Best Ever Laser Show
Have A Safe and Happy Halloween
Have A Safe and Happy Halloween
Oct 21, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
Muslim Brotherhood Leader Calls For ‘Holy Jihad’ To Take Jerusalem From Israel
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide – the group’s highest ranking official — is calling on the Muslim world to carry out “holy jihad” against Israel and capture Jerusalem. Mohammed Badie’s remarks were reported Thursday by AFP:
“Jerusalem is Islamic … and nobody is entitled to make concessions” on the Holy City, said Sheikh Mohammed Badie in his weekly message to supporters.
“The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims,” he said, stressing that the liberation of the Holy City “will not be done through negotiations or at the United Nations.”
Badie said that because “the Zionists only understand force,” Muslims should sidestep any efforts at negotiation with Israel. The Times of Israel provided more quotes from the Muslim Brotherhood leader’s anti-Jewish message [emphasis added]:
Egypt’s foremost Muslim Brotherhood official called on the Arab world Thursday to replace negotiations with Israel with “holy Jihad,” claiming that if Jews are allowed to pray on the Temple Mount they will destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and supplant it with the third temple. […]
“The time has come for the Islamic nation to unite around one man for the sake of Jerusalem and Palestine,” Badie said. “The Jews have dominated the land, spread corruption on earth, spilled the blood of believers and in their actions profaned holy places, including their own.”
“Zionists only understand the language of force and will not relent without duress,” Badie continued. “This will only happen through holy Jihad, high sacrifices and all forms of resistance. The day they realize we will march this path and raise the banner of Jihad for the sake of God, is the day they will relent and stop their tyranny.”
This isn’t the first time Badie has conveyed an extreme anti-Semitic message. As TheBlaze reported in July, Badie said waging jihad against Israel is an imperative for every Muslim in order to “to save al-Quds [Jerusalem] from the hands of the rapists [Israelis].” And before that, Badie called for gradually establishing a global Islamic Caliphate leading to “mastership of the world.”
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has said he will respect all international treaties, but senior Egyptian officials have expressed a desire to revise the Camp David Accords which Egypt and Israel signed in 1979. Morsi’s adviser Mohamed Essmat Seif al-Dawla said last month that amending that treaty is just “a matter of time” in order to secure full Egyptian control over military deployments in the Sinai, which are limited under Camp David. –By Sharona Schwartz/The Blaze/October 12, 2012
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide – the group’s highest ranking official — is calling on the Muslim world to carry out “holy jihad” against Israel and capture Jerusalem. Mohammed Badie’s remarks were reported Thursday by AFP:
“Jerusalem is Islamic … and nobody is entitled to make concessions” on the Holy City, said Sheikh Mohammed Badie in his weekly message to supporters.
“The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims,” he said, stressing that the liberation of the Holy City “will not be done through negotiations or at the United Nations.”
Badie said that because “the Zionists only understand force,” Muslims should sidestep any efforts at negotiation with Israel. The Times of Israel provided more quotes from the Muslim Brotherhood leader’s anti-Jewish message [emphasis added]:
Egypt’s foremost Muslim Brotherhood official called on the Arab world Thursday to replace negotiations with Israel with “holy Jihad,” claiming that if Jews are allowed to pray on the Temple Mount they will destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and supplant it with the third temple. […]
“The time has come for the Islamic nation to unite around one man for the sake of Jerusalem and Palestine,” Badie said. “The Jews have dominated the land, spread corruption on earth, spilled the blood of believers and in their actions profaned holy places, including their own.”
“Zionists only understand the language of force and will not relent without duress,” Badie continued. “This will only happen through holy Jihad, high sacrifices and all forms of resistance. The day they realize we will march this path and raise the banner of Jihad for the sake of God, is the day they will relent and stop their tyranny.”
This isn’t the first time Badie has conveyed an extreme anti-Semitic message. As TheBlaze reported in July, Badie said waging jihad against Israel is an imperative for every Muslim in order to “to save al-Quds [Jerusalem] from the hands of the rapists [Israelis].” And before that, Badie called for gradually establishing a global Islamic Caliphate leading to “mastership of the world.”
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has said he will respect all international treaties, but senior Egyptian officials have expressed a desire to revise the Camp David Accords which Egypt and Israel signed in 1979. Morsi’s adviser Mohamed Essmat Seif al-Dawla said last month that amending that treaty is just “a matter of time” in order to secure full Egyptian control over military deployments in the Sinai, which are limited under Camp David. –By Sharona Schwartz/The Blaze/October 12, 2012
Turkish Mega Mosque In Germany Sparks Controversy
There was a time when the Turkish-led Ottoman Empire ruled over a large chunk of Europe. Now some believe the Turks want to bring back those old glory days.
The Turkish government has embarked on a mosque-building campaign throughout Germany.
One new Turkish mega-mosque, the Cologne Central Mosque, has Germans on edge.
When construction on the facility is completed, it will be Germany's largest Muslim house of worship - and one of the largest mosques in all of Europe.
It's so big that it stops passersby in their tracks. The structure's 100-foot-high-plus minarets tower over the local landscape and can be seen from blocks away.
The $40 million-plus facility will hold at least 1,200 worshippers and include a restaurant, a prayer room, a library, and more.
Germany is home to some 4.3 million Muslims, including 125,000 who live in Cologne. The large majority are Turkish. –By Erick Stakelbeck/CBN/October 14, 2012
Foot Note: Erick Stakelbeck is a sought after authority on terrorism and national security issues with extensive experience in television, radio, and print media. Stakelbeck is a correspondent and terrorism analyst for CBN News. He covers the global war on terror, U.S. national security, the Middle East and the growth of radical Islam at home and abroad for the network’s Washington, D.C. bureau. He is also host of the Stakelbeck on Terror show on CBNNews.com.
^^^*^^^
Living Will Form
I, _________________, being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of pinhead partisan politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it, or lawyers/doctors/hospitals interested in simply running up the bills.
If after a reasonable amount of time passes, and I fail to ask for -- (check all appropriate items):
____Martini
____Margarita
____Scotch and soda
____Bloody Mary or beer
____Gin and tonic
____Glass of Chardonnay
____Steak
____Lobster or crab legs
____the TV remote control
____bowl of ice cream
____the sports page
____Sex or
____Chocolate, it should be presumed that I won't ever get any better.
When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed agent and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes, and call it a day. At this point, it is time to call the New Orleans Jazz Funeral Band to come and do their thing at my funeral, and ask all of my friends to raise their glasses to toast the good times we have had.
Signature:__________________________ Date: _________________
PS: I heard that there is a nursing home with a pub in Ireland, where the patients are happier, they have a lot more visitors, and some of them don't even need embalming when their time comes. If anyone knows the name of this happy place, PLEASE let me know immediately, and please pass the information to everyone.
PPS: I want to add amendments to this form under the following conditions:
Amendment #1:
Should I become incapacitated as described above, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PULL THE PLUG until after I have voted against Barack Obama by absentee ballot in the November 2012 election.
Signature:__________________________ Date: __________________
Amendment #2:
If Barack Obama gets re- elected, PLEASE PULL THE PLUG IMMEDIATELY and SHOOT ME TWICE -- (one time each in the heart and in the head) to make sure I am really dead!
Signature:__________________________ Date: __________________
Author Unknown
If after a reasonable amount of time passes, and I fail to ask for -- (check all appropriate items):
____Martini
____Margarita
____Scotch and soda
____Bloody Mary or beer
____Gin and tonic
____Glass of Chardonnay
____Steak
____Lobster or crab legs
____the TV remote control
____bowl of ice cream
____the sports page
____Sex or
____Chocolate, it should be presumed that I won't ever get any better.
When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed agent and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes, and call it a day. At this point, it is time to call the New Orleans Jazz Funeral Band to come and do their thing at my funeral, and ask all of my friends to raise their glasses to toast the good times we have had.
Signature:__________________________ Date: _________________
PS: I heard that there is a nursing home with a pub in Ireland, where the patients are happier, they have a lot more visitors, and some of them don't even need embalming when their time comes. If anyone knows the name of this happy place, PLEASE let me know immediately, and please pass the information to everyone.
PPS: I want to add amendments to this form under the following conditions:
Amendment #1:
Should I become incapacitated as described above, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PULL THE PLUG until after I have voted against Barack Obama by absentee ballot in the November 2012 election.
Signature:__________________________ Date: __________________
Amendment #2:
If Barack Obama gets re- elected, PLEASE PULL THE PLUG IMMEDIATELY and SHOOT ME TWICE -- (one time each in the heart and in the head) to make sure I am really dead!
Signature:__________________________ Date: __________________
Author Unknown
What Galileo's Telescope Can't See
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in contemporary understandings of science and faith.
A nalogies have persuasive power, a suggestive force that operates on an almost unconscious level. To say that A is "like" B is to suggest that everything we associate with A should also be associated with B—whether good, bad, or ugly.
So, for example, if I describe American soldiers as "crusaders," I have just painted them with an analogical brush that colors them as religiously motivated warriors guilty of the worst bigotries of the West. The analogy is loaded with a moral depiction that exceeds what's actually said. So all the disdain we have towards our (usually caricatured) understanding of the Crusades is now overlaid on our perception of military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Conversely, if I describe the proponents of my cause as "prophets" or "martyrs," I have loaded the perceptual deck with images of heroism and purity. Just by the analogy, we get to don our white hats and claim the moral high ground. Or if we describe our regime as "Camelot," we associate ourselves with romance and royal privilege. Never underestimate the power of an analogy. And never simply accept it.
We are all Galileans now
There is a particular analogy often invoked in current discussions about the relationship between Christian faith and science. Ours, we are told, is a "Galilean" moment: a critical time in history when new findings in the natural sciences threaten to topple fundamental Christian beliefs, just as Galileo's proposed heliocentrism rocked the ecclesiastical establishment of his day. This parallel is usually invoked in the context of genetic, evolutionary, and archaeological evidence about human origins that challenges traditional Christian understandings.
Historical analogies like this are often particularly loaded because our age is characterized by chronological snobbery and a self-congratulatory sense of our maturity and progress. Since we now tend to look at the church's response to Galileo as misguided, reactionary, and backward, this "Galilean" framing of contemporary discussions does two things—before any "evidence" is ever put on the table.
First, it casts scientists—and those Christian scholars who champion such science—as heroes and martyrs willing to embrace progress and enlightenment. Second, and as a result, this framing of the debate depicts those concerned with preserving Christian orthodoxy as backward, timid, and fundamentalist. With heads in flat-earth sand, any who voice hesitation or skepticism about the "assured/obvious" implications of evolutionary evidence are cast in the villainous role of Galileo's putative persecutor, Cardinal Bellarmine.
It bears mention, of course, that the conventional Galileo narrative—pitting narrow-minded, inquisitorial clerics against a courageous champion of open scientific inquiry—partakes in large part of historical myth. Careful scholars of science and religion have come to reject this simplistic picture of church dogma stifling what today we might call "academic freedom."
But even if the Galileo myth was factually accurate, it should hardly supply the symbolism that governs all subsequent dialogue between theology and science. The "Galilean" framing of these conversations assumes a paradigm in which science is taken to be a neutral "describer" of "the way things are." Consequently, it treats theology as a kind of bias—an inherently conservative take on the world that has to face up to the cold, hard realities disclosed by the natural sciences and historical research. Christian scholars and theologians who (perhaps unwittingly) buy into this paradigm are often characterized by deference to "what science says." They become increasingly embarrassed by both the theological tradition and the community of believers who are not so eager to embrace scientific "progress" and an updated faith.
