondering something you said,"My children are not frightened of me - I think that's the notion that runs as a theme through all these conversations. It's the notion of MY CHILDREN.
Triston said, "Jesus is the key. He is what makes the difference between receiving God's love or receiving God's wrath.". And indeed, Triston is correct; Jesus is the key to that relationship of which you speak, of being a child of God and therefore not fearing His wrath.
None of us are automatically "children of God". That relattionship was destroyed when sin entered the world. Jesus is the only one that can provide a way back for me so that I can become a child of God. And when I do, God becomes my Father that I do not fear because He is a kind and gracious Father, not a wrathful King that has had His love offer thwarted.
Not all accept this offer of adoption so not all are His children. Those that do not must fear Him and His judgement and wrath. With them, there is not a relationship of "perfect love that casts out fear" because they have rejected Him; He is not their Father so they have not rights as His children.
Much love to you dear Llama.
Ah, it seems as if we are writing each other at the same time Llama!
You know, I think, that I would not consider myself a "Calvinist" in the manner in which you are using it. And yet, I fully believe that the only reason that God can become Father and therefore "not scary" is because a relationship has been established with His Son and not all have this relationship.
It is rather like being a kid living next to what is assumed to be a very scary parent. When you become friends with the son of the house you become a friend of the father as well. If you become and enemy of the son, you will be an enemy of the father as well.
Those who reject the Father do so by rejecting His Son. Those who accept the Son see the Father and are accepted by Him.
Lorenzo,
I wholeheartedly agree with everything Susan just wrote to you. The fear of falling into the hands of a wrathful God are completely dispelled when you enter that relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. God then becomes a loving Father to you, more caring than any earthly father could. You can call out to Him as "daddy". Sit and talk with Him. Feel His presence and love for you. Know you are safe and under His tender care because He cares for you. ...but none of this is available outside of Jesus. He is the key to this wonderful relationship we can have with our God.
Amen, Susan,
Of course I agree! And well put!
Amen, Triston!
I see my name has been mentioned so I better contribute something.
I note that a tree stump discovered in Ireland has a resemblance to the Blessed Virgin Mary (see here ). Catholics (especially sick ones) are flocking in droves to touch the stump. Another excellent example of Christian delusion.
Yes, Litl Luther, it was definitely Donsands who made that outrageous comment that your newborn baby is "a bundle of sin". It is difficult to forget ludicrous statements like that - they drive home the extent of the God delusion. It was also Donsands who said: "Jesus didn't mean 'this', he meant 'something else'. Well, he should know.
He also said "A loving Father refines His children with fire". It is also hard to forget abominable statements like that. Halfmom excused it on the basis of metaphor, but fundamentalists can only talk in metaphor. It sounds more scary. To say something in simple plain English (in terms that someone who has English as a second language might understand) would make it sound all too ridiculous. Religion is institutionalised superstition and the hype, rhetoric and metaphor simply emphasises that.
Halfmom I wish well in your new job (though I have missed out on what it actually is). I feel confident that your experience and resourcefulness will gave you the best possible chance.
It is truly good to see you back here, Maalie. You've been missed — both by me, and I'm sure by the others as well.
Triston
Wow, a holy tree stump. I must get onto Ryanair's web site and book a ticket! This I must see and touch. Catholics take miracles very seriously, weeping statues, bleeding saints, relics etc. Something our protestant brothers and sisters seem to find amazing!
You are right about metaphor Maalie. Metalphor is very useful when you want to make a point. When I said that the creation storey was metaphor I was told I was wrong.
Today's word is niagra
p.s. did I say 'niagra'. I meant to type 'viagra'.
I've just been through Maalie's link to view the tree stump and personally, I'm not that impressed. What is impressive though is some of the other features on that page.
The image of Christ on the lid of a marmite jar, the image of Christ on a burnt bit of toast, the image of Christ on a hawthorn tree and a shaddow on a wall that at a certain time of day, becomes the face of Christ. These really are worth looking at.
Welcome back Maalie
Triston is right; we have missed you!!
Two points, if you will. The first is about "bundles of sin". Did your boys wear diapers? If so, surely at one point or another, you heard them shreak in pain. Thinking a pin had come loose and was stabbing your poor infant to death you went running to rescue. Certainly I have and many of my friends as well!! And what I found was a baby delighted that I had come, pins intact, no issues anywhere. The screaming was just a manipulative technique to get the parents attention in a way that guaranteed success, even if it involved some misrepresentation. Since it was a choice to misrepresent, I consider it to be sin. A rather silly example, but true, and one I often use to explain the concept the propensity for sin in even little babies.
Now to metaphor. I fear you would think me a terrible teacher if you think this is a low level teaching and communication technique. Even in molecular biology and biochemistry, and neuroscience, I find it very useful to help a student understand a concept. It is actually especially useful for those who do not speak English as a first language if I understand the culture enough to draw on similar experiences to help them understand a difficult concept. Gosh, and all the while I thought this made me a good teacher! :)
Jesus said something interesting about parables too - he said that they were useful in revealing the truth to those who were willing to see and disguising it from those who were not. I'm not sure I have thought through the why of those who did not want to understand his metaphors, but surely you do see that even he used metaphor to teach as well.
As to Don's statement about "refining by fire", it is indeed a metaphor that is used throughout scripture. It refers to the process of gold smelting for purification. The heat causes the impurities to rise to the top where they can be skimmed off, making the gold purer. It is a useful analogy for me as I can definitely see where the trials of life have been used to make me a better person.
Thank you for your well wishes for work. It is a temporary position until I can figure out what I'm going to do with my life and to see if my latest grant receives a good score. If not and another grant I have out is not funded, then I shall consider what else I might do in science that does not involve raising ones own salary all the time! I have had a fun week and a half in my new lab. It is the lab of a colleague and collaborator. My desk is literally in the lab beside my benches. Yesterday I got to spent the afternoon making lovely picture of fluorescent immunohistochemistry of brains for mice with multiple sclerosis! It was more fun that I've had at work in quite a few years!!!
"It was more fun that I've had at work in quite a few years!!!"
That's nice to hear. And your excellent comment deserves a, Hear! Hear!
Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out. It's better to enter into eternal life with one eye, then to be condemned to hell with both eyes."
People surely dismiss the Lord's words here right out. I have heard them say, "Oh, yes, let us pluck our eyes out if we sin. Then the world will be full of one eyed persons!"
They miss Jesus' point. He's making a very serious point, but not literal.
And that's just one example of many. But it is for those who will hear.
For years, and years, I turned a deaf ear to Christ. But His gracious truth and grace one day brought me to my senses.
I just returned from a wonderful getaway in St. Michaels. It was a very pleasant time away from work and Baltimore, and a undeserved blessing from above.
Glad you had a good time away Don.
We're headed out in the morning for Richmond, VA. Drew has to go through orientation and be fingerprinted again even though he worked for the same district year before last.
So, the three of us are taking the opportunity to go and take two cars there now so one of theirs can be left.
Sorry to hear that Drew is being locked away in jail again.
Just kidding! Have fun in VA! It should be beautiful there this time of year.
Is VA Vermont?
>For years, and years, I turned a deaf ear to Christ. But His gracious truth and grace one day brought me to my senses.
If "He" loves us so much, why doesn't "He" do that for us all? In my case "He" revealed to me the evidence that demonstrates that we do not need "Him" to explain the origin and development of life on earth. "He" opened my eyes and rescued me from delusion.
Lorenzo: VA is Virginia, I believe.
West Virginia, Mountain Mama, take me home, Country Road!
And if you don't enjoy adultery, what is the point?
The Holy Gost is your faith
I'm afraid I don't believe in ghosts - holy or otherwise.
"If "He" loves us so much, why doesn't "He" do that for us all?" Maalie
I don't know.
But the question is what do you do with a risen Savior, who was seen by 500 men at one time?
Or as Luke has given testimony as well: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:4)
The risen Lord walked the Earth for forty days, and yet even a risen Lord will not be believed in unless the Lord's great mercy and forgiveness are given and received by us sinners.
I tend to think that if there's a pull in one's heart toward God, or a sense of lostness, that's a sign that they have heard something of God's speaking. But I wonder if when people feel repelled from God, or hate the notion of God, if that's not a sign of God speaking as well, maybe into some deeply affected area of their lives in their brokenness.
Also, Amen to what Don says!
>But the question is what do you do with a risen Savior, who was seen by 500 men at one time?
Who was reported as such! It is actually only one person's testimony - the person who wrote it (Halfmom will know what is meant by "independent observations"). do you believe everything you see reported in the media today?
> I don't know.
But don't you think you should?