Such "Galileans" are not looking to reject the Christian faith tout court; indeed, they will often emphasize their commitment to the "essentials." In fact, they take it upon themselves to help us sift through what is and is not "essential." Sure, Galileo challenged our geocentric picture of the universe—which required re-reading passages of Scripture that seemed to suggest the sun revolved around the earth. But geocentrism was not "essential" to Christian faith. This is precisely why the church of Galileo's day looks so foolish now. Who among us would deny that the earth revolves around the sun?
You can see where this goes: Just as Galileo's telescope taught us to give up on what wrongly seemed "essential" to the faith, so today's fossil record and genetic evidences press us to give up clinging to a historical couple or a historical Fall. Apart from any assessment of the evidence or consideration of alternatives, the analogy does its own persuasive work. Do you really want to be the Cardinal Bellarmine of the future? Does anyone really want to be that guy—the one who committed himself to an "orthodoxy" that not a single Christian would later believe?
Part of the Solution
Christians today feel what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor calls a "cross-pressure" on our faith: The scriptural witness seems to tell us one story about the world while evolutionary science seems to tell another.
But the Galileo analogy doesn't help us work through that tension because it says too much too fast. To invoke the Galileo analogy is to have already made up our minds. When we construe current debates about human origins in "Galilean" terms, we rhetorically position ourselves as if the implications of common descent were "as obvious" as the earth revolving around the sun. The Galileo analogy is a conversation stopper. It effectively suggests that resistance is futile.
Underneath the analogy is a more serious problem. These "Galileans" exhibit an essentially "whiggish" stance toward the theological tradition—an underlying confidence in progress and the unquestioned assumption that "newer is better." At work here is a sense that faith needs "updating," and that clinging to historic concerns and formulations is merely "conservative," as if seeking to preserve historic doctrines were just a matter of fearing change.
The result is that the Christian theological tradition is seen to be a burden rather than a gift that enables the Christian community to think through such challenges. The Galileans never entertain the possibility that some of our ancient theological and confessional traditions might actually be a resource in contemporary debates—a wellspring of theological imagination to help us grapple with difficult questions. Instead, they suppose that the cross-pressure between theological tradition and contemporary science can only be alleviated by "updating" the tradition. On this account, our orthodox theological heritage—including the creeds and confessions—is part of the problem rather than a valued resource for articulating a solution.
The Chalcedonian Breakthrough
Perhaps most glaringly, this "Galilean" framing of the conversation barely references Jesus the Galilean. Even Christian scholars operating within this paradigm tend rarely to see any implication for central Christological affirmations. Instead we get discussions of "creation" with little or no reference to Christ—as if his role in creating and sustaining the world (Col. 1:16-18) were irrelevant to conversations about "nature." But as Mark Noll argues in Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Christian scholarship should not be rooted in a functional deism. Rather, the proper place for Christians to begin serious intellectual labor "is the same place where we begin all other serious human enterprises. That place is the heart of our religion, which is the revelation of God in Christ."
This is why Noll points to the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) as one of the first encounters between the church's faith and (then) contemporary science. When Christians wrestled with questions about the Incarnation and Christ's divinity, they were grappling with the "science" of their day—paradigms of personhood and nature. In this task, the "Chalcedonian definition" of Christ's identity, which affirmed at once his full humanity and full divinity, represented a major breakthrough. By awakening imaginations to an awareness of what Noll calls "doubleness"—the possibility of apparent contradictions masking deeper harmonies—Chalcedon promoted a creative response to the conflicting testimonies of science and revelation.
There is a model to follow here: Early Christians mined the mysteries of the faith to grapple with the challenge of the day rather than whittling down what's scandalous to fit the expectations of the day. Guided by the Chalcedonian consensus, church leaders did not have to settle for a merely defensive or conciliatory posture. They were not reduced to looking for nooks and crannies in the reigning scientific paradigms that left room to make religious claims. Instead, their central conviction of the lordship of Christ over all creation gave them a courage and confidence to theorize imaginatively and creatively. They didn't look for ways to blunt or downplay the particularities of the gospel. Animated by the conviction that all things hold together in Christ, early Christian theologians forged new models and paradigms which we now receive as magisterial statements of the faith—the heart and soul of the "Great Tradition."
We 21st-century Christians have a lot to learn from our 4th-century forebears. Unfortunately, the Galilean story coddles our contemporary smugness and encourages us to look down our nose at those unenlightened generations that preceded us.
But unless—and until—we are willing to recognize the creative wisdom of Chalcedon, or generate any kind of sympathy for Cardinal Bellarmine, we can't have much hope for authentic Christian witness in these contested areas. Instead, contemporary conversations between faith and science will continue to be dichotomous bartering games that simply try to "update" the faith ("I'll give up original sin if you let me keep the Resurrection," etc.).
Chalcedon shows us otherwise. We can boldly, imaginatively, faithfully, creatively tackle the most challenging issues, secure in the conviction that all things hold together in Christ. "Thick" theological orthodoxy and serious engagement with contemporary science are not mutually exclusive. We just need to foster the Christian imagination to underwrite more creative approaches.
That would require, first, remembering and appreciating that the Christian intellectual tradition is uniquely "carried" in the practices of Christian liturgy, worship, and prayer. It is in the prayers and worship of the church that we are immersed in the Word and our imaginations are located in God's story. It is in worship that we are constantly invited to inhabit the conviction that all things hold together in Christ. Intentional liturgical formation must be the foundation for rigorous, imaginative, and faithful Christian scholarship.
Second, and relatedly, we need to approach the Christian theological heritage—rooted in the Word and articulated in the creeds and confessions of the church—as a gift, not a liability. After all, the church was wrestling with faith-science tensions well before Galileo.
Our sensibility (following the late Robert Webber) should be an "ancient-future" one: The church will find gifts to help it think through postmodern challenges by retrieving the wisdom of ancient Christians. The goal is not to simply repeat ancient formulations while sticking our heads in the sand; rather, the contemporary church—and contemporary Christian scholars—can learn much from the habits of mind that characterized church fathers like Athanasius and Augustine.
Guided by these convictions and practices, we might be less inclined to congratulate ourselves for following Galileo and more concerned with following the Galilean in whom God has reconciled all things to himself. –By James K. A. Smith/Christianity Today/September 28, 2012
Foot Note: James K. A. Smith is professor of philosophy at Calvin College and senior fellow of the Colossian Forum on Faith, Science, and Culture (colossianforum.org). His new book, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Baker Academic), will be published in February 2013.
A nalogies have persuasive power, a suggestive force that operates on an almost unconscious level. To say that A is "like" B is to suggest that everything we associate with A should also be associated with B—whether good, bad, or ugly.
So, for example, if I describe American soldiers as "crusaders," I have just painted them with an analogical brush that colors them as religiously motivated warriors guilty of the worst bigotries of the West. The analogy is loaded with a moral depiction that exceeds what's actually said. So all the disdain we have towards our (usually caricatured) understanding of the Crusades is now overlaid on our perception of military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Conversely, if I describe the proponents of my cause as "prophets" or "martyrs," I have loaded the perceptual deck with images of heroism and purity. Just by the analogy, we get to don our white hats and claim the moral high ground. Or if we describe our regime as "Camelot," we associate ourselves with romance and royal privilege. Never underestimate the power of an analogy. And never simply accept it.
We are all Galileans now
There is a particular analogy often invoked in current discussions about the relationship between Christian faith and science. Ours, we are told, is a "Galilean" moment: a critical time in history when new findings in the natural sciences threaten to topple fundamental Christian beliefs, just as Galileo's proposed heliocentrism rocked the ecclesiastical establishment of his day. This parallel is usually invoked in the context of genetic, evolutionary, and archaeological evidence about human origins that challenges traditional Christian understandings.
Historical analogies like this are often particularly loaded because our age is characterized by chronological snobbery and a self-congratulatory sense of our maturity and progress. Since we now tend to look at the church's response to Galileo as misguided, reactionary, and backward, this "Galilean" framing of contemporary discussions does two things—before any "evidence" is ever put on the table.
First, it casts scientists—and those Christian scholars who champion such science—as heroes and martyrs willing to embrace progress and enlightenment. Second, and as a result, this framing of the debate depicts those concerned with preserving Christian orthodoxy as backward, timid, and fundamentalist. With heads in flat-earth sand, any who voice hesitation or skepticism about the "assured/obvious" implications of evolutionary evidence are cast in the villainous role of Galileo's putative persecutor, Cardinal Bellarmine.
It bears mention, of course, that the conventional Galileo narrative—pitting narrow-minded, inquisitorial clerics against a courageous champion of open scientific inquiry—partakes in large part of historical myth. Careful scholars of science and religion have come to reject this simplistic picture of church dogma stifling what today we might call "academic freedom."
But even if the Galileo myth was factually accurate, it should hardly supply the symbolism that governs all subsequent dialogue between theology and science. The "Galilean" framing of these conversations assumes a paradigm in which science is taken to be a neutral "describer" of "the way things are." Consequently, it treats theology as a kind of bias—an inherently conservative take on the world that has to face up to the cold, hard realities disclosed by the natural sciences and historical research. Christian scholars and theologians who (perhaps unwittingly) buy into this paradigm are often characterized by deference to "what science says." They become increasingly embarrassed by both the theological tradition and the community of believers who are not so eager to embrace scientific "progress" and an updated faith.
Such "Galileans" are not looking to reject the Christian faith tout court; indeed, they will often emphasize their commitment to the "essentials." In fact, they take it upon themselves to help us sift through what is and is not "essential." Sure, Galileo challenged our geocentric picture of the universe—which required re-reading passages of Scripture that seemed to suggest the sun revolved around the earth. But geocentrism was not "essential" to Christian faith. This is precisely why the church of Galileo's day looks so foolish now. Who among us would deny that the earth revolves around the sun?
You can see where this goes: Just as Galileo's telescope taught us to give up on what wrongly seemed "essential" to the faith, so today's fossil record and genetic evidences press us to give up clinging to a historical couple or a historical Fall. Apart from any assessment of the evidence or consideration of alternatives, the analogy does its own persuasive work. Do you really want to be the Cardinal Bellarmine of the future? Does anyone really want to be that guy—the one who committed himself to an "orthodoxy" that not a single Christian would later believe?
Part of the Solution
Christians today feel what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor calls a "cross-pressure" on our faith: The scriptural witness seems to tell us one story about the world while evolutionary science seems to tell another.
But the Galileo analogy doesn't help us work through that tension because it says too much too fast. To invoke the Galileo analogy is to have already made up our minds. When we construe current debates about human origins in "Galilean" terms, we rhetorically position ourselves as if the implications of common descent were "as obvious" as the earth revolving around the sun. The Galileo analogy is a conversation stopper. It effectively suggests that resistance is futile.
Underneath the analogy is a more serious problem. These "Galileans" exhibit an essentially "whiggish" stance toward the theological tradition—an underlying confidence in progress and the unquestioned assumption that "newer is better." At work here is a sense that faith needs "updating," and that clinging to historic concerns and formulations is merely "conservative," as if seeking to preserve historic doctrines were just a matter of fearing change.
The result is that the Christian theological tradition is seen to be a burden rather than a gift that enables the Christian community to think through such challenges. The Galileans never entertain the possibility that some of our ancient theological and confessional traditions might actually be a resource in contemporary debates—a wellspring of theological imagination to help us grapple with difficult questions. Instead, they suppose that the cross-pressure between theological tradition and contemporary science can only be alleviated by "updating" the tradition. On this account, our orthodox theological heritage—including the creeds and confessions—is part of the problem rather than a valued resource for articulating a solution.
The Chalcedonian Breakthrough
Perhaps most glaringly, this "Galilean" framing of the conversation barely references Jesus the Galilean. Even Christian scholars operating within this paradigm tend rarely to see any implication for central Christological affirmations. Instead we get discussions of "creation" with little or no reference to Christ—as if his role in creating and sustaining the world (Col. 1:16-18) were irrelevant to conversations about "nature." But as Mark Noll argues in Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Christian scholarship should not be rooted in a functional deism. Rather, the proper place for Christians to begin serious intellectual labor "is the same place where we begin all other serious human enterprises. That place is the heart of our religion, which is the revelation of God in Christ."
This is why Noll points to the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) as one of the first encounters between the church's faith and (then) contemporary science. When Christians wrestled with questions about the Incarnation and Christ's divinity, they were grappling with the "science" of their day—paradigms of personhood and nature. In this task, the "Chalcedonian definition" of Christ's identity, which affirmed at once his full humanity and full divinity, represented a major breakthrough. By awakening imaginations to an awareness of what Noll calls "doubleness"—the possibility of apparent contradictions masking deeper harmonies—Chalcedon promoted a creative response to the conflicting testimonies of science and revelation.
There is a model to follow here: Early Christians mined the mysteries of the faith to grapple with the challenge of the day rather than whittling down what's scandalous to fit the expectations of the day. Guided by the Chalcedonian consensus, church leaders did not have to settle for a merely defensive or conciliatory posture. They were not reduced to looking for nooks and crannies in the reigning scientific paradigms that left room to make religious claims. Instead, their central conviction of the lordship of Christ over all creation gave them a courage and confidence to theorize imaginatively and creatively. They didn't look for ways to blunt or downplay the particularities of the gospel. Animated by the conviction that all things hold together in Christ, early Christian theologians forged new models and paradigms which we now receive as magisterial statements of the faith—the heart and soul of the "Great Tradition."
We 21st-century Christians have a lot to learn from our 4th-century forebears. Unfortunately, the Galilean story coddles our contemporary smugness and encourages us to look down our nose at those unenlightened generations that preceded us.
But unless—and until—we are willing to recognize the creative wisdom of Chalcedon, or generate any kind of sympathy for Cardinal Bellarmine, we can't have much hope for authentic Christian witness in these contested areas. Instead, contemporary conversations between faith and science will continue to be dichotomous bartering games that simply try to "update" the faith ("I'll give up original sin if you let me keep the Resurrection," etc.).
Chalcedon shows us otherwise. We can boldly, imaginatively, faithfully, creatively tackle the most challenging issues, secure in the conviction that all things hold together in Christ. "Thick" theological orthodoxy and serious engagement with contemporary science are not mutually exclusive. We just need to foster the Christian imagination to underwrite more creative approaches.
That would require, first, remembering and appreciating that the Christian intellectual tradition is uniquely "carried" in the practices of Christian liturgy, worship, and prayer. It is in the prayers and worship of the church that we are immersed in the Word and our imaginations are located in God's story. It is in worship that we are constantly invited to inhabit the conviction that all things hold together in Christ. Intentional liturgical formation must be the foundation for rigorous, imaginative, and faithful Christian scholarship.
Second, and relatedly, we need to approach the Christian theological heritage—rooted in the Word and articulated in the creeds and confessions of the church—as a gift, not a liability. After all, the church was wrestling with faith-science tensions well before Galileo.
Our sensibility (following the late Robert Webber) should be an "ancient-future" one: The church will find gifts to help it think through postmodern challenges by retrieving the wisdom of ancient Christians. The goal is not to simply repeat ancient formulations while sticking our heads in the sand; rather, the contemporary church—and contemporary Christian scholars—can learn much from the habits of mind that characterized church fathers like Athanasius and Augustine.
Guided by these convictions and practices, we might be less inclined to congratulate ourselves for following Galileo and more concerned with following the Galilean in whom God has reconciled all things to himself. –By James K. A. Smith/Christianity Today/September 28, 2012
Foot Note: James K. A. Smith is professor of philosophy at Calvin College and senior fellow of the Colossian Forum on Faith, Science, and Culture (colossianforum.org). His new book, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Baker Academic), will be published in February 2013.
Victory Through The Choppy Waters Of Life
As I was driving the boat for a group of young girls participating in our In His Wakes event, I was given clear instructions from one tube rider, "NO BUMPS, MISS KRISTI!"
I smiled at her and replied, "I can't promise you that, sweetie." As I looked around at the other boats on the water and the wind, I knew in my heart that bumps were inevitable.
As I thought about her command, I began to chuckle inside. Isn't this statement the desire of our hearts? Don't we often wake up and head out on the waters of life and say, "No Bumps, God." Our flesh wants smooth waters, no obstacles, and no challenges.
I think God's response to our command is similar to my response to the young girl on the tube. With a smile on His face and love in His heart, I believe God looks at us and says, "I can't promise you that, my child."
Just as bumps on the water are an inevitable part of the young tube rider's experience, bumps on the waters of life are an inevitable part of our life journey. Johns 16:33 guarantees "bumps" when it says, "In this world, there will be trials and tribulations."
Just as I can't promise our participants a bump-free journey on the lake, God doesn't promise us smooth waters in life. But don't let this discourage you! You don't need bump free waters to have an incredible journey. In fact, it is victory over the bumps that makes life worth living!
When I reflect back on my professional water ski career, never once did I go to the boat driver and ask him to remove the buoys so that I could just ski down the lake without a challenge. No, it was the buoys (the obstacles) that made slalom skiing worthwhile. Nor did I stay on the dock refusing to take to the water because of the conditions or the competition. It was the victory through the rough conditions, triumph over tough competitors, and rounding hard to reach buoys that made the journey on the water so awesome!
My most memorable victories were the ones with the greatest obstacles.
Yes, there will be bumps along your journey of life. There will often be HUGE obstacles that you must go through. Sometimes the bumps will be caused by other people, by the winds of life, or perhaps by your own choices. But no matter what the cause of the bumps, be encouraged that as you pass through the deep waters, God will be with you. When you go through rivers of difficulty, they will not overtake you (Isaiah 43:2).
God, as your Power Source, will plow through the waves, creating a path of victory for you (Jeremiah 29:11). Just as I knew the path to take for this young girl to have a safe and victorious ride over the bumps, God knows the way for you too. He will uphold you and help you.
As long as you are in the safety of His wakes, focused on Him and standing on His promises, there are no waves of life that can knock you down (Matthew 7:24).
Don't let the bumps of life steal your joy and your peace. Your Power Source will never fail you. He will get you to the other side and one day soon you will be able to look back over those waters and say, "Oh, how sweet the victory!" -By Kristi Overton-Johnson/Washington Times/January 18, 2012
Foot Note: Kristi Overton Johnson is a wife, mother, and the world record holder in water-skiing from 1992-2010. Having retired from professional sports, Kristi now helps others fulfill their God-given destiny.
With a passion to share the life lessons she learned on the water and a desire to encourage the hearts of people through her faith, Kristi founded her non-profit ministry Champion’s Heart.
Champion’s Heart provides life resources, addiction recovery, quarterly magazine publications, leadership training, and sports outreaches. In His Wakes, the water-sports outreach of Champion’s Heart, has helped over 10,000 at-risk youth from across the nation and world have hope, experience victory and discover their purpose through the sport that brought Kristi fame!
Kristi currently resides in Florida with her husband, Tim, and their three children.
To read more by Kristi go to http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/his-wakes
To learn about her mission and work visit Kristi Overton Johnson Ministries.
I smiled at her and replied, "I can't promise you that, sweetie." As I looked around at the other boats on the water and the wind, I knew in my heart that bumps were inevitable.
As I thought about her command, I began to chuckle inside. Isn't this statement the desire of our hearts? Don't we often wake up and head out on the waters of life and say, "No Bumps, God." Our flesh wants smooth waters, no obstacles, and no challenges.
I think God's response to our command is similar to my response to the young girl on the tube. With a smile on His face and love in His heart, I believe God looks at us and says, "I can't promise you that, my child."
Just as bumps on the water are an inevitable part of the young tube rider's experience, bumps on the waters of life are an inevitable part of our life journey. Johns 16:33 guarantees "bumps" when it says, "In this world, there will be trials and tribulations."
Just as I can't promise our participants a bump-free journey on the lake, God doesn't promise us smooth waters in life. But don't let this discourage you! You don't need bump free waters to have an incredible journey. In fact, it is victory over the bumps that makes life worth living!
When I reflect back on my professional water ski career, never once did I go to the boat driver and ask him to remove the buoys so that I could just ski down the lake without a challenge. No, it was the buoys (the obstacles) that made slalom skiing worthwhile. Nor did I stay on the dock refusing to take to the water because of the conditions or the competition. It was the victory through the rough conditions, triumph over tough competitors, and rounding hard to reach buoys that made the journey on the water so awesome!
My most memorable victories were the ones with the greatest obstacles.
Yes, there will be bumps along your journey of life. There will often be HUGE obstacles that you must go through. Sometimes the bumps will be caused by other people, by the winds of life, or perhaps by your own choices. But no matter what the cause of the bumps, be encouraged that as you pass through the deep waters, God will be with you. When you go through rivers of difficulty, they will not overtake you (Isaiah 43:2).
God, as your Power Source, will plow through the waves, creating a path of victory for you (Jeremiah 29:11). Just as I knew the path to take for this young girl to have a safe and victorious ride over the bumps, God knows the way for you too. He will uphold you and help you.
As long as you are in the safety of His wakes, focused on Him and standing on His promises, there are no waves of life that can knock you down (Matthew 7:24).
Don't let the bumps of life steal your joy and your peace. Your Power Source will never fail you. He will get you to the other side and one day soon you will be able to look back over those waters and say, "Oh, how sweet the victory!" -By Kristi Overton-Johnson/Washington Times/January 18, 2012
Foot Note: Kristi Overton Johnson is a wife, mother, and the world record holder in water-skiing from 1992-2010. Having retired from professional sports, Kristi now helps others fulfill their God-given destiny.
With a passion to share the life lessons she learned on the water and a desire to encourage the hearts of people through her faith, Kristi founded her non-profit ministry Champion’s Heart.
Champion’s Heart provides life resources, addiction recovery, quarterly magazine publications, leadership training, and sports outreaches. In His Wakes, the water-sports outreach of Champion’s Heart, has helped over 10,000 at-risk youth from across the nation and world have hope, experience victory and discover their purpose through the sport that brought Kristi fame!
Kristi currently resides in Florida with her husband, Tim, and their three children.
To read more by Kristi go to http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/his-wakes
To learn about her mission and work visit Kristi Overton Johnson Ministries.
Hidden Strengths Of Civil Society
Self-motivated volunteerism makes Americans unique
Christmas is a time of gratitude, as we reflect on the blessings we enjoy not only on Dec. 25 but year-round. But how often do we give thanks for our unique and extraordinary country? Do we truly know how special it is?
Just how exceptional America really can be is seen in the contrasting reactions to the fiscal crises sweeping the industrialized world. In every nation but ours, the popular response to out-of-control spending and mounting debt was a demand for greater government intervention.
In this country, however, the Tea Party’s response to the massive expansion of big government and the explosive growth of the national debt was a demand for less government intervention in the economy.
The Tea Party reflects traditional American values: self-reliance, distrust of big government and an abiding faith in the American dream. These values did not appear out of thin air. They are nurtured and sustained in the families, churches and communities that make up our civil society. A vigorous and independent civil society is one of America’s most precious treasures, and must be preserved at all costs.
Unfortunately, instead of celebrating the values and institutions that make America unique, prominent liberals seek to make America more like the failed welfare states of Western Europe. And instead of welcoming movements that truly reflect the values of our civil society, they have denounced Tea Party members as “terrorists,” “racists” and “Nazis” who deserve to be “taken out.”