I tend to think that if there's a pull in one's heart .
Ted, would you be so kind as to explain exactly what you mean by this? As we have discussed here before, the heart is an organ for pumping blood. Any other context has absolutely no meaning for me. Please be explicit. We are talking about eternity here, I need to understand in plain terms.
Maalie,
When one is inclined toward God, as in seeking after God, having a sense of God- is what I'm getting at, Maalie. God in speaking draws people to himself through Jesus and his death and resurrection for all creation.
(Acts and the Gospels were all written within the time eyewitnesses of the events were still alive so that if they were a hoax that would have been easily picked up on and they would have been soundly discredited during that time. Theirs was a culture quite good at oral tradition- the Hebrew, Jewish tradition that is, which also bodes well for their historical accuracy.)
>God in speaking draws people to himself
Ted, I'm afraid I am unable to agree with that. You might say that "He" (if "He" exisits) draws some people. Taking the population of humanity as a whole, I would say that it is a rather small proportion. "He" hasn't drawn me; if anything "He" has shown me the folly of my delusion.
"But don't you think you should?"
I know that the other side of that coin is, 'Why would God, love those who don't believe He exists, and who take little thought in thanking Him for even the air we breath is a gift from God?
But Jesus said, "Love even your enemies. For your Father in heaven takes care of those who are ungrateful."
God's ways, especially His mercy toward sinners, are far beyond our reasoning. It's true what he says He is. You can entrust yourself to that truth. But to understand all the Creator's purposes?
He created the universe. I mean, that's One incredible Creator.
We can know much about Him. But we don't even know all the mysteries of our own planet, which is a speck in His universe.
But we disagree that there is a Creator, don't we?
I believe in an Eternal Being. Those who don't have to believe in an eternal vapor, or eternal molecule. But where did they come from?
The evidences of Dr. Luke's writings are very solid. As are the writings of Paul, formally Saul of Tarsus.
There's more reason to trust these writings than not to.
"The evidences of Dr. Luke's writings are very solid. As are the writings of Paul, formally Saul of Tarsus.
There's more reason to trust these writings than not to."
Well stated, Don. I would add one thousand amens to that one! Converted, hard-nosed sceptics would as well.
Maalie,
I believe God is at work to draw all to him. But it is a work of God and beyond us. But it ends up involving us.
And the drawing is to bring us into the blessing promised to and through Abraham, to bless all peoples on earth.
This is fulfilled through the proclamation of the gospel which is the announcement that Jesus is Lord, and that God the Father raised him from the dead.
From that there is a work occuring even now by God's Spirit, bringing God's kingdom in the new creation in Jesus, into the world, into all of creation.
Humans begin to fulfill God's cultural mandate of stewardship as God's caretakers of the earth.
And what is done now in the power of this new creation in Jesus carries on through the time when God makes all things new.
sorry about removing so many posts as I think it's ready to send but leave one thing I think is important enough to bother with- out. So sorry, Susan, and you can erase this comment as well, if you bother erasing the others. :)
I seem to be having a lot of these "hiccups" in my commenting lately!
"But it is a work of God and beyond us." -Ted
That's the point I was trying to convey, which I feel I failed to do, and even some of what I said was awkward and confusing.
So, there must be a Creator for all that we see that exists had to come from somewhere. It couldn't come from nothing.
And so the Creator of a trillion stars times a trillion is going to be much more complex than His creatures.
Don,
I don't feel like you failed to convey that point.
Sometimes I'm frustrated with my own comments, thinking they really didn't say well what I thought needed to be said, or that what I thought needed to be said falls short, so I can track with that feeling.
But just the same, I think you're communicating fine.
Thanks Ted.
God bless to all.
"If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else."- Booker T. Washington
Maalie et al,
As I listen in on the debate, I’m reminded of my interaction with Lorenzo and the greatest commandment being to love God. She thought my argument was rubbish because you can’t force yourself to love someone. But if God exists as we believe, try and look at it once from His perspective:
• He gives us the air we breathe, but we don’t thank Him.
• He gives us the food we eat and water we drink, but we don’t acknowledge it.
• He gives us our health and vitality as well as the the joy and pleasures we feel. Even our taste buds are a gift from Him, but are we grateful? No.
In every country on earth, be it a democracy or dictatorship, laws are set by the governing authorities for the people of that nation to obey; they are expected to abide by them. God, the sovereign of this world has also set laws that His creation (we humans) are expected to abide by. But do we obey? No. We even flaunt our ability to disobey Him.
And yet, even though this is true, He still sent His only son to pay for our crimes against His laws, and yet we still obstinately refused to believe in Him and love Him as tells us we should.
It is argued that God doesn’t give the ability for everyone to come and believe in Him, and though that may well be true; what is indisputably true is that He never forces people away. He does not prevent anyone from coming to Him. He has given all of us freewill, and if we still refuse to come to Him, it is our own sin that prevents us from coming—not Him.
He gives us the air we breathe, the food we eat, and even every time our hearts beat, it is His mercy (both to believers and non-believers) because His laws state that “the wages of sin is death.” If He gave any of us what our deeds have earned then we would all drop dead immediately. And despite all this, He was still willing to sacrifice His own life to rescue us from the crimes we willfully committed against Him by our own choosing. Are we grateful to Him? Do we love Him, our sovereign? Well we sure should!!
Amen, Triston. Good words.
Maalie,
"But I wonder if when people feel repelled from God, or hate the notion of God, if that's not a sign of God speaking as well, maybe into some deeply affected area of their lives in their brokenness."
If I came across as trying to psychoanalyze you I'm sorry and ask for your forgiveness. Actually I did not mean to do so at all. I was speaking of humans in general, and just see it as a phenomena that impacts us all. Sometimes in my life even as a Christian I have felt repelled from God, often due to sin. And it was marked in me before I came to Christ.
Scripture teaches that as Adam and Eve hid from God in the garden, after sinning, so in our sins, we are strangers of God, separated fron him and from his life (the possibility, I take it, of eating from the tree of life).
But God calls out to us, just as he did to Adam and Eve in the garden. And God pursues us. And animal sacrifices began which looked forward to Jesus' death for us, for our sins, and his resurrection to bring us new life, and to bring in the new creation.
Welcome to the discussion, Lloyd.
And good morning everyone from Gallipolis, Ohio on the way to Richmond, Virginia. We only managed 450 miles yesterday, so have another 375 today. Not my favorite passtime but the scenery is gorgeous and I have "Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck in the CD player.
Litl Luther, Re your three bullet points: what absolute nonsense. There is no need to ascribe any of those things to a "Him". Oh yes, we are told those things as kids ("All things bright and beautiful" and so on) - we are also told about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus! Religion is simply institutionalised superstition!
>But God calls out to us
Ted, I can only repeat my point, he hasn't called out to me, nor the vast proportion of mankind. At what point do you suppose that "He" started calling? To Homo habilis; or did he wait until Homo ergaster? Or did "He" wait until Homo erectus appeared on the scene?
Every culture has had their own creation myths, their own superstitions. Take your pick, any one is as good as any other. "He" casts "His" favours randomly among those of different faiths, and those of no faith.
I know fear but I remember the holy Ghost stands besides us.
So so not sweat the little stuff u will be ok
Be cheery and smile
"I have "Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck in the CD player."
What a classic. Never read the book, but did watch the film. Heavy film, but excellent.
Steinback seemed to write dark stories, 'Of Mice and Men', East of Eden, are the other two I know of.
I pray your trip will be a good and safe one. Amen
Maalie,
I can agree with much of what you say.
But we do start from radically different premises, so that in the end we are poles apart!
You proceed by faith in a kind of naturalism based on science that denies anything beyond what it can tell. So that you end up either in atheism, or agnosticism- with that brand of naturalism.
We proceed by faith in words and acts we believe are of God, so that by faith we know God through the person of Jesus.
So when we look at the same phenomenon we draw radically different conclusions. You say “God is no where,” and we say “God is now here.” :)
Again the key for us, front and center, is Jesus. Through him and through him only are we Christians, holding to a faith which we believe has not only to do with our own lives, but with all of life and reality.
From this faith all human aspirations of love, justice, beauty, etc., find their basis and fulfillment. Through Jesus, that is, as faith itself is rather beside the point and all about Jesus, and our looking to him.
Blogger has been giving me fits :), as I lost a couple of comments, or so I thought, hence the deletions.
Blessings on your continued doings and travelings, Susan.
(I'm not denying the importance of faith, to Christian readers here. Only that faith is about being taken up with the object, not about itself.)
Maalie,
Here is a good example of Paul’s ministry to the intellectual elite of his day.