The depth of hostility toward the Tea Party movement is startling, especially when contrasted with the welcoming attitude shown toward Occupy Wall Street. It has also reinforced my conviction that strengthening civil society is more urgent today than ever before. We need to regain a sense of awe and wonder at the power, ingenuity and creativity of civil society.
It’s in every state and community. There, neighbors are helping neighbors - not because a government program tells them to, but because it’s the right thing to do. Many are motivated by faith, but all are driven by compassion to assist the less fortunate.
Take Step 13, a ministry in Denver located close to Coors Field. It’s a nonprofit living program that helps homeless drug addicts transition to a better life. Founder and president Bob Cote has devoted his life to helping these men get back on their feet and improve their lot.
But what about government-run shelters? Yes, many of the people who run them work hard and try their best, but government programs are by nature impersonal. To someone like Mr. Cote, it’s a mission. He sets a high standard for the men to meet if they want to remain in the program.
“I tried those shelters over and over again, but they didn’t force me to give up my drugs,” one participant says. “I knew I needed the kick in the pants that Step 13 gives. I needed the random urine tests.”
That comes from a level of care and concern that no government program can deliver. And because they’re run and staffed by people who know personally the folks they’re helping, groups such as Step 13 are better equipped to diagnose the root problems of poverty and social breakdown.
That’s what civil society is all about. It’s what the American people are.
We need to remember that we are not helpless, ignorant masses desperately clinging to our “guns or religion,” as then-Sen. Barack Obama mischaracterized us. Nor are we anxiously awaiting the arrival of a messiah-president to deliver us from what Alexis de Tocqueville called “the trouble of thinking and the cares of living.”
No, we are strong and resourceful. Instead of looking to big government to solve our problems, we know we must do something harder but more rewarding: We must open our minds to the untapped potential of faith and freedom, to the hidden strengths of civil society, and to the awesome power of the American spirit. –By Ed Feulner/Washington Times/December 19, 2012
Foot Note: Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
Christmas is a time of gratitude, as we reflect on the blessings we enjoy not only on Dec. 25 but year-round. But how often do we give thanks for our unique and extraordinary country? Do we truly know how special it is?
Just how exceptional America really can be is seen in the contrasting reactions to the fiscal crises sweeping the industrialized world. In every nation but ours, the popular response to out-of-control spending and mounting debt was a demand for greater government intervention.
In this country, however, the Tea Party’s response to the massive expansion of big government and the explosive growth of the national debt was a demand for less government intervention in the economy.
The Tea Party reflects traditional American values: self-reliance, distrust of big government and an abiding faith in the American dream. These values did not appear out of thin air. They are nurtured and sustained in the families, churches and communities that make up our civil society. A vigorous and independent civil society is one of America’s most precious treasures, and must be preserved at all costs.
Unfortunately, instead of celebrating the values and institutions that make America unique, prominent liberals seek to make America more like the failed welfare states of Western Europe. And instead of welcoming movements that truly reflect the values of our civil society, they have denounced Tea Party members as “terrorists,” “racists” and “Nazis” who deserve to be “taken out.”
The depth of hostility toward the Tea Party movement is startling, especially when contrasted with the welcoming attitude shown toward Occupy Wall Street. It has also reinforced my conviction that strengthening civil society is more urgent today than ever before. We need to regain a sense of awe and wonder at the power, ingenuity and creativity of civil society.
It’s in every state and community. There, neighbors are helping neighbors - not because a government program tells them to, but because it’s the right thing to do. Many are motivated by faith, but all are driven by compassion to assist the less fortunate.
Take Step 13, a ministry in Denver located close to Coors Field. It’s a nonprofit living program that helps homeless drug addicts transition to a better life. Founder and president Bob Cote has devoted his life to helping these men get back on their feet and improve their lot.
But what about government-run shelters? Yes, many of the people who run them work hard and try their best, but government programs are by nature impersonal. To someone like Mr. Cote, it’s a mission. He sets a high standard for the men to meet if they want to remain in the program.
“I tried those shelters over and over again, but they didn’t force me to give up my drugs,” one participant says. “I knew I needed the kick in the pants that Step 13 gives. I needed the random urine tests.”
That comes from a level of care and concern that no government program can deliver. And because they’re run and staffed by people who know personally the folks they’re helping, groups such as Step 13 are better equipped to diagnose the root problems of poverty and social breakdown.
That’s what civil society is all about. It’s what the American people are.
We need to remember that we are not helpless, ignorant masses desperately clinging to our “guns or religion,” as then-Sen. Barack Obama mischaracterized us. Nor are we anxiously awaiting the arrival of a messiah-president to deliver us from what Alexis de Tocqueville called “the trouble of thinking and the cares of living.”
No, we are strong and resourceful. Instead of looking to big government to solve our problems, we know we must do something harder but more rewarding: We must open our minds to the untapped potential of faith and freedom, to the hidden strengths of civil society, and to the awesome power of the American spirit. –By Ed Feulner/Washington Times/December 19, 2012
Foot Note: Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
Oct 14, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
California Bans Gay Teen Conversion Therapy
California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning mental therapy for minors struggling with gender confusion.
Beginning Jan. 1, therapists are prohibited from telling anyone under the age of 18 that it's possible to change their sexual orientation.
According to Brown, the therapies "have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
The move has sparked outrage from those who have undergone that therapy. Some say it helped them overcome same sex attraction sparked by childhood sexual abuse.
Conservative religious groups, like the organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, argue the ban takes away parents' rights to provide psychological care for confused children.
"As parents of gays and ex-gays, we are ashamed of your willingness to take action against parents, children, and the family in order to support gay activists," the group wrote in an open letter to Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, who authored the legislation.
"California is not a socialist state and our children do not belong to the government, subject to the ideology of the state over the objections of their parents," the group said.
California is the first state to ban conversion therapy for teens. –CBN/October 2, 2012
California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning mental therapy for minors struggling with gender confusion.
Beginning Jan. 1, therapists are prohibited from telling anyone under the age of 18 that it's possible to change their sexual orientation.
According to Brown, the therapies "have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
The move has sparked outrage from those who have undergone that therapy. Some say it helped them overcome same sex attraction sparked by childhood sexual abuse.
Conservative religious groups, like the organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, argue the ban takes away parents' rights to provide psychological care for confused children.
"As parents of gays and ex-gays, we are ashamed of your willingness to take action against parents, children, and the family in order to support gay activists," the group wrote in an open letter to Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, who authored the legislation.
"California is not a socialist state and our children do not belong to the government, subject to the ideology of the state over the objections of their parents," the group said.
California is the first state to ban conversion therapy for teens. –CBN/October 2, 2012
<><><>*<><><>
Judge Rules HHS Contraception Mandate Does Not Violate Religious Freedom
Judge: "Indirect financial support of a practice" does not violate First Amendment rights.
A federal judge struck down a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Saturday, ruling that the newly implemented HHS contraception mandate does not infringe upon a Catholic business owner's First Amendment rights.
Missouri federal district court judge Carol E. Jackson ruled against O’Brien Industrial Holdings (OIH), a secular, for-profit company that does not qualify for the mandate's religious employer exemption, although the owner is Catholic. In her ruling, Jackson stated that “indirect financial support of a practice, from which a plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles” does not violate the owner’s freedom of religion.
“Plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives,” she stated.
OIH had argued that requiring the company to contribute to a general health care plan—and thus potentially indirectly providing contraceptives to female employees—infringed upon the owner’s religious exercise rights under the First Amendment.
The lawsuit had asked the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
But the court dismissed all claims against HHS, calling the Affordable Care Act a “neutral law of general applicability” that does not discriminate against companies with less-formal religious affiliations. The court stated that the employer’s responsibility to contribute to a general health care plan, which may subsidize an employee’s purchase of birth control, is not equivalent to “compelled speech,” as OIH had argued.
CT has covered the dozens of lawsuits against the HHS mandate, including cases brought by evangelical-owned Hobby Lobby and Catholic-owned Triune Health Group. –By Melissa Steffan/Christianity Today/October 1, 2012
Judge: "Indirect financial support of a practice" does not violate First Amendment rights.
A federal judge struck down a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Saturday, ruling that the newly implemented HHS contraception mandate does not infringe upon a Catholic business owner's First Amendment rights.
Missouri federal district court judge Carol E. Jackson ruled against O’Brien Industrial Holdings (OIH), a secular, for-profit company that does not qualify for the mandate's religious employer exemption, although the owner is Catholic. In her ruling, Jackson stated that “indirect financial support of a practice, from which a plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles” does not violate the owner’s freedom of religion.
“Plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives,” she stated.
OIH had argued that requiring the company to contribute to a general health care plan—and thus potentially indirectly providing contraceptives to female employees—infringed upon the owner’s religious exercise rights under the First Amendment.
The lawsuit had asked the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
But the court dismissed all claims against HHS, calling the Affordable Care Act a “neutral law of general applicability” that does not discriminate against companies with less-formal religious affiliations. The court stated that the employer’s responsibility to contribute to a general health care plan, which may subsidize an employee’s purchase of birth control, is not equivalent to “compelled speech,” as OIH had argued.
CT has covered the dozens of lawsuits against the HHS mandate, including cases brought by evangelical-owned Hobby Lobby and Catholic-owned Triune Health Group. –By Melissa Steffan/Christianity Today/October 1, 2012
Three Questions To Determine, "Is This True?"
While taking the message of Jesus to the towns of his world, Paul came to Berea, and went to the synagogue there. The people's dual response is perfect: " … they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11).
The Bereans had an open attitude, but wanted to check out what was being communicated. Paul said this Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, so they compared what Paul said to what God had said. A wise decision.
Like the people Paul taught, we need to commit to the ongoing process of examining all of our beliefs, values, and opinions through the filter of Scripture. Add to that our own quirks, what we're taught by pastors and others, and ideas that pop up in small groups. We don't want to be obnoxious, but we do want the freedom that comes with knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If we truly desire to grow in Christ, we need to distinguish between beliefs that will help us grow and beliefs that will hinder our growth. How do we make that distinction?
Let's look at three questions we can use to evaluate the truthfulness of any message.
1. Is it consistent with the entire witness of the Bible?
Keep this slogan in mind: "A text without a context is a pretext." Linking the context with the words of the passage or verse helps us avoid "proof-texting," pulling one verse out of context to prove a point. The broader the context; the greater the understanding.
Writing my second book provided one of my greatest challenges. I wanted A Passionate Pursuit of God to present the awesome privilege we have of knowing God as well as to give practical steps to do that. At first, I was quite intimidated by the task. How do you summarize the transcendent Creator of the universe in 150 pages? How do you blend brevity and accuracy? I started by using my computer Bible search program to discover every verse in the Bible that dealt with knowing God or Jesus. Every one. I didn't mention all those verses in the book, but I used every one in my thinking and writing. I didn't ignore a single verse. Why? I wanted to pass on truth about knowing God. I didn't want any of my words to contradict or confuse even one verse of Scripture. I wanted to express truth.
If all Scripture is true, then it won't contradict itself. We need to understand all that God said about the subject before holding on too tightly to a conclusion.
2. Is the message consistent with historical understanding?
I don't mean that "tradition" stands on the same level of authority with God's Word! The phrase "If it's new, it isn't true" summarizes a generally wise approach—if we don't take it too far. But if the "new idea" contradicts the historical understanding, then realize that the burden of proof lies with those proposing the new slant. If the idea is true, that can be done.
The historical church hasn't always believed only the truth. Martin Luther proved that. More recently, some churches taught racism and bigotry. Overcoming these teachings required changes in our understanding of truth.
Take the time to cautiously evaluate "new" ideas.
3. Is the message important enough to be considered an "essential" truth?
Is this a hill you're willing to die on? Or is it something that Christians can validly disagree on, and still be solid Christians and love one another? Too often we've battled and separated over different interpretations of "truth," when in reality we separated over opinion. Paul warns us against that in Romans 14:1-3
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
As a general indicator of doctrinal essentials we must believe, Ephesians 4says it all:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (vv.3-6)
As we discussed, we build unity by seeking to agree on essential items like the person of God, our need for the church, faith as the means of salvation, needing an entry point into a faith relationship, and the return of Christ. We won't always start off agreeing, but these issues hold enough importance that we need to strive for agreement on them. As we follow these guidelines, we'll live in the truth.
I encourage you to commit yourself to a rigorous examination of what you believe and what others suggest. Seek truth that's consistent with God's word. When you do, on the authority of God's true Word, I promise you, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32, emphasis added).
Freedom is a good thing. And that's the truth.
-By Tim Riter/Christianity Today/March 31, 2004
The Bereans had an open attitude, but wanted to check out what was being communicated. Paul said this Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, so they compared what Paul said to what God had said. A wise decision.
Like the people Paul taught, we need to commit to the ongoing process of examining all of our beliefs, values, and opinions through the filter of Scripture. Add to that our own quirks, what we're taught by pastors and others, and ideas that pop up in small groups. We don't want to be obnoxious, but we do want the freedom that comes with knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If we truly desire to grow in Christ, we need to distinguish between beliefs that will help us grow and beliefs that will hinder our growth. How do we make that distinction?
Let's look at three questions we can use to evaluate the truthfulness of any message.
1. Is it consistent with the entire witness of the Bible?
Keep this slogan in mind: "A text without a context is a pretext." Linking the context with the words of the passage or verse helps us avoid "proof-texting," pulling one verse out of context to prove a point. The broader the context; the greater the understanding.
Writing my second book provided one of my greatest challenges. I wanted A Passionate Pursuit of God to present the awesome privilege we have of knowing God as well as to give practical steps to do that. At first, I was quite intimidated by the task. How do you summarize the transcendent Creator of the universe in 150 pages? How do you blend brevity and accuracy? I started by using my computer Bible search program to discover every verse in the Bible that dealt with knowing God or Jesus. Every one. I didn't mention all those verses in the book, but I used every one in my thinking and writing. I didn't ignore a single verse. Why? I wanted to pass on truth about knowing God. I didn't want any of my words to contradict or confuse even one verse of Scripture. I wanted to express truth.
If all Scripture is true, then it won't contradict itself. We need to understand all that God said about the subject before holding on too tightly to a conclusion.
2. Is the message consistent with historical understanding?
I don't mean that "tradition" stands on the same level of authority with God's Word! The phrase "If it's new, it isn't true" summarizes a generally wise approach—if we don't take it too far. But if the "new idea" contradicts the historical understanding, then realize that the burden of proof lies with those proposing the new slant. If the idea is true, that can be done.
The historical church hasn't always believed only the truth. Martin Luther proved that. More recently, some churches taught racism and bigotry. Overcoming these teachings required changes in our understanding of truth.
Take the time to cautiously evaluate "new" ideas.
3. Is the message important enough to be considered an "essential" truth?
Is this a hill you're willing to die on? Or is it something that Christians can validly disagree on, and still be solid Christians and love one another? Too often we've battled and separated over different interpretations of "truth," when in reality we separated over opinion. Paul warns us against that in Romans 14:1-3
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
As a general indicator of doctrinal essentials we must believe, Ephesians 4says it all:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (vv.3-6)
As we discussed, we build unity by seeking to agree on essential items like the person of God, our need for the church, faith as the means of salvation, needing an entry point into a faith relationship, and the return of Christ. We won't always start off agreeing, but these issues hold enough importance that we need to strive for agreement on them. As we follow these guidelines, we'll live in the truth.
I encourage you to commit yourself to a rigorous examination of what you believe and what others suggest. Seek truth that's consistent with God's word. When you do, on the authority of God's true Word, I promise you, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32, emphasis added).
Freedom is a good thing. And that's the truth.
-By Tim Riter/Christianity Today/March 31, 2004
OWLS Means: Older Wiser Laughing Souls
Pearls of wisdom from Grandpa...
Whether a man winds up with a nest egg, a goose egg, a hard-boiled egg, or a rotten egg depends a lot on the kind of chick he marries.
Trouble in marriage often starts when a man gets so busy earnin' his salt he forgets his sugar.
Too many couples marry for better or for worse, but not for good.
When a man marries a woman, they become one; the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.
If a man has enough horse sense to treat his wife like a thoroughbred, she'll never turn into an old nag.
On anniversaries, the wise husband always forgets the past but never the present.
A foolish husband would say to his wife, "Honey, you stick to the washin', ironin', cookin' and scrubbin'. No wife of mine's gonna ‘work’."
Many girls like to marry a military man because he can cook, sew, make beds, is in good health, and is already used to taking orders.
Eventually you reach a point when you stop lying about your age and start bragging about it.
Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me, I want people to know "why" I look this way. I've traveled a long way and some of the roads weren't paved.
Whether a man winds up with a nest egg, a goose egg, a hard-boiled egg, or a rotten egg depends a lot on the kind of chick he marries.
Trouble in marriage often starts when a man gets so busy earnin' his salt he forgets his sugar.
Too many couples marry for better or for worse, but not for good.
When a man marries a woman, they become one; the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.
If a man has enough horse sense to treat his wife like a thoroughbred, she'll never turn into an old nag.
On anniversaries, the wise husband always forgets the past but never the present.
A foolish husband would say to his wife, "Honey, you stick to the washin', ironin', cookin' and scrubbin'. No wife of mine's gonna ‘work’."
Many girls like to marry a military man because he can cook, sew, make beds, is in good health, and is already used to taking orders.
Eventually you reach a point when you stop lying about your age and start bragging about it.
Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me, I want people to know "why" I look this way. I've traveled a long way and some of the roads weren't paved.
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?
You know you are getting old, when everything either dries up or leaks.
Old age is when former classmates are either so bald or gray and wrinkled they don't recognize you.
Have a GREAT day and keep laughing! It's good for the soul.
And remember Maxine's motto: Pay the undertaker with a bad check!
Author Unknown
You know you are getting old, when everything either dries up or leaks.
Old age is when former classmates are either so bald or gray and wrinkled they don't recognize you.
Have a GREAT day and keep laughing! It's good for the soul.
And remember Maxine's motto: Pay the undertaker with a bad check!
Author Unknown
Will Muslim Students Be Allowed To Pray In School?
Christian students have been told by the ACLU and the courts that they cannot read the Bible, pray, and cannot talk or sing about Jesus Christ in the public schools. In some instances, they’ve been punished for expressing their Christian values when they say something like homosexuality is a sin and wrong.
Now, some Pennsylvania parents in the West Shore School District are anxious to see if the school district is going to allow Muslim students the chance to pray during the school day. At the moment, the school district has not said anything about the situation or even if they will act upon it, but there are a number of eyes waiting and watching to see if and what they do.
Attorney John Rutherford, founder of The Rutherford Institute, is also watching to see if the school district will take any action and what that action will be. He said,
“Whether it’s a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim — if it’s required by their faith, they should be able to do it in a public school. It just has to be evenhanded. There are certain things that certain faiths require, and the schools should respect that.
“I have run into very few teachers or especially higher-up principals and superintendents who know anything about the First Amendment. They just heard about the so-called ‘separation of church and state.’”
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton issued a statement to educators nationwide explaining the guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools that were issued back in August of 1995. In his statement, Clinton wrote,
“These guidelines continue to reflect two basic and equally important obligations imposed on public school officials by the First Amendment. First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious nature. Schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the same rules of order that apply to other student speech.
At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students…
First, school districts should use these guidelines to revise or develop their own district wide policy regarding religious expression. In developing such a policy, school officials can engage parents, teachers, the various faith communities and the broader community in a positive dialogue to define a common ground that gives all parties the assurance that when questions do arise regarding religious expression the community is well prepared to apply these guidelines to specific cases. The Davis County School District in Farmington, Utah, is an example of a school district that has taken the affirmative step of developing such a policy.
At a time of increasing religious diversity in our country such a proactive step can help school districts create a framework of civility that reaffirms and strengthens the community consensus regarding religious liberty. School districts that do not make the effort to develop their own policy may find themselves unprepared for the intensity of the debate that can engage a community when positions harden around a live controversy involving religious expression in public schools.
Second, I encourage principals and administrators to take the additional step of making sure that teachers, so often on the front line of any dispute regarding religious expression, are fully informed about the guidelines. The Gwinnett County School system in Georgia, for example, begins every school year with workshops for teachers that include the distribution of these presidential guidelines. Our nation’s schools of education can also do their part by ensuring that prospective teachers are knowledgeable about religious expression in the classroom.
Third, I encourage schools to actively take steps to inform parents and students about religious expression in school using these guidelines. The Carter County School District in Elizabethton, Tennessee, included the subject of religious expression in a character education program that it developed in the fall of 1997. This effort included sending home to every parent a copy of the “Parent’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools.”
Help is available for those school districts that seek to develop policies on religious expression. I have enclosed a list of associations and groups that can provide information to school districts and parents who seek to learn more about religious expression in our nation’s public schools.
In addition, citizens can turn to the U.S. Department of Education web site for information about the guidelines and other activities of the Department that support the growing effort of educators and religious communities to support the education of our nation’s children.
Finally, I encourage teachers and principals to see the First Amendment as something more than a piece of dry, old parchment locked away in the national attic gathering dust. It is a vital living principle, a call to action, and a demand that each generation reaffirm its connection to the basic idea that is America — that we are a free people who protect our freedoms by respecting the freedom of others who differ from us.”
According to my information, these guidelines have never been rescinded or altered and are still in effect. And if you read the full guidelines, you have to wonder why so many schools are making rulings that violate them.
But the question at hand is what is the West Shore School District going to do about their Muslim students whose religion requires them to pray multiple times a time? And if they do make allow the Muslim student to pray at school, will they allow students of other religions, especially Christians, to pray during school? -By Giacomo/Godfather Politics/January 18, 2012
Now, some Pennsylvania parents in the West Shore School District are anxious to see if the school district is going to allow Muslim students the chance to pray during the school day. At the moment, the school district has not said anything about the situation or even if they will act upon it, but there are a number of eyes waiting and watching to see if and what they do.
Attorney John Rutherford, founder of The Rutherford Institute, is also watching to see if the school district will take any action and what that action will be. He said,
“Whether it’s a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim — if it’s required by their faith, they should be able to do it in a public school. It just has to be evenhanded. There are certain things that certain faiths require, and the schools should respect that.
“I have run into very few teachers or especially higher-up principals and superintendents who know anything about the First Amendment. They just heard about the so-called ‘separation of church and state.’”
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton issued a statement to educators nationwide explaining the guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools that were issued back in August of 1995. In his statement, Clinton wrote,
“These guidelines continue to reflect two basic and equally important obligations imposed on public school officials by the First Amendment. First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious nature. Schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the same rules of order that apply to other student speech.
At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches and other school officials who act as advisors to student groups must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the religious activities of students…
First, school districts should use these guidelines to revise or develop their own district wide policy regarding religious expression. In developing such a policy, school officials can engage parents, teachers, the various faith communities and the broader community in a positive dialogue to define a common ground that gives all parties the assurance that when questions do arise regarding religious expression the community is well prepared to apply these guidelines to specific cases. The Davis County School District in Farmington, Utah, is an example of a school district that has taken the affirmative step of developing such a policy.