And note these words of Paul:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'
Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."
It’s the cross, which of course is shorthand for Jesus’ death and resurrection- God's work in Christ, to which we Christians go and from which we live, and on which is our hope for the world. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ted,
I get your point on faith. It's a good point. We don't put faith in our faith. Jesus is the object of our faith.
...I am curious, though, how you would answer Maalie's question. It seems a fair question to someone like yourself who both believes in Jesus and in evolution: "At what point do you suppose that "He" started calling? To Homo habilis; or did he wait until Homo ergaster? Or did "He" wait until Homo erectus appeared on the scene?"
Triston,
I won't go into evolution on this blog.
But the answer is simple for me. God knows and it certainly was to humans made in God's image.
I could say more, but I'd break my word on going into evolution here.
:)
Okay Ted. I understand. Maybe I can rephrase the question:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Since Adam was a grown man when he was created I would certainly say "The chicken came first." But how would you answer?
:)
Yeh, and he plucked out a rib, ate an apple and talked to a snake, right? LOL!
".. ate an apple"
It could have been another kind of fruit Maalie.
I always thought it may have be a pear, or maybe a pomegrantit.
But if it was a pear, it wasn't the pear on the tree that was rotten, it was the pair under the tree.
You mean the man that ripped out a rib without an anaesthetic and the girl that grew from it?
"You mean the man that ripped out a rib"
Actually the original Hebrew doesn't say "rib". It's 'tsela' which simply means side. Could have been Adam's rib, but we don't know that for sure.
God made created humans, which is 'adam', or person. He created them male and female.
Man is the Hebrew word 'iysh'.
All these words have meanings, and the Lord spoke them to us through Moses. These are spiritual things as well as physical.
The word for male is 'zakar'.
Yes, it's all very vague, isn't it? You can make of it what you want, really, can't you?
You can make of it what you want, really, can't you?
No, Maalie. You can't.
Craver Vii, that is obviously and patently untrue! Even within Christianity they have not and can not agree what it all means, even to the extent of killing each other over it! We have come a long way since that discredited book was written by men for men.
Just because some do not agree on what a thing means, that does not constitute license to interpret a thing any and every which way. That does not sound like a scientist, Maalie. That sounds argumentative, but not on solid grounds.
My grounds are as solid as can be. The evidence is incontrovertible, and is independently verifiable. It is fundamentalism which refuses to acknowledge it. Anyway, it is not "me" - it is the whole of the peer-reviewed scientific community you are denying.
Bed time over here - good night.
"..that discredited book"
On the contrary Maalie, the Bible is credited, very much so.
I don't think there is quite a book like it in the world. In fact, there's nothing close.
Maalie,
Adam did have an anaesthetic. God put him to sleep before He pulled out Adam's rib, or ovaries, or whatever it was that God removed from man to make woman.
Hello!!
Just been scanning through the comments since I last appeared here although I haven't read all of them because I was struck by something Ted said and them Maalie (predictably) argued with.
Ted said something about God drawing you to him from your heart, or words to that effect.
I can really relate to that. I go to Mass each week. I am not sure why. Maalie would possibly put it down to superstition. Maybe he is right.
All I know is that there is something that 'draws' me there; something that won't let me go. I am not always sure that I believe in the God to whom I am praying, but I still, in faith, carry on.
When I am at Mass I feel the most enormous sense of well being, of peace, of happiness, and although I feel these qualities at lots of other times, the quality of these qualities (as it were) is different.
Whether this feeling is a sense of the Holy is debatable, but I think it is.
That doesn't mean, as you all well know, that I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. I feel God on a spiritual plane, rather than a logical or educational plane.
Just read a few more comments.
About the rib thing. This is another case where the Bible gives conflicting stories about the creation.
Argumentative? Maybe, but what could be a more worthy subject of argument than how we got here!
Discredited? Well, if Eve was cloned from Adam's rib, that means Adam must have had within his genes the genetic diversity required to generate all the human diversity that we recognise today. Simply not credible, sorry.
Maalie, there is something I have been mean to ask you.
You know if you take a swab of spit, then you can find out where the original ancestors came from, i.e. Northern European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian etc. etc.
Is this genetics or dna? Also, why doesn't everyone's swab point to Africa?
Lorenzo: Genetics is the study of hereditary mechanisms; DNA is the chemical component that holds the information, which is replicated and transmitted from generation to generation.
Human DNA can indeed be traced back to Africa, but there have been successive migrations out of Africa that have become isolated long enough to have evolved unique genetic characteristics and these can be matched up.
You can find all you want to know about the subject here .
Maalie, I hope you had a restful night's sleep. Here's where we left off:
I was talking about (mis)interpreting a book into anything anyone wants it to mean. You then said that I am denying the whole of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Are we still talking about the same thing? Are you saying that this "peer-reviewed scientific community" agrees that a book can mean anything to anyone? Don't you see that such a statement cannot possibly be true?
Fine. Let's use your line of thinking, just for kicks. If I say that it means one thing, how can you argue? Why would you disagree with me if, according to you, I can make of it anything that I want?
Craver Vii, thank you for returning, I fear there may have been a mis-understanding by one or other (or both) of us.
My point is that the bible is so ambiguous, contradictory, subject to translation errors etc. that almost everybody has their own "take" on it. If this was not the case there would be no room for the vast quantity of discussion, argument and discord that has arisen from attempts to interpret it. We have a clear example here when Donsands said "When Jesus said 'this' he actually meant 'something else'. That is his personal interpretation interpretation of what Jesus is reported to have said, that is his prerogative.
On the other hand, the peer-reviewed scientific literature is just what it says: it is in the public domain and open to criticism and eventual consensus, maybe. Of course there have been hoaxes and frauds in science just as there have been in all other walks of life. The difference is that in science the evidence is in the public domain, and open to scrutiny.
There is no such independent verification of what is written in the bible and so when it patently contradicts what we now understand to be true (for example, that the chromosomes of one man, Adam, could not have contained sufficient genetic information to generate the human diversity we see today, there is no way to challenge it because it is dogma.
What I find frustrating with fundamentalism is that most are perfectly prepared the genetics of modern medicine and crime investigation, but reject the same science when it appears to contradict their prejudices.
Your reply maybe "God is omnipotent, he can do anything" is only countered by the point that he is so because we ascribe this to him.
However, I will stop here, for fear of outstaying my welcome. If you want to know more, there is so much good information available in libraries and on the internet, contributed by some of your own brilliant scientists.
Well said, Maalie. I think I understand your position a little better now.
"About the rib thing. This is another case where the Bible gives conflicting stories about the creation." -Lorenzo
That's not true, Lorenzo. It is just another case of myth that has gone around so long that people actually think the Bible says "rib" when it never said such a thing. Just like the Bible never said they ate an apple, and just like the Bible never said there were "three" wise men, etc., etc. People have imposed tons of myths on the Bible that were never recorded in the Bible to begin with.
Actually Luther, my Bible does quite clearly say 'ribs'. But that wasn't what I was meaning.
It also quite clearly says that He made man and woman together on the 6th day, and the rib bit wasn't mentioned until the end of the second chapter.
Hi Lorenzo,
Good point on the two creation accounts. I misunderstood your point....but about your Bible: Translators put the word "ribs" in your Bible, but God didn't. It's in some of the English translations, but not in the original Hebrew. It is the original languages that the Bible was written in that matters. Translations are just that—interpretations more or less.
because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians
Andrew, if you could possibly say something that is based on your practical knowledge and experience of the world, rather than regurgitating incantations from an ancient book that is discredited on so many counts, you might actually impress me.
The delusion rests with those who really believe that an individual and his cloned partner (which ever part of his anatomy was used) could generate all the diversity of the races of mankind that exist today (not to mention the extinct ones). Or those who really believe that a man survived in the guts of a fish for a week.
But I better stop now or I will be accused of argumentativeness!
"Or those who really believe that a man survived in the guts of a fish for a week."
How about a man surviving for 7 and a half hours in a plane wheel?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/867628.stm
"It was unclear how he had survived the below zero temperatures and thin oxygen at the cruising altitude of 10,700 metres (35,000 ft)."
1,000 years from now if we tell this story someone will say, "Right."
Donsands, I reckon in 1000 years there will be a lot more unlikely tales to relate! It happened so it happened.
Tell me a case of a person who has lived in a fish for even an hour or two and you might impress me!
Maalie,
You make sweeping statements that leave us puzzled, like how the Bible contradicts itself, and how Christians don't agree on what it says.