At a time of increasing religious diversity in our country such a proactive step can help school districts create a framework of civility that reaffirms and strengthens the community consensus regarding religious liberty. School districts that do not make the effort to develop their own policy may find themselves unprepared for the intensity of the debate that can engage a community when positions harden around a live controversy involving religious expression in public schools.
Second, I encourage principals and administrators to take the additional step of making sure that teachers, so often on the front line of any dispute regarding religious expression, are fully informed about the guidelines. The Gwinnett County School system in Georgia, for example, begins every school year with workshops for teachers that include the distribution of these presidential guidelines. Our nation’s schools of education can also do their part by ensuring that prospective teachers are knowledgeable about religious expression in the classroom.
Third, I encourage schools to actively take steps to inform parents and students about religious expression in school using these guidelines. The Carter County School District in Elizabethton, Tennessee, included the subject of religious expression in a character education program that it developed in the fall of 1997. This effort included sending home to every parent a copy of the “Parent’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools.”
Help is available for those school districts that seek to develop policies on religious expression. I have enclosed a list of associations and groups that can provide information to school districts and parents who seek to learn more about religious expression in our nation’s public schools.
In addition, citizens can turn to the U.S. Department of Education web site for information about the guidelines and other activities of the Department that support the growing effort of educators and religious communities to support the education of our nation’s children.
Finally, I encourage teachers and principals to see the First Amendment as something more than a piece of dry, old parchment locked away in the national attic gathering dust. It is a vital living principle, a call to action, and a demand that each generation reaffirm its connection to the basic idea that is America — that we are a free people who protect our freedoms by respecting the freedom of others who differ from us.”
According to my information, these guidelines have never been rescinded or altered and are still in effect. And if you read the full guidelines, you have to wonder why so many schools are making rulings that violate them.
But the question at hand is what is the West Shore School District going to do about their Muslim students whose religion requires them to pray multiple times a time? And if they do make allow the Muslim student to pray at school, will they allow students of other religions, especially Christians, to pray during school? -By Giacomo/Godfather Politics/January 18, 2012
Taking A Stand To Follow...
"...Jesus said...'I am the way, the truth and the life.'" -John 14:6
Finding our way in life can sometimes be daunting. Which way should I go? Which choices should I make? Often, in being unable to decide, we freeze in place, taking a stand for safety. Not moving. Not growing. Author Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The greatest thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving." And who better to guide us in the direction we should go than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? For he, and only he, is "the way, the truth, and the life"!
Prayer: Lord Jesus, I have so many choices to make. So many directions that I can go. So many days when I just stand still, not moving at all. I look to you to guide my life and show me the way. Amen.
Reflection: What parts of your life seem stagnant? Where do you need to make some changes? Lift these areas of your life up to God, ask for his direction, and watch what happens! -Hour of Power
Finding our way in life can sometimes be daunting. Which way should I go? Which choices should I make? Often, in being unable to decide, we freeze in place, taking a stand for safety. Not moving. Not growing. Author Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The greatest thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving." And who better to guide us in the direction we should go than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? For he, and only he, is "the way, the truth, and the life"!
Prayer: Lord Jesus, I have so many choices to make. So many directions that I can go. So many days when I just stand still, not moving at all. I look to you to guide my life and show me the way. Amen.
Reflection: What parts of your life seem stagnant? Where do you need to make some changes? Lift these areas of your life up to God, ask for his direction, and watch what happens! -Hour of Power
Religion: Only A Semblance Of faith And An Absence Of Love?
Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever is not kind has no faith. Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind." – Muslim & Bukhari
Bliss is not for sale, cannot be earned, "Works" have no "merit," though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. (Man) is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift. – C.S. Lewis
When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the (Roman) centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” – Matthew 8: 10 - 14
This week’s article was prompted by a recent reader’s post to my previous column, where in answer to someone’s pro - faith response, the individual derisively wrote, “...can you stop beating this ridiculous faith not religion drum.”
It’s obvious like many people, he or she doesn’t see the distinction between faith and religion – probably the main reason why religious allegiance has such a grip on most individuals. In fact the adage “so near, yet so far” applies here – the more religious pride people exhibit; the more evidence they provide of a superficial faith.
Mother Teresa was someone who believed we are all equal before God, and she sought to inspire individual spiritual growth in everyone, explaining – “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” However if she meant religions could be rewired, that would be unworkable. There is no scope for making any man-made creed better – every religion thinks it is the definitive answer.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt people of all religions are regularly blessed by the Creator who hears the prayers of even those excluded by the self-important religious fundamentalists who arrogate to themselves the exclusive privilege of belonging to the only “true” religion.
Religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different, yet the existence of an incomparable creed is debatable, - it certainly isn’t Christianity!
One can meet people from all persuasions who have a humble, genuine relationship with God and their lives can be studied to observe the authenticity of their faith.
Only such a religion of the heart is credible, manifested with love and humility in action.
One of the most controversial statements made by Jesus was John 4: 22, “You Samaritans know very little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews.” One doesn’t have to be a scholar to understand he was referring to salvation and pointing to himself, not to the Jewish religion.
Had he chosen to incarnate in a religion other than Judaism, would that claim have been equally valid? Let the theologians debate that, my point is that God has no religion and the Bible (Galatians 3: 28) tells us, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female.
Ergo, God plays no favourites, even though he may bestow his favour on someone – anyone.
So it’s pretty clear not every Jew has a chosen place in heaven. But neither does anyone else just because they call themselves Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh etc.
You often hear people say at the funeral of a loved one, “If anyone earned a place in heaven, it was ...” and they name a friend or relative. God in his mercy can choose anyone, but who can claim to have actually earned the right to a place in heaven? God’s love is unfathomable and eternal life is a privilege only he assigns in his mercy and grace.
Whether one believes in Mohammed as the last prophet, Brahma as Creator or Jesus as the Son of God, ultimately what will count is not our religious certainty, but our hunger and humility to receive the Truth in simple, genuine faith.
Christians tend to pay no attention to Jesus' own example in honouring the faith of people with other beliefs like the Roman centurion or the Samaritan woman. They would prefer to think God extends his grace exclusively to them.
Perhaps English writer C.S. Lewis had a deeper insight on the matter when he said, “We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
Does the Bible indicate any divine favouritism when it comes to the Incarnation? We learn God chose the Jews because they were the least among the nations, as recorded in Deuteronomy 7: 6-8.
Many of my Muslim friends dismiss this teaching, nauseated by the idea of Israel being chosen in any sense. But I am merely quoting from the Tawrat, (Torah) not making it up, and wouldn’t it be haram (forbidden) to suggest that the Tawrat was in any way corrupted or altered?
Only a few realize that such an allegation is perilous, even if it’s the preferred charge many Muslims bring against the Bible (Injeel).
If mere men could have changed God’s original revelation (Tahrif) over time, then what set it apart as divine in the first place?
The subject of God’s love brings up an interesting point – how did Jesus clearly differentiate between faith and religion?
He exposed the absence of love in the very religion he was born into.
So much so, one Scribe felt compelled to endorse Jesus’ words, admitting: “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
And every killing that goes on in the name of God and every debauchery is a confirmation of Jesus’ indictment of corrupt religion.
According to author Gary Wills, “the most striking, resented and dangerous of Jesus’ activities was his opposition to religion.” He opposed formal worship, ritual purifications, sacrifice, external prayer, and fasting norms, the Sabbath and eating codes, priesthoods, the Temple, and the rules of Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes.
He also condemned the clergy for their hardened hearts, declaring, “Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!” (Mathew 23: 24)
In our time we only have to look at the rampant sectarian violence all around us - every religion has been in the fray at one time or another without exception.
For a world engineered to function in the love of a Creator who freely bestows on everyone his life-giving resources, one cannot help wonder how we humans choose to deplete our lives with various forms of passive and aggressive violence instead of sharing God’s unstinted love. But the sad fact is, in our society one is generally more conscious of being encircled by hatred and injury rather than love and harmony in our conflict-ridden society.
1 John 4:12 exhorts us: “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.”
Notice it says ‘IF we love one another’ – in a world bereft of that love, the fundamental question still remains: what is the difference between faith and religion?
The Scriptures point to salvation by grace, through faith, as the gift of God, not by our own efforts (Ephesians 2:9) or by allegiance to an institution.
Religion however is man’s efforts to reach God, and if it is all about doing, not being, it is worthless. Faith is a longing for a vital union with our Creator, defined as the substance of something we hope for, the evidence of something we do not see.
But faith is not gotten; it is given to those who can receive it humbly.
Religion is the corporate belief of individuals belonging to a group of likeminded people. Without love for our fellow man and genuine faith, it is false piety parading with tradition, employing meaningless rituals and engaging in good works with great spiritual pride.
Not surprisingly the Scriptures place little value on the externals, the Bible defines religion as love and compassion for the vulnerable. “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep one-self unstained from the world.” (James 1: 26 – 27) -Frank Faj/Washington Times/December 8, 2011
Foot Note: Frank Raj is based in India and the Middle East where he has lived for over three decades. He is the founding editor & publisher of ‘The International Indian’ (www.theinternationalindian.com) the oldest magazine of Gulf-Indian society and history since 1992. Frank is co-author of the upcoming publication ‘Universal Book of the Scriptures,’ and author of ‘Desh Aur Diaspora.’ He blogs at: www.no2christianity.wordpress.com
Bliss is not for sale, cannot be earned, "Works" have no "merit," though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. (Man) is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift. – C.S. Lewis
When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the (Roman) centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” – Matthew 8: 10 - 14
This week’s article was prompted by a recent reader’s post to my previous column, where in answer to someone’s pro - faith response, the individual derisively wrote, “...can you stop beating this ridiculous faith not religion drum.”
It’s obvious like many people, he or she doesn’t see the distinction between faith and religion – probably the main reason why religious allegiance has such a grip on most individuals. In fact the adage “so near, yet so far” applies here – the more religious pride people exhibit; the more evidence they provide of a superficial faith.
Mother Teresa was someone who believed we are all equal before God, and she sought to inspire individual spiritual growth in everyone, explaining – “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” However if she meant religions could be rewired, that would be unworkable. There is no scope for making any man-made creed better – every religion thinks it is the definitive answer.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt people of all religions are regularly blessed by the Creator who hears the prayers of even those excluded by the self-important religious fundamentalists who arrogate to themselves the exclusive privilege of belonging to the only “true” religion.
Religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different, yet the existence of an incomparable creed is debatable, - it certainly isn’t Christianity!
One can meet people from all persuasions who have a humble, genuine relationship with God and their lives can be studied to observe the authenticity of their faith.
Only such a religion of the heart is credible, manifested with love and humility in action.
One of the most controversial statements made by Jesus was John 4: 22, “You Samaritans know very little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews.” One doesn’t have to be a scholar to understand he was referring to salvation and pointing to himself, not to the Jewish religion.
Had he chosen to incarnate in a religion other than Judaism, would that claim have been equally valid? Let the theologians debate that, my point is that God has no religion and the Bible (Galatians 3: 28) tells us, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female.
Ergo, God plays no favourites, even though he may bestow his favour on someone – anyone.
So it’s pretty clear not every Jew has a chosen place in heaven. But neither does anyone else just because they call themselves Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh etc.
You often hear people say at the funeral of a loved one, “If anyone earned a place in heaven, it was ...” and they name a friend or relative. God in his mercy can choose anyone, but who can claim to have actually earned the right to a place in heaven? God’s love is unfathomable and eternal life is a privilege only he assigns in his mercy and grace.
Whether one believes in Mohammed as the last prophet, Brahma as Creator or Jesus as the Son of God, ultimately what will count is not our religious certainty, but our hunger and humility to receive the Truth in simple, genuine faith.
Christians tend to pay no attention to Jesus' own example in honouring the faith of people with other beliefs like the Roman centurion or the Samaritan woman. They would prefer to think God extends his grace exclusively to them.
Perhaps English writer C.S. Lewis had a deeper insight on the matter when he said, “We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
Does the Bible indicate any divine favouritism when it comes to the Incarnation? We learn God chose the Jews because they were the least among the nations, as recorded in Deuteronomy 7: 6-8.
Many of my Muslim friends dismiss this teaching, nauseated by the idea of Israel being chosen in any sense. But I am merely quoting from the Tawrat, (Torah) not making it up, and wouldn’t it be haram (forbidden) to suggest that the Tawrat was in any way corrupted or altered?
Only a few realize that such an allegation is perilous, even if it’s the preferred charge many Muslims bring against the Bible (Injeel).
If mere men could have changed God’s original revelation (Tahrif) over time, then what set it apart as divine in the first place?
The subject of God’s love brings up an interesting point – how did Jesus clearly differentiate between faith and religion?
He exposed the absence of love in the very religion he was born into.
So much so, one Scribe felt compelled to endorse Jesus’ words, admitting: “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
And every killing that goes on in the name of God and every debauchery is a confirmation of Jesus’ indictment of corrupt religion.
According to author Gary Wills, “the most striking, resented and dangerous of Jesus’ activities was his opposition to religion.” He opposed formal worship, ritual purifications, sacrifice, external prayer, and fasting norms, the Sabbath and eating codes, priesthoods, the Temple, and the rules of Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes.
He also condemned the clergy for their hardened hearts, declaring, “Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!” (Mathew 23: 24)
In our time we only have to look at the rampant sectarian violence all around us - every religion has been in the fray at one time or another without exception.
For a world engineered to function in the love of a Creator who freely bestows on everyone his life-giving resources, one cannot help wonder how we humans choose to deplete our lives with various forms of passive and aggressive violence instead of sharing God’s unstinted love. But the sad fact is, in our society one is generally more conscious of being encircled by hatred and injury rather than love and harmony in our conflict-ridden society.
1 John 4:12 exhorts us: “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.”
Notice it says ‘IF we love one another’ – in a world bereft of that love, the fundamental question still remains: what is the difference between faith and religion?
The Scriptures point to salvation by grace, through faith, as the gift of God, not by our own efforts (Ephesians 2:9) or by allegiance to an institution.
Religion however is man’s efforts to reach God, and if it is all about doing, not being, it is worthless. Faith is a longing for a vital union with our Creator, defined as the substance of something we hope for, the evidence of something we do not see.
But faith is not gotten; it is given to those who can receive it humbly.
Religion is the corporate belief of individuals belonging to a group of likeminded people. Without love for our fellow man and genuine faith, it is false piety parading with tradition, employing meaningless rituals and engaging in good works with great spiritual pride.
Not surprisingly the Scriptures place little value on the externals, the Bible defines religion as love and compassion for the vulnerable. “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep one-self unstained from the world.” (James 1: 26 – 27) -Frank Faj/Washington Times/December 8, 2011
Foot Note: Frank Raj is based in India and the Middle East where he has lived for over three decades. He is the founding editor & publisher of ‘The International Indian’ (www.theinternationalindian.com) the oldest magazine of Gulf-Indian society and history since 1992. Frank is co-author of the upcoming publication ‘Universal Book of the Scriptures,’ and author of ‘Desh Aur Diaspora.’ He blogs at: www.no2christianity.wordpress.com
Oct 7, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
Newly Discovered Alien Planet Could Support Life
A newly discovered alien planet may be one of the top contenders to support life beyond Earth, researchers say.
The newfound world, a "super Earth" called Gliese 163c, lies at the edge of its star's habitable zone — that just-right range of distances where liquid water could exist. ...
The Planetary Habitability Laboratory at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo keeps a catalog of the alien worlds it considers good candidates to host life. The newly discovered Gliese 163c ranks fifth on the list. –By Nola Taylor Redd/Washington Times/September 23, 2012
A newly discovered alien planet may be one of the top contenders to support life beyond Earth, researchers say.
The newfound world, a "super Earth" called Gliese 163c, lies at the edge of its star's habitable zone — that just-right range of distances where liquid water could exist. ...
The Planetary Habitability Laboratory at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo keeps a catalog of the alien worlds it considers good candidates to host life. The newly discovered Gliese 163c ranks fifth on the list. –By Nola Taylor Redd/Washington Times/September 23, 2012
Why Israel Exists 'For The Palestinians'—And The Rest Of The World - Part IV
The conclusion of a conversation between John Piper and Jews for Jesus head David Brickner.
This is the conclusion of a four-part discussion between Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor John Piper and Jews for Jesus executive director David Brickner on the relationship and attitudes American Christians should have toward Israel. See parts one, two, and three.
Dear David,
Let's get the relatively minor disagreements and misunderstandings out of the way, so we can celebrate the grand agreements.
I don't regard 1 Corinthians 3:21–23 as hyperbole the way you do. "All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."
I think the Christian inheritance of all the created universe is the implication of our being "heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). It's the point Jesus made in Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." We will even judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3).
And it is remarkable that the "world" is the inheritance of the Christian Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:22) and the inheritance of Abraham and his offspring: "The promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:13).
When I say that Abraham's inheritance is not only Israel, but the world, and that the Gentile Christian's inheritance is the world, including Israel, you say that I am "minimizing the particularity of Israel's election" and that I "take away with one hand what [I] give with the other."
I did say, and I do believe, that Israel, as a people, "will finally have [the Land] as a special dwelling place." By the word "special," I mean to preserve Israel's particular role in God's plan. But when I say Israel gets the world thrown in along with the Promised Land, I don't see why you say, "You are taking away with one hand what you give with the other." How is adding the world in any serious way a subtracting?
The only thing I take away is the "no trespassing" signs to those outside Israel, and the barbed wire on the borders for those inside. The Promised Land belongs to Israel in a special way, and belongs to all the "sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7) as well. God will honor the particularity of ethnic Israel's inheritance and the universality of spiritual Israel's inheritance. He will do it without taking anything good away from either. Surely it will not be true that "when Israel gets all, she actually gets nothing."
On the issue of the conditionality of the Abrahamic covenant, I agree with you that "obedience is no more a condition for Abraham than it is for the church." And I would simply add: and no less. All who belong to the visible church or to visible Israel, but who do not confirm their faith with obedience, will perish. To Israel and to the church, Jesus says, "Repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent" (Rev. 2:5). Final salvation is conditional for the church on the obedience that comes from faith, as for Israel. No more, no less.
But let us celebrate our common convictions about the wonder of present day Israel—both the nation and the remnant. I'm sorry that Ryle's language proved misleading, namely, that present day Israel is "reserved and preserved" for a great future destiny. Neither he nor I imply that Israel is "in a pickle jar kept on a shelf somewhere." Both he and I agree with you that on the way to this future destiny (of conversion and inheritance), Israel is a "marvelous evidence of God's continuing covenant faithfulness." Yes. Amen! -By John Piper/Christianity Today/June 25, 2012
This is the conclusion of a four-part discussion between Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor John Piper and Jews for Jesus executive director David Brickner on the relationship and attitudes American Christians should have toward Israel. See parts one, two, and three.
Dear David,
Let's get the relatively minor disagreements and misunderstandings out of the way, so we can celebrate the grand agreements.
I don't regard 1 Corinthians 3:21–23 as hyperbole the way you do. "All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."
I think the Christian inheritance of all the created universe is the implication of our being "heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). It's the point Jesus made in Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." We will even judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3).
And it is remarkable that the "world" is the inheritance of the Christian Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:22) and the inheritance of Abraham and his offspring: "The promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:13).
When I say that Abraham's inheritance is not only Israel, but the world, and that the Gentile Christian's inheritance is the world, including Israel, you say that I am "minimizing the particularity of Israel's election" and that I "take away with one hand what [I] give with the other."
I did say, and I do believe, that Israel, as a people, "will finally have [the Land] as a special dwelling place." By the word "special," I mean to preserve Israel's particular role in God's plan. But when I say Israel gets the world thrown in along with the Promised Land, I don't see why you say, "You are taking away with one hand what you give with the other." How is adding the world in any serious way a subtracting?
The only thing I take away is the "no trespassing" signs to those outside Israel, and the barbed wire on the borders for those inside. The Promised Land belongs to Israel in a special way, and belongs to all the "sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7) as well. God will honor the particularity of ethnic Israel's inheritance and the universality of spiritual Israel's inheritance. He will do it without taking anything good away from either. Surely it will not be true that "when Israel gets all, she actually gets nothing."
On the issue of the conditionality of the Abrahamic covenant, I agree with you that "obedience is no more a condition for Abraham than it is for the church." And I would simply add: and no less. All who belong to the visible church or to visible Israel, but who do not confirm their faith with obedience, will perish. To Israel and to the church, Jesus says, "Repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent" (Rev. 2:5). Final salvation is conditional for the church on the obedience that comes from faith, as for Israel. No more, no less.
But let us celebrate our common convictions about the wonder of present day Israel—both the nation and the remnant. I'm sorry that Ryle's language proved misleading, namely, that present day Israel is "reserved and preserved" for a great future destiny. Neither he nor I imply that Israel is "in a pickle jar kept on a shelf somewhere." Both he and I agree with you that on the way to this future destiny (of conversion and inheritance), Israel is a "marvelous evidence of God's continuing covenant faithfulness." Yes. Amen! -By John Piper/Christianity Today/June 25, 2012
The video below is of Dr. James David Manning, an African-American and the senior pastor of the ATLAH (Baptist) Church in Harlem, New York, talking about Barack Obama.
Make sure you don't have any kind of liquid in your mouth when Dr. Manning utters the very last clause of the final sentence of his discourse.
Watch, listen, and get ready to be "blown away".
^^^*^^^
Obama Failed
(Caution-Strong Language)
Was Allah Originally A Babylonian God Of Violence?
One of the first tales told to American students about Islam is that Allah, the Muslim God, is the same as Yahweh in the Bible.
It’s something I never bought into even when I was a young and naive religious studies student in college. I suppose my childhood passion for medieval literature and the Crusades had inoculated me against the most egregious fantasies of Muslim propagandists. Plus, Islam is just too different from biblical religion for the alleged connection to be reasonable.
Consequently, there was never a satisfactory answer for the origin of the God of Mohammed, who seemed to just spring out of the mountain cave with Mohammed’s visions and co-opt and rewrite the stories of the Bible, creating a perverted version of Judeo-Christian beliefs that calls on Muslims to convert or destroy the entire world.
Author Theodore Shoebat has an interesting theory, however, and like most “a-ha!” moments, it was hiding in plain sight, apparently ignored or kept under wraps by scholars.
Shoebat traces the earliest mention of Allah worship to Babylon, approximately 1700 B.C., in the “Epic of Atrahasis.”
In the story told on stone tablets, a portion of the legends talks about a god named Alla, who is described as a god of “violence and revolution.”
In one scene, the lesser gods grow tired of working for the god Enlil (or Elil) and rebel, led by the god Alla, who encourages them to drag Enlil out of his house:
“Then Alla made his voice heard and spoke to the gods his brothers, ‘Come! Let us carry Elil, the counselor of gods, the warrior, from his dwelling. Now, cry battle! Let us mix fight with battle!’ The gods listened to his speech, set fire to their tools, put aside their spades for fire, their loads for the fire-god, they flared up.”
(One interesting note: Enlil in Mesopotamian myths is the god who was said to have grown weary of the noise made by humans and brought down a worldwide flood to get rid of them, a flood which was said to be survived by one man, Utnapishtim, and his family, who were spared because they had a boat loaded with animals and food. Some scholars see a connection to the biblical story of Noah.)