All Christians agree on its essential message from Genesis 1-3, as well as its message as a whole. Even scholars agree on the basics of what Scripture says. The problem and differences do arise at times in interpretation. Though the basic message of Scripture in creation, fall, redemption and new creation is clear.
We've been in this discussion before. Someone like Francis Collins, who President Obama nominated this week to head the National Institutes of Health does not believe mainstream science threatens the faith.
And for Collins, as well as the rest of us Christians on this blog, the real compass to lead us home is Jesus. All of Scripture really points to him, and finds its fulfillment, goal and climax in him.
Lorenzo,
To an Ancient Near Eastern hearer, to which Genesis 1 and 2 were originally written, the creation accounts are not contradictory. They look at creation with different emphases.
In Genesis 1 it's about God's powerful creating word/act. And the result. In Genesis 2 it's about the pinnacle of God's creation, humankind, and God's dealing with humans.
Only those reading it with a western, modern mindset have problems with the variations in the accounts. They weren't written with modern historical and scientific precision in view, but to get across main points of the Story.
:)
And just who are you, Maalie, that I should be trying to "impress" you? I don't care for impressing anyone.
I simply scatter the seed of God's Word, and the Holy Spirit does the rest.
by that last comment, I certainly did not mean to say that I don't care how I treat people; on the contrary, I do very much, being an ambassador for Christ. I meant to say I am not out to impress you (Maalie) the way you are talking about. That can't happen anyway. God's Word is enough.
I'm glad to see you contributing here, Andrew.
OK, fair point, I withdraw the word "impress" and replace it with something like "influence the way I think about how the world works". Regurgitating tracts form an ancient discredited book, which is all you seem to be able to do, does not have that effect on me.
Ted, Francis Collins rejects any concept that Adam and his cloned partner contained sufficient genetic information in their chromosomes to produce the entire human genetic diversity that we see today (plus the extinct types).
In any case we know that it did not happen like that. Man evolved in Africa some three million years ago and populated the world from there.
Please study the link I gave to Lorenzo some way above and you will find all the information you need there.
I bet he doesn't believe the fish myth either. LOL!
Yes, Maalie.
But he does believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord of the world, who died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day.
And he also believes that in Adam all die, but in Christ all will be made alive. And that in Jesus all things will be made new.
>And he also believes that in Adam all die
Ted, you may have to express that in a different way, for Collins does not believe that Adam existed. I know thsat because I hasve seen his writings on the subject.
Collins explicitly stated that he accepts that evolution by natural selection is the only explanation the fits the evidence - evidence which is regarded by the peer-reviewed scientific community as incontravertible.
Maalie,
Francis Collins believes in the virgin birth of Jesus. And he believes the writings of Genesis 1-3 are true, probably in a mytho-historical way, using symbolic language to show what did indeed happen in the earliest history of humanity.
But I certainly can't speak for Francis Collins.
But I would say that he would gladly concur with this as the earliest mention of the gospel in Genesis 3:
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Maalie,
"in Adam all die" means there is no access to "the tree of life." Adam for Christians like C.S. Lewis is shorthand for early humanity.
>Adam for Christians like C.S. Lewis is shorthand for early humanity.
I can live with that. Would that be before or after the migrations out of Africa?
Maalie,
I don't know what they would say on that, except to say that "Adam" denotes humankind, period- whenever and wherever that may have been- true even in the Hebrew there in Genesis, as well as coming to be the name of the male in the story of the garden.
I respect your use of the word "story" Ted. I can accept that.
“So the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.”
The main ingredient here Maalie is the LORD.
God works within His creation, and yet at times supersedes the natural with the supernatural. And since He is an eternal God, the works He does are not random, but have purpose. So it is with Jonah being in the great fish for 3 days and nights, it had a purpose.
Jesus said, "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." Matt. 12:40-41
God has caused a donkey to speak, He has made an iron axe float, and He has raised people who were dead. Not to mention He has created all that we see, every star has a name to the God of creation.
And yet mankind is His grandest glory in creation.
I check around for a person being swallowed by a great fish. But it matters not. Could it happen? Absolutely, if God caused it to happen. Could an axe head float on water in our day? Yes, if God does it.
Can a sinner, who wants nothing to do with Jesus Christ, become a person who loves Christ? Absolutely. It happened to me.
Maalie, you simply just don't know MY GOD! His Word is by no means discredited and has the power still to save and transform lives. It happens every day. God's Word is true. Mock all you want, but it doesn't change that fact. It is for that reason that I will keep posting the Scriptures as time allows.
and oh yes, I don't need to influence your thinking on the way the world works, nor am I trying to. Everybody knows God made it, they just suppress the truth in unrighteousness, just like it says below.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The story of Jonah is a prophet's parable to fortell the death and resurection of Christ.
Let me add my "Amen!" to what Don and Andrew are saying.
I'm not mocking, Andrew, I am simply reiterating the evidence. You can cling to your delusion for a lifetime but it won't alter the truth! If you accept the peer-reviewed science of modern medicine but reject that of population genetics, then you are a hypocrite.
>Everybody knows God made it
What absolute nonsense! LOL!
Actually, everybody knows that evolution by natural selection is the truth; but they refrain from admitting it because they have already invested so much in denying it. And there is a matter of "losing face" among the fundamentalist peer group. What are you going to tell your kids (if that is what you have in mind) when they ask about exhibitions in Natural History Museums? Tell them that the scientists have got it wrong? (That would include medical scientists). Or do you propose to deny them access to the evidence?
Oh Andrew, I notice that you are still spouting incantations from that sadly outdated book. We have come to understand a great deal since that was written. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
I take the most strongest objection that you refer to me a swine. I do not hold your beliefs (delusions) but I would never call you a pig.
I hereby abandon this blog.
My upbringing was strictly evolutionist. I was so steeped in it, that the first fifteen or more years of being born again, I syncretized the origin accounts. It was only until the relatively recent past that my eyes were opened.
And yes, when our children hear any sentence that begins with "millions of years ago," they know how to prioritize an infallible God over even the most esteemed, but fallible man.
Maalie, I didn't say it, God did. Of course, that is WHO you have been at enmity with all along. It is HIS WORD you call nonsense, and you will be held accountable for it.
"Adam for Christians like C.S. Lewis is shorthand for early humanity." -Ted
That is an awful broad statement to make, Ted. Adam, for the vast majority of us Christians, is in fact the first human being who ever existed—not some mythological character representing humanity. You may be able to speak like that on behalf of .01 percent of Christians, but the rest of us believe the man Adam actually existed, as much as we believe the man Jesus exists.
Craver, would it be impertinent to ask about when you were born again?
Did something make it happen suddenly or were you going that way anyway?
I quite understand if this is too personal to discuss.
Thanks for asking. I'm always happy to talk about that.
The short version 'Renzo, is that on July 6, 1986, it made sense, and I prayed to ask Jesus to be the #1 motivator in my life. I already believed that God existed, and even accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. The difference is the realization that I needed to get off the throne of my life, and allow the Lord to take His rightful place. You might call it an "Aha!" moment.
No bells & whistles. No sunbeams and angel choruses. One impressive change was how the Scriptures now read more like a personal letter that I was interested in, than a technical owner's manual or dry, legal jargon.
I want to go on and on, but I'll pause, for lack of space. Is there anything more specific you were looking for?
Thank you Craver. No, nothing more specific, but I am always interested in how people become born again.
I have heard some really dramatic stories, including one friend who 'died' giving birth to her first child and had an 'out of body' experience. She was revived and became a very evangelical Christian from then on.
Triston,
I said for Christians LIKE C.S. Lewis. I certainly didn't mean all Christians. :)
Hey Ted,
This must be the same Collins: http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/11851-a-religious-scientist
I thought that was very interesting.
I'm prolly a bit more of a "fundy", some would accuse me, compared to Collins, and Colson, who I admire a lot BTW, though I don't consider myself even close to a fundy kind of a guy.
What's Obama up to is the question for me? Hmmm.
Thanks, Don, for that excellent article. I too have the most profound respect for Charles Colson, even though I disagree with him on some things. He is always to be taken with the utmost seriousness in what he says.
As to what the president is up to, I think he's just being himself. He's always made those on the left uncomfortable as he is pragmatic and has always tended to want the best people, regardless of their ideology.
Not to say he's not ideologically driven, and there's good and bad in his ideology from what I've read, actually.
Hey Ted, I think Obama keeps himself in the shadows, however, any man that stands firm for infanticide has something wrong going on in his conscience; or says partial-birth abortion needs to be kept legal.
Getting back to the main post, I walk by faith as well as I can, and not sight, and so I pray for Barak that he would see the light, and see just how evil infanticide, partial-birth abortion.
Don,
I take it that Obama is a victim of a modernistic problem of dividing the secular and the sacred, and related to that the private and the public, utterly foreign to Scripture, and the Christian-Judaeo worldview.
So that he says like others that for him abortion is wrong, but that the government should not interfere in the private choice or belief of others regarding it.
We need to hold him accountable, and especially to his campaign promise (if I recall correctly) or expressed desire to see the number of abortions reduced significantly.
It never ceases to amaze me what you all can be up to when I take a few short days away!
First - let me say that the last half-dozen "Andrew" comments are NOT MY ANDREW! It is the one that we do not know and appears to be from Florida. He has been asked repeated to sign something that indicates that he is other than my son-in-law.
Andrew from Florida - you are quite surely very close to being asked to leave this blog. you surely do not know me very well but that is almost beyond belief that I would even consider that, but I am. You will NOT, and I do repeat NOT, hit people over the head with scripture here. Scripture is truth and life and when you twist it and use it to excuse being insulting and condescending to anyone, you will no longer be welcome here. You want to disobey scripture and treat others that way - and if you have any idea that you are not, then check Eph 4:29 - then start your own blog, but you will not do it here any longer.
I want to be very clear here. I'm all for open conversation; the one you were having actually seems like this one was going pretty well and was productive. However, this last turn is unacceptable. I do not think that the discussion on creation versus evolution is something that is going to be productive and I've asked you all to cease and desist. I would appreciate it if you would do as I ask.
Maalie, as you know, because you and I have had the conversation more than once, I choose what I accept out of the peer reviewed literature. Just because it is there does not mean that I am obligated to believe it. NEVER, EVER have I had a colleague call me a "hypocrite" as you have because we disagree on interpretation of the literature. We just agree to disagree. Nor have I ever had one of them suggest that I have such weak manner of personal strength as to accept what I know to be false because I don't want to "loose face". Like Craver, I was an evolutionary theist from many, many years. I have only become an evolutionist over the course of the rather recent past as I have learned more and more about areas of science that you know little about. As the the "Natural History Museum" discussion, we've already had those as well. So please drop it. You are behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner to someone who is every bit as good a scientist as you are and I am more than tired of it. Truthfully, you're no better than Andrew from Florida in throwing about insults.
Obama a victim? That's a new one! But, I will take the underdog side among Christians on this one and say "If Obama gives all Americans health insurance as he promised, then I will be glad he got elected." After 13 years of being without insurance, I'm ready for a change. My wife and I had to make the tough choice of giving birth to our precious son in a third-world toilet called Kathmandu, where the hospitals look more like outhouses, because it was unaffordable to give birth in my own country, the USA. So despite my disdain for the man because of his weak morals on abortion, I'll still be glad he got elected, if I, like the other 40 million Americans without health insurance, actually receive it.
Lt'l Luther,
We're all victims in one way or another, as those living in a fallen world that is completely on the wrong path in the light of God's kingdom. That is why we must keep undergoing the transformation through the renewing of our minds, of course! (Rom 12:2).
I agree about your point on health care. I consider it nothing short of a national and moral disgrace that there is not affordable health care for all in this country. How dare the Republicans call themselves pro-life who are more concerned about the bottom line or the polls (and I'd like to mention more than that) than that all get proper basic health care. Not pro-life in my book. (sorry, I get heated because I have friends whose lives are at stake) And I say this as one neither Republican nor Democrat, and a firm supporter of our congressman in Washington, Vern Ehlers (Republican).
oops - in the heat of emotion I just said I was an evolutionist - which we all know I'm not since I believe in a literal, spoken into being creation, so I think that makes me what Maalie calls a "fundamentalist" - or as I call it, just a believer.
Yeh, spending a month without physical therapy for the shoulder because of no health care is not helping me out any.
I don't want whatever kind of health care they have in Canada where someone else tells you what you need and when you can have it - but I do wish there was some way we could have health care with majority say in our own decisions for health care.
"So that he says like others that for him abortion is wrong, but that the government should not interfere in the private choice or belief of others regarding it."
Ted, if abortion is wrong, then why not hope Roe is overturned? Barak wants to make this legal killing carved in stone.
Just for a contrast, Rudy Gulianni said, "I'm fine if Roe is overturned." He is pro-choice, to a point. He would ban partial-birth. Obama says if an abortion is botched, and the baby lives, that child must be set aside to die.
To me, there's something wrong here, big time.
Don,
Wrong is wrong whatever kind of wrong it is. But if I get into details it will just open up a discussion which won't end. All must be seen in light of God's kingdom and America will be judged.
Roe v Wade being overturned would be wonderful but I don't believe it will solve the abortion problem in this country. The states then decide, and even Texas, a most pro-life state, in a poll had a majority say abortion should remain legal, so if it would remain legal there, what about the other states?
Susan,
It depends on who you talk to from Canada as to what they think, and I guess on the person, but I believe health care availability in Canada is far superior to our own. In fact we're rather low in making it available to all, compared to others. We have the best medical ability in the world, but we need to work on improving its availability is my plea.
Don,
Do you think that something can be right of wrong but not be something that should be legistlated?
It's a hard debate for me. We hold ourselves to different standards than we do the "world" because of our beliefs. We hold ourselves to Biblical truth. We do not hold non-believers to the same standards in that we expect for them to behave differently. At least I do.
For example, say a kid comes into youth group with his girl friend (this is actually a true story). He's not a believer and neither is she and we find them in the hall making out. I don't read them the riot act and then haul them to their parents like I would if it was one of "my" kids. I just tell them that they cannot do that where we are. I do not go so far as to say that they cannot do it at all because I can't legistlate their morals for them.
Hope the question makes sense.
I know I'm joining the (closed-ear) discussion late in the game, and I don't really wish to take part, but, Maalie, I'd like to challenge you on a few points, if I may:
Maalie, I've read some of your blog, and I appreciate your knowledge of and love for animals. I wish I had that--especially as a biology teacher. However, your notions of scientific empiricism as "proof," of history, and of linguistic theory are horribly off-base. Seriously.
(1) No history book is really open to "independent verification." In fact, no past event is open to empirical verification; at best, we can simply deduce what is most likely to have happened. You cannot deny this. On top of this, it is purely absurd to say that there is such a thing as "bare fact" or "bare history." Everyone's presuppositions color what he or she sees, how the "facts" are both reported and comprehended. This is true of all historical accounts, the Bible included. And yet I bet you believe that Neville Chamberlain was prime minister in 1938--not because you knew him, but because you believe as credible many eyewitnesses' accounts of him. But what about Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great? To accept their historical deeds is to accept on *faith in the unseen* that they were real.
(2) We CAN know with pretty good certainty of what an author or speaker was saying. You yourself rely on this every day in your communication. You assume that there are clear enough linguistic patterns and contexts for speaking with and writing to others. Sure, poor reading skills (hermeneutics) lead some people to misunderstand or twist texts beyond their original author's message. But this doesn't mean communication is impossible. Go read Mortimer Adler's book, "How to Read a Book," -- a popular British title from the 1940s, I believe.
(3) Scientific empiricism cannot be a definitive basis for determining "truth." (The following is based on arguments put forth by John M. Frame, a professor of epistemology in the U.S.) For starters, see what I mentioned in (1) above. Second, we may have instruments and lenses and interpretative schemes by which we can evaluate many things, but our perception of events is colored by our own senses. Empirical data is essentially sense-data, that is, it's based upon our observations. And we all know that our senses and perceptions can be mistaken.
I see my desk as "brown" because I have what amounts to an "experience of brownness." A colorblind person may swear something is brown when it's really red or green. So when I say that my desk is brown or it is hard or whatever, all I can really know for sure is what I have a sense of. Therefore the only "fact" that remains is that I'm sure of my own experiences or senses--which says nothing concrete about the data at hand.
Thirdly, empiricism can only validate observational "facts." The difficulty with this is that it cannot validate empiricism itself as a means of knowing, since "empiricism" is not empirically verifiable.
I realize that this may push the boundaries of what is sensible and workable. ("How do I know that this book's text says, 'Ancient Gaul was divided into three parts'?) And really, I think we can be generally confident of our senses--but only because a gracious, life-giving God allows this so that we can fluorish. And please, I am open to critique and rethinking some of this. But let's be sensible, okay?
Andrew (the son-in-law)
God's people in Christ are the new Israel scattered all over the earth. America is not a Christian nation, and in the 1790's the U.S. Congress voted something like 92-0 to say just that.
America was founded on the wonderful principle of religious freedom for all, incluidng "Mohammedans" as that bill said.
We are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We want to influence all for good through the gospel lived and proclaimed.
John Frame. Good writer. I have a couple of his books at least, one a big one.
Glad to see you back, Andrew (son-in-law)!
:)
the rather recent past as I have learned more and more about areas of science that you know little about.
Susan,
Can you provide us any links to such knowledge that pushed you away from theistic evolution? Not for a discussion on this blog, but for my own study.
Thanks,
Ted
I think Ted's comments on abortion are very thoughtful and compassionate.
I also don't believe in abortion, but that is as far as I am concerned. What other people choose to do about it, is their concern and their conscience.
Ted is right that the results of abortion is never easy for women. Some of my friends have had abortions and it wrecked them emotionally. It's very easy to be judgemental.
Talking of marriage, how do you square the Bible's idea of polygamy?
"It [abortion] is a troubling and difficult issue for many women, to be sure, and the fallout afterwards for many of them is surely painful."
No wonder! A mother, of all people, murdering her own flesh-&-blood baby. How horrifying! I cannot think of a worse crime that could be committed, nor something that would leave a bigger emotional scar on the perpetrator than that.
Lorenzo,
Thanks.
God was working with the cultures where they were at. Israel was significantly above the cultures surrounding them due to the revelation they received from God. God was moving humankind through Israel, and ultimately through Israel's Messiah to the goal of the kingdom of God in Jesus.
And marriage as Jesus tells us, from the beginning as we read in Genesis is intended to be one man and one woman as one flesh. Jesus taught that it was to include no others, and this is carried out in Paul's writings where church leaders had to be married only to one wife- in a culture where the gospel was being preached and where polygamy was present.
Susan, it seems I really made you angry and for that I ask your forgiveness. I do take issue with some things you said though. Let's not forget that Jesus.... the kindest, gentlest, sinless, man did not mince words. He called a spade a spade and it was always with their healing in mind. I assure you that was my intention. It was never my intention to beat anyone over the head with anything, however it does bear noticing that Maalie got the most annoyed when Scripture was put before him. Hmmm, I wonder why. (well, I don't really wonder, I know why)
That all being said, I shall not comment here anymore.
Susan,
I deleted my comments with reference to your question to Don.
I think I'm used to the free for all kind of atmosphere I learned over on McKnight's Jesus Creed- or at least that's my perhaps excuse.
Andrew from Florida - I would say livid is a better description. Let me explain why.
I have asked you repeatedly to leave a signature with your comments to differentiate yours from my son-in-law Andrew's. I think very highly of my son's words and appreciate the time he takes to think through and then leave comments, so I wish to have his clearly differentiated from anyone else’s. This does not seem to have been a big request yet you have repeatedly ignored it, even when reminded.
Also, I have a strong commitment to keeping the tone of this blog in accordance with Eph 4:29 and 2Tim2:23-26. This is most especially true for those who profess the name of Christ. I remind you of Saul on the road to Damascus. He was breathing threats towards all believers and then a moment later he was humbled by Christ. I truly believe that such a moment will come for all, but it is not up to us to decide the timing or to judge those who are not at that place yet. That is the work of the Holy Spirit only and we must trust Him in His work and in His ways. What we are called to do is to give an account for the hope that is with us, to present the gospel that we stake our lives on in a clear and kind manner. Though 1Cor 10:32 is specifically referring to food and drink, I think that we can extract the principle that we should not be more offensive than absolutely necessary, for the cross is, in and of itself, already an offense to those who do not kneel at its foot.
If you wish to comment in the future, please keep these two directives in mind.
Litl-Luther
"A mother, of all people, murdering her own flesh-&-blood baby" ..."I cannot think of a worse crime"..."
How is it better Litl-Luther to murder with your words and to make the pain of unintentional sin even worse with your words of condemnation? One might think that compassion might be in order, especially since we are told quite clearly that any one sin was sufficient to nail Christ to the cross. In comparison, is it wise to go about weighing and measuring other folks sins, espeially in light of the fact that you have chosen one that you, personally, cannot committ?
Ted's answer on polygamy was fine. I would just like to add my own thoughts to it, if I may, that the text of the Bible does not condone or promote polygamy. It (like other sins) has been merely tolerated. Other things you'll see that I lump in this category are getting drunk and divorcing one's spouse. I'm not condemning anyone; I'm just saying that you can never say, "that was a beautiful, God-honoring stupor we induced." or "I saw the blessing of God in that divorce from start to finish." Does that make sense? And again, I'm not ripping on people who have been there; I'm just saying that it's not promoted by God, that's all.
Yes, Craver, I think the comment makes very good sense. I think that between the two of you, you and Ted have answered very nicely.
"Do you think that something can be right of wrong but not be something that should be legistlated?" -Susan
The issue I was zeroing in on was abortion mainly. And the position of Barak Obama, who says he is a Christian, is one that supports even infanticide, which is when an abortion is botched, and the baby is left to die in a seperate room, and then discarded as trash.
What has the more right: A women to not be pregnant, or a child to live?
I pray the law would once again be as it was in 1973 whne abortion was illegal.
There are many other issues in this life, and certainly the unbliever is to be treated differently than the believer. I agree with you there Susan.
If someone says, "I'm a Christian", then we should be able to go to the Scriptures for help. I honestly wouldn't know where else to go.
Sorry I got us down this rabbit path of politics.
But as I said, your post is about faith and not sight. We wrestle with principalities and spiritual wickednesses, not so much other people.
The Gospel is the strength for the believer. And for the religious it's just gets in the way. And for the straight up unbeliever it's foolishness.
"...you have chosen one that you, personally, cannot committ?"
Susan, but it IS a sin I can commit. Adam was held responsible by God for Eve's sin, so why would it be any different in the case of the man who got a woman pregnant and then agrees to go through with an abortion, or does nothing to prevent it? It's not different. That father is guilty of the murder of his unborn child.
I just like calling a spade a spade, that's all. I hate that we have come to the place in our world where sin is no longer sin, but, rather, "additions". I call it like I see it. Abortion is murder of a human life. And so murder is what I call it. Maybe helping a person see the gravity of what they have done IS being compassionate, rather than deceiving them into thinking it is a lesser evil than it actually is, telling the truth.
Hi Don,
I also dislike O'bama's stand on abortion and find it incongruent with his profession of belief. I think that what I'm trying to think through, via Rom 13, is what is right versus what we should legislate for all people. Perhaps though it is as Ted says, if it is wrong and we know that it is, it should be legislated. I find it difficult to decide where I think the line should be drawn.
Hi Triston,
I think that there is a huge difference in being held responsible for someone's sin and actually committing it yourself. This is especially important in the "aftermath" of feelings and even repercussions.
I also think that even the Law made a difference between murder and man slaughter. It does not seem to me that taking a human life, especially when there are those that do not actually either see or accept that it is human life, is always murder.
Is it sin, yes I think so, but for more reasons that taking of life. I think a greater reason is that it makes God's decisions for Him, deciding that you know best. This is, of course, idolatry which I think is the far greater sin.
"I find it difficult to decide where I think the line should be drawn."
Me too.
As an American I have many privileges and I am thankful for them; first to God, and to the men and women who gave their lives for this nation's liberty.
As a Christian I have my Christ and Lord far above my nation.
I don't know if that makes sense.
If I was born in China, and was a follower of Christ there, and was married, and had two children, and my wife became pregnant, then I would be forced to abort this baby. And to speak out against this is impossible.
So there's another perspective for a Christian.
Rom. 13, and some of Peter's 1st epistle tell us to obey the governing rulers, absolutely. Only when they tell us to disobey God do we revolt I would think.
You should all read Os Guinness's book, "The Case for Civility." A must read! Does help us see the good of America. I do think Obama likely lines up well on that. And Bush's administration in some important aspects on life was a failure to me. I actually see overall what Obama stands for as being closer to Jesus and the kingdom of God than any major Republican players I can think of.
I see things from more an Anabaptist point of view, so I'm not enamored with America, but I shouldn't take our religious freedom for granted. At the same time, our call is to take up our cross and follow Christ. Why do we put so much of our identity into being Americans? Our theologies are very different, but we should all be devoted and committed to one thing only, and one god. And then the rest, in politics, or whatever, is worked out from that.
...also our oneness is in Jesus Christ and NOTHING else.
That is why I love our church and denomination. That unity is what we stand for (in spite of our real differences), and we seek to work it out together from God's word by the Spirit and for the world. And I see it being lived out at our church and am glad to be a small part of that.
I do write my two last simplistic comments from a tired and troubled heart, tired of all the divisiveness among Christians. I'm probably just as guilty at contributing to that at times.
"..tired of all the divisiveness among Christians."
That's a good heart Ted. thanks for sharing your heaviness. I long for unity to.
There's going to be division because Jesus said, "I didn't come to bring peace, but division."
That's part of the Church. But. there is the love part. Those who really love Jesus, whom we haven't seen, can have fervent love for one another, for His glory, and because He demands it, and because it pleases Christ.
Politically I don't like America's leaders. Abortion to me is the number one issue. If a leader can see a baby laying in a closet crying himself to death as something that needs to be protected and kept legal, then this says tons to me about where this leader will lead us.
Although George Bush was pro-life, and was firm in his stance, he was a weak leader in many ways.
The political climate is disquieting for sure, Don. While I certainly agree that such a stand on late term and partial birth abortions reveals the heart of the man, I'm not sure that I could say that this is the number one issue for me. I'm not sure what I would say that it is though. I find politics to be very confusing.
Thanks Susan and Don. Maybe you guys are right. I know I have the tendency to 'black and white' everything up, when often there are grey areas.
"Why do we put so much of our identity into being Americans?" - Ted
I completely agree with you, Ted. Jesus and Peter both referred to the Christian community as “a nation” (Matthew 21:43; 1 Peter 2:9)—not as Greeks, Romans or Hebrews. The patriarchs considered themselves “strangers and pilgrims” on the earth (Hebrews 11:13), and this is why their faith pleased God. They would not have considered themselves Americans, but as foreigners in American, even if they’d been born in that country. And as the Apostle Paul teaches us, "Our citizenship is in Heaven." (Philippians 3:20). So we should consider our citizenship to be from that same place. We’ve been born again into a Heavenly nation.
Another thing that bothers me is how many Christians in America (naively) believe their country is always on the righteous side in conflicts. Perhaps often they are, but always? That's a ridiculous notion. The hearts of our leaders are just as wicked as are the hearts of the leaders of Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, etc.
"While I certainly agree that such a stand on late term and partial birth abortions reveals the heart of the man"
Susan, I disagree on that. I won't go into why, it would take longer than a comment. Obama would get my vote today, probably, hands down over most anyone, except Huckabee, and Huckabee is probably not going to make it, anyhow. And I think it could well be that Obama is a born again Christian.
Triston,
Thanks for your perspective on that. Yes, it is strange the allegiance Christians give to the Republicans, but also that the liberal Christians give to the Democrats. Though to tell you the truth, I can understand the latter better.
Don,
Thanks.
Yes unity as Jesus prayed for is and Paul talked about, along with Jesus is not a high agenda for fundamentalists either in word or deed.
I am sick and tired of Christians who make much of their differences as if they are better than other Christians. That's not something I can be a part of or near for long.
On politics I'd say it's not at all black and white or really black and white at all: it's real life.
I don't understand how we can say we can judge the heart of a man on the abortion issue. I disagree on that one.
Listen to all he has said on it, and disagree along with me, but don't tell me he's all for abortion and is a proponent for it, because that is not what he is about on that issue.
I won't debate that here, because I don't have the time, and I certainly disagree with him on even his nuanced thinking on it about rights, etc., of course.
Obama is essentially a good man. I think that's evident, I mean on the surface. All hearts are open only to God. And outstanding in his gifting and intellect. And seems to have a good pysche to press on in troubled times.
I try to look at the whole person, which makes me see George W. Bush as essentially a good man, but not an overall good president. He was misguided in some critical areas.
They all have feet of clay.
And Jesus is Lord, not empire America or anyone/thing else.
A quick comment before I hit the hay...
Triston, good comments - we are surely called to be set apart into our own nation and not revere this one. We have been deceived I think into thinking that we were somehow safe because we appeared to be a "christian" nation. Funny, I think that was always one of Maalie's contentions a while back - how could we, as a nation, always say we had God on our side in any conflict...
Don - it is hard for me to mesh the division Jesus talked about as being within the body of Christ - my body is a prime example of what happens when the body doesn't work together. Do you suppose it is possible that He meant the division would be between those who were not 100% His and others rather than within the group that belonged soley to Him? I haven't gone back to look at that scripture to think it through - just wondering.
Ted - "I don't understand how we can say we can judge the heart of a man on the abortion issue/" I think there is a big difference in "reveal" the heart - the word I used - and "judge" the heart, the word you are using. I mean simply that an apple tree reveals itself as an apple treat by having apples. In the same fashion this "fruit" O'bama has about this particular issue concerns me as brocholi haning on an apple tree always would. I do not offer it as an indictment, but as an area of concern.
On saying all is not black and white I don't mean for a second that we can't see abortion as wrong. That is black and white. But to see all the problems in real life in regard to it, and surrounding it, is a problem.
Wrong thinking on faulty bases is included, but we need to be there to bring Christ and his love to the women, help prevent abortions in the first place by blessing in deed, etc. I'm sure you all agree fully on that last part. :)
PS - I have to put a new post up soon so we don't have to wade through so many comments - this is crazy. What do you think should be the topic of the post?
Susan,
Good point.
I can accept your thought that it's an area of concern. I have my own opinions on that, but I am concerned, as well.
It would be nice if all could just speak their mind fully on a subject, not subject to all the boundaries politics makes, things you have to say and not say in wisdom to get toward the accomplishment of your goal.
I would not be a good politician, I'm afraid.
Susan, the next topic could be on turnip greens and somehow comments would soon stray off into a new area. That seems to be what happens any way.
>don't tell me he's all for abortion
Ted, I think what Don would turn you to is to how Obama has voted. That's what counts (not his babbling, but his actual deeds). Remember, he was the only senator to vote in favor of infanticide. I have never seen you respond to that. And his vote cannot be denied. That is the "fruit" Obama has demonstrated on this issue.
I think it could well be that Obama is a born again Christian.
Again, what "fruit" (word or deed) has Obama demonstrated that would make you consider this a definite possibility?
Lt'l Luther,
Get me the link on that. I've heard his words on it, or read them somewhere, and though I disagreed of course, they were nuanced. But that is going on my memory.
I won't get into that. But he well could be, adn in spite of that. I've seen some Christians as highly self-centered along with what good you can see. For one thing, I think Obama is bigger than some Christians I've been around in some areas, from what I can tell.
We evangelical Christians are more in favor of war than the general public, here in America, and that speaks for our misguided faith in America and in the conservative and Republican Party. I consider that a disgrace, nothing short of it. How is that better than Obama's error?
I don't care for all the controversy here, yet aren't we humans drawn to it, somehow. Of course Jesus at times was a controversialist as John R. W. Stott pointed out in a book on the gospel of John on that theme ("Christ the Controversialist" as I recall).
So I hope to be less on this blog, as it really borders for me at times on needless strife.
It's not an indictment against Susan or anyone in particular. Probably about me, as Susan and others think I take things personally in a way they don't.
Who wouldn't be tired of Christians who don't see you as God-centered, etc., etc., and I consider them not God-centered themselves, and around and around it goes!
I will join in here and there, and knowing me, too often, but I need to concentrate and give myself more fully to other things.
:)!!! and hugs.
Blessings-
Mercy, peace and love to you all, in abundance, through the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory with the Father and the Spirit, forever and ever.
P.S.:
Let me add to my feisty statements of last night:
We're all one in Christ, in the Spirit, with one faith. For me that's what matters. Not whether one is Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Catholic, Mennonite, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, emergent (that label is fading), whatever. None of that matters to me at all.
"What counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy on all who follow that rule, on the Israel of God." (end of Galatians)
"..those who were not 100% His and others rather than within the group that belonged soley to Him?"
I agree Susan. The genuine Christians, those who truly love Christ, and the Scriptures, who have the Holy Spirit will at times have heated discussions, but through the grace of our Father we will reconcile, because we know the truth, and truth sets us free to love one another.
The division will be between unbelievers and believers, and even within families; brothers and sisters, father's and children, and so on.
There are some unbelievers are in the Church, who call themselves Christians, and they will cause discord and division, these are ministers of righteousness, but they are servants of the angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
So to the world it will look as if Christians are divided, and even killing each other, which has been part of Church history, but from God's view, these are false disciples.
It's difficult to tell at times though. The Tares will grow with the Wheat, and we are to identify the Tares, but not pluck them up. The Angels of Christ will do that at His Second Coming.
Here's the facts on Obama and infanticide for whoever, it's the facts plain and simple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY
What a lot of comments since I last looked in!
I agree with Ted.
I think Barak is wonderful. I just wish he and Gordon Brown would get together to withdraw all the troops from the ridiculous wars we are in.
Susan, I had purposed not to comment here anymore, but I wanted to assure you in sincerity that I did not purposely ignore your request to leave my signature. I simply forgot since it has been some time since I commented here. I am very sorry for that.
As to the rest of your reply, let it suffice to say that I think you misunderstood me very much, and for many reasons I regret ever having come into the conversation.
the last comment was from Andrew in Fl.
I have agreed all along that Obama is wrong on abortion and he himself has stated he might be on the wrong side of history on this issue.
"In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion."
(from here)
It is hard to keep one's hands clean on political issues, and Obama tends, I think to be willing to take the hit on something he thinks is principally wrong.
I think we don't do well when we don't seek to understand the other perspective, and I think it all goes back to protecting so called "abortion rights."
We actually make Europe conservative compared to us, because of the late term abortions we allow (and they are better in having less because of superior availability of health care, generally).
Hopefully Obama will have a change of heart in this. Why I didn't vote for him, and the only reason, really.
What about the many thousands and thousands of innocent civilians killed in wars, including women and children? War should be a last resort which is done with feet dragging. But not so, I'm afraid. My conviction on that.
So one has to weigh everything and equally committed and good Christians will vote differently, or as in my case not vote at all.
Thanks for the link, Don.
Hard to keep one's hands clean in politics, but every Christian politician must. (I think Ehlers and Henry, our last two congressman representing Grand Rapids have been exemplary in this!) But I'm sure many haven't.
And it is an art as well as a science, or kind of from one's philosophy. President Reagan was willing to go along with provisions in bills supporting choice as long as he felt the bill (overall) was moving the country in the right direction against choice.
Probably for better overall in our system, what gets passed is rarely without substance added from the opposing and losing side.
"Hopefully Obama will have a change of heart in this."
Amen Ted.
I wonder if we just talked about the baby, and didn't talk about all the other things, but just saw a human life being killed. No politics, no war talk, no nothing, but this baby that is going to be killed.
"This is a baby laying on a table crying until he dies." Now discuss that one sentence.
Or what if we could be in the room when there's a baby being turned around in a womb so that's the legs come forth first, and then pulled out of a womb with his legs kicking, but you stop just short of His head being exposed, and then cut a whole in the back of his skull, and then suck the brains out, if that might change one's heart.
I've heard some incredible testimonies from abortionists, who came to Christ, and repented of their sin, and have brought much glory to the Cross.
The Gospel is all essential, and to speak up for the innocent babies being killed is a great light we can shine for the Lord as well, and so direct people to the Cross and forgiveness and rest for their souls.
God is so incredibly merciful! What a Savior we have, who saves to the uttermost.
have a great weekend, and Lord's Day.
Thanks, Don. Good thought.
And amen. The gospel is the hope for us all that we need to share with those women who have had abortions, as well as those involved in it.
No war talk?
The death of innocents in war is also anti-life, and failure to provide adequate health care in our country when needed, because not everyone is willing to make the sacrifice. It's across the board, and all of life must be taken seriously. We need to speak out on all that is not pro-life, along with exposing the evil of abortion.
Don't you think?
All I think I'm trying to say is that we need to look at everything as best we can. Try to see all the evils, and in the context of an evil age and fallen world.
Unless we do that, I think we lose credibility. If I rail on and on about war, then don't I lose credibility? We have our special calls, but what we speak out against needs to be in regard to the light of God's kingdom in Jesus/ the Gospel, on ALL of life in this world.
That's what I'm trying to get at, I think.
Ted,
But God has condoned war at many times in the Scriptures, but He never condoned infanticide (accept in war). There does seem to be a difference between killing in war times and the act of murder.
PS: President Obama is a baby killer. That is what he voted for--to kill live babies. I agree with the video link accusation Don provided. He's an evil man, and he's our president.
"Try to see all the evils, and in the context of an evil age and fallen world"
I agree.
I see abortion as the most horriffic evil sin we have in this world, because it's the murder of innocent humans. It's similiar for me as the Holocaust. The Jews were being killed because the world would be better off without them.
Absurd and ridiculous.
Babies are being killed in the wombs by the millions and millions, because the world will better off without them.
Absurd and ridiculous.
The Gospel is the answer still. It's not humanistic morality, but instead it has to be Christ who is the only answer to a fallen world.
I'll bet there not a blog in all the blog-world that has discussions like Susan's.
Christ is the answer to a fallen world, and it's in terms of God's kingdom purposes for all of creattion. We are elect for God's purposes for himself and the world, not only for our salvation. I'm sure you'd agree on that, though we must be careful to not fail, like Israel of old, who thought election was just for their benefit. But they were chosen to be the light of the world, to be a blessing to all nations, through their God. Blessed to be a blessing.
And humankind is meant to be concerned about all of life, caretakers of the earth in their given stewardship from God. In Christ all things again are put into subjection to him (Psalm 8, I believe) so that humanity in Christ comes back to that responsibility.
This is why we must be seen as God's people to have more concerns than just two or three, the mistake of the religious right during the past election.
Otherwise we fail to carry out what God has clearly shown are all his priorities, of course from Scripture.
Triston,
God makes wars to cease (I believe in Psalm 46).
Some who are the loudest against abortion have also been the loudest supporters of our last administration's disastrous war.
Part of what we're here for, as the new Israel, is to live out the way of Jesus, a way that is directly in contrast to retaliation against evil doers. The way of the cross.
Indeed God does use and hold accountable the powers of this world to hold in check evil and prevent anarchy. And those powers all end up being judged in the end, and replaced by the rock of God's kingdom (Daniel 2).
This is why I think it's precarious for us Christians to align ourselves so closely with any nation we happen to be citizens of.
As to Obama, I just don't share you and Don's assessment of him. That vote is evil (though again we do ourselves no favor to put the worst case construction on it, like the opposing politicians almost always do), but there is good as well. And all things have to be taken in context.
For us to get anywhere we'll have to try to see the entire picture, but that's my perspective. And it's in part, I believe, a pastoral point of view I end up taking, or at least I'd like to think so. We should end up saying much of what Don and you say within all that needs to be said and lived out.
"there is good as well"
I mean with reference to President Obama's overall worldview and ethic.
I have been biting my tongue, because I don't enjoy discussing politics, but I will speak briefly, if I may.
All sin is sin, and there is one sense that it doesn't matter whether it is this or that because it drives us impossibly far away (humanly speaking) from the glory of God.
But there is another layer to sin, and we see the consequences laid out quite differently, for different types of sin. The most egregious sins have the most harsh penalties and warnings, while others seem to be ignored.
We do not see Old Testament prophets giving polygamy equal weight with idolatry. Neither should we today treat abortion as anything less than the horror that it is. War (just or not) is not equal to it. Socialist medicine is not equal to it.
I also have trouble with the idea that millions of people in my country waste their resources foolishly, and expect the federal government to bail them out. Who pays for these "bailouts?" Our children? That's not fair that they should be forced (by us) to pay for the sins of their fathers. We cry foul against Bush or Obama, and then go out and buy a big screen television with money that we don't have yet. This country's problems would be more simple and manageable if we started living within our means.
Craver,
I agree with much of what you say here, including my distaste for political discussion.
The one difference I would have is that the light Jesus brings in the kingdom of God arriving in him is a brighter light than that of the old covenant. And it's a light which while arguably not ending wars now, does indeed hit hard against the oppression by the wicked against the weak and poor, even as the prophets of the Old Testament did. And does cast doubt on the activities of any nation looking out for its own interests, primarily ("national interest").
Over and over again we see God's concern for justice across the board with reference to ALL things.
Much, much evil is done in wars, every bit as much as in an abortion clinic. A known and sad reality. And one cleaned up too often by history books, I'm afraid.
So while I believe abortion is horrible and that we should not mince words about that, though doing so wisely, we can't be selective as to what is wrong if we're to really reflect what Scripture says in both the old and the new testaments, as well as what is brought and present in the light of the kingdom of God, revealed in Jesus.
Over and over again we see God's concern for justice across the board with reference to ALL things.
Sure, but that is not the same as assigning equal weight. And do we hold this fallen cosmos to the same standards that Christ demands of those who call Him Lord?
If we allow the murder of babies today, what's next? Old people? People who are unable to generate sufficient income? Ted, I will go to a silly extreme, but what if the powers that be eventually decided to eradicate baldness?! Okay, that was silly, but what about if someone happens to be "undesirable" by virtue of ethnicity or attributes? How do we stop the senseless butchering of those people? Once this gets started, where do we draw the line. We draw it here, and now. We do what it takes to correct the legalization of this evil, bloodthirsty trend... even if it means we temporarily pay less attention to other, less critical issues.
Post a Comment