According to Shoebat, the cult of Alla came to Mesopotamia with the Akkadians, who originally migrated from Yemen, in the south Arabian Peninsula. He further reports that there is a Sumerian inscription identifying Alla with Tammuz, who was a god of fertility and the consort of Inanna, who is identified by scholars with Ishtar, Venus, Isis and other goddess cults. The various goddess cults are frequently identified with the moon, and Tammuz was said to be an archer, both of which points may help explain the crescent symbol of Islam, if Shoebat is correct.
Tammuz is mentioned in the Bible, in Ezekiel 8:14-15 (NIV translation): “Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz. He said to me, ‘Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this.’”
“Mourning the god Tammuz” refers to one of the annual festivals of the cult, in which the god was said to be killed. Being a fertility god, the “killing” was a metaphor for the summer and the annual dying of the crops. The other major festival had to do with the god’s “marriage,” which presaged a fertile year for farmers. Both festivals were apparently marked by rituals that included sex with the temple priestesses, thus their reputation would have been shocking to the Israelites.
That chapter of Ezekiel details a vision which in part shows the north gate of the temple, that is marked by the “idol that provokes to jealousy.” The vision also describes idol worship being secretly conducted inside a room of the temple, and then it goes on to say, in Ezekiel 8:16-17:
“He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east. He said to me, ‘Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the people of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually arouse my anger?’”
Such fertility cults were common among the Canaanites and other peoples around Israel. The Bible mentions many times Asherah poles, which were a religious symbol of just such a cult.
Shoebat does not discuss the Bible passage about Tammuz or the chapter of Ezekiel, but it struck me, particularly the part about facing east, as being reminiscent of Islam and its practices and attitudes, given Shoebat’s connection of Alla and Tammuz.
The Arabs, from whom we get Islam, consider themselves to be descended from Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar in the Bible. In Genesis 16:12, it says of Ishmael, “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility towardall his brothers.”
Another interesting point biblically speaking is that Ishmael’s mother was Egyptian, which would make him a Hamite, rather than a Shemite (Semite). Ham was a son of Noah but was cursed by his father to be a slave to the descendants of his brother Shem (the Jews).
Studying the past can give us insight into today’s violence in the Mideast.
By Tad Cronn/Godfather Politics/September 17, 2012
It’s something I never bought into even when I was a young and naive religious studies student in college. I suppose my childhood passion for medieval literature and the Crusades had inoculated me against the most egregious fantasies of Muslim propagandists. Plus, Islam is just too different from biblical religion for the alleged connection to be reasonable.
Consequently, there was never a satisfactory answer for the origin of the God of Mohammed, who seemed to just spring out of the mountain cave with Mohammed’s visions and co-opt and rewrite the stories of the Bible, creating a perverted version of Judeo-Christian beliefs that calls on Muslims to convert or destroy the entire world.
Author Theodore Shoebat has an interesting theory, however, and like most “a-ha!” moments, it was hiding in plain sight, apparently ignored or kept under wraps by scholars.
Shoebat traces the earliest mention of Allah worship to Babylon, approximately 1700 B.C., in the “Epic of Atrahasis.”
In the story told on stone tablets, a portion of the legends talks about a god named Alla, who is described as a god of “violence and revolution.”
In one scene, the lesser gods grow tired of working for the god Enlil (or Elil) and rebel, led by the god Alla, who encourages them to drag Enlil out of his house:
“Then Alla made his voice heard and spoke to the gods his brothers, ‘Come! Let us carry Elil, the counselor of gods, the warrior, from his dwelling. Now, cry battle! Let us mix fight with battle!’ The gods listened to his speech, set fire to their tools, put aside their spades for fire, their loads for the fire-god, they flared up.”
(One interesting note: Enlil in Mesopotamian myths is the god who was said to have grown weary of the noise made by humans and brought down a worldwide flood to get rid of them, a flood which was said to be survived by one man, Utnapishtim, and his family, who were spared because they had a boat loaded with animals and food. Some scholars see a connection to the biblical story of Noah.)
According to Shoebat, the cult of Alla came to Mesopotamia with the Akkadians, who originally migrated from Yemen, in the south Arabian Peninsula. He further reports that there is a Sumerian inscription identifying Alla with Tammuz, who was a god of fertility and the consort of Inanna, who is identified by scholars with Ishtar, Venus, Isis and other goddess cults. The various goddess cults are frequently identified with the moon, and Tammuz was said to be an archer, both of which points may help explain the crescent symbol of Islam, if Shoebat is correct.
Tammuz is mentioned in the Bible, in Ezekiel 8:14-15 (NIV translation): “Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz. He said to me, ‘Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this.’”
“Mourning the god Tammuz” refers to one of the annual festivals of the cult, in which the god was said to be killed. Being a fertility god, the “killing” was a metaphor for the summer and the annual dying of the crops. The other major festival had to do with the god’s “marriage,” which presaged a fertile year for farmers. Both festivals were apparently marked by rituals that included sex with the temple priestesses, thus their reputation would have been shocking to the Israelites.
That chapter of Ezekiel details a vision which in part shows the north gate of the temple, that is marked by the “idol that provokes to jealousy.” The vision also describes idol worship being secretly conducted inside a room of the temple, and then it goes on to say, in Ezekiel 8:16-17:
“He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east. He said to me, ‘Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the people of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually arouse my anger?’”
Such fertility cults were common among the Canaanites and other peoples around Israel. The Bible mentions many times Asherah poles, which were a religious symbol of just such a cult.
Shoebat does not discuss the Bible passage about Tammuz or the chapter of Ezekiel, but it struck me, particularly the part about facing east, as being reminiscent of Islam and its practices and attitudes, given Shoebat’s connection of Alla and Tammuz.
The Arabs, from whom we get Islam, consider themselves to be descended from Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar in the Bible. In Genesis 16:12, it says of Ishmael, “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility towardall his brothers.”
Another interesting point biblically speaking is that Ishmael’s mother was Egyptian, which would make him a Hamite, rather than a Shemite (Semite). Ham was a son of Noah but was cursed by his father to be a slave to the descendants of his brother Shem (the Jews).
Studying the past can give us insight into today’s violence in the Mideast.
By Tad Cronn/Godfather Politics/September 17, 2012
It's Time To Move Forward! Keeping Your Eyes On Faith's Path
One morning as I was walking, I closed my eyes and started praying. After a minute or two, I opened my eyes and looked back over my path. I was amazed to see how crooked my path had become. It looked like I had been water skiing through a slalom course! Just by closing my eyes for a moment, my path had begun to swerve off course. I suddenly realized the importance of vision!
As I looked over my path, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how often I have zigged-zagged my way through life, especially in recent years. I know I have the potential to be focused, I remained focused for 30 years while competing in the sport of water skiing. Focus which enabled me to rise to the top of the sport and hold the world record for 18 years. During those years, I knew in my heart what I wanted to do and I made sacrifices and choices in my life to achieve the goals that lied within.
Since my retirement from being a professional athlete, however, I have often struggled with having the discipline to achieve the passions that lie within my heart. I often lose my focus and allow distractions to steal my time, focus, and energy.
I have to laugh ... even as I sat here writing, I found myself distracted. Somehow in the midst of paragraph two I found my way to my emails. After answering a couple of emails, I realized I wasn’t writing anymore. Within seconds I was off doing something else!
In order to be productive in our lives, we have to guard against distractions as they prevent us from moving forward. Webster’s defines distractions as a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else.
Distractions can come in many forms. As in my example above, the opportunities of the world can often distract us ... things like emails, Facebook, television, internet, and cell phones. The offerings of the world can become a distraction as well. It’s often tempting to focus on material things, our careers, and social status and lose sight of what is truly important ... our relationship with God and the people He has put in our lives.
Speaking of people, we have to stay alert in our relationships and make sure we don’t allow people to distract us. We have to choose relationships carefully and surround ourselves with people who will encourage us to be who God designed us to be, not who they think we should be. We have to guard against “people pleasing” and allowing people’s comments to discourage us from moving forward.
Circumstances create another opportunity for distraction. When circumstances begin to change (either for good or bad), our emotions can sway within us and lead us astray. Perhaps we become afraid or discouraged, perhaps we become complacent and satisfied with our current state. Either way, we stop moving forward. We can even become distracted by good things. But doing good things, if it isn’t what God has purposed for our lives, is a distraction.
So often I hear people say they just don’t have enough time to do the will of God. I’ve even said the same thing. But if we examine how we spend our time, we may just find that it’s not that we don’t have enough time, rather we have allowed things to steal our time. We’ve lost focus and gotten sidetracked by what seems urgent but in reality isn’t truly important. We’ve allowed ourselves to fall into a cycle of busyness forgetting that busyness isn’t the same thing as productivity.
Here’s a simple truth that I hope will change the way you think about your life. When God created the world, He gave us 24 hours every day to do what He has called us to do. He has given us just the amount of time we need for our home life, businesses, relationships, and ministries. God even promises to give us the grace and resources to help us do what He has called us to do within that time frame.
The truth is, we don’t need more time, we just need to get God’s vision for our lives and start making daily decisions that line our lives up with His plan. It is there that we will find purpose, joy, peace and victory!
Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people perish...”
By Kristi Overton Johnson/Washington Times/January 11, 2012
As I looked over my path, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how often I have zigged-zagged my way through life, especially in recent years. I know I have the potential to be focused, I remained focused for 30 years while competing in the sport of water skiing. Focus which enabled me to rise to the top of the sport and hold the world record for 18 years. During those years, I knew in my heart what I wanted to do and I made sacrifices and choices in my life to achieve the goals that lied within.
Since my retirement from being a professional athlete, however, I have often struggled with having the discipline to achieve the passions that lie within my heart. I often lose my focus and allow distractions to steal my time, focus, and energy.
I have to laugh ... even as I sat here writing, I found myself distracted. Somehow in the midst of paragraph two I found my way to my emails. After answering a couple of emails, I realized I wasn’t writing anymore. Within seconds I was off doing something else!
In order to be productive in our lives, we have to guard against distractions as they prevent us from moving forward. Webster’s defines distractions as a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else.
Distractions can come in many forms. As in my example above, the opportunities of the world can often distract us ... things like emails, Facebook, television, internet, and cell phones. The offerings of the world can become a distraction as well. It’s often tempting to focus on material things, our careers, and social status and lose sight of what is truly important ... our relationship with God and the people He has put in our lives.
Speaking of people, we have to stay alert in our relationships and make sure we don’t allow people to distract us. We have to choose relationships carefully and surround ourselves with people who will encourage us to be who God designed us to be, not who they think we should be. We have to guard against “people pleasing” and allowing people’s comments to discourage us from moving forward.
Circumstances create another opportunity for distraction. When circumstances begin to change (either for good or bad), our emotions can sway within us and lead us astray. Perhaps we become afraid or discouraged, perhaps we become complacent and satisfied with our current state. Either way, we stop moving forward. We can even become distracted by good things. But doing good things, if it isn’t what God has purposed for our lives, is a distraction.
So often I hear people say they just don’t have enough time to do the will of God. I’ve even said the same thing. But if we examine how we spend our time, we may just find that it’s not that we don’t have enough time, rather we have allowed things to steal our time. We’ve lost focus and gotten sidetracked by what seems urgent but in reality isn’t truly important. We’ve allowed ourselves to fall into a cycle of busyness forgetting that busyness isn’t the same thing as productivity.
Here’s a simple truth that I hope will change the way you think about your life. When God created the world, He gave us 24 hours every day to do what He has called us to do. He has given us just the amount of time we need for our home life, businesses, relationships, and ministries. God even promises to give us the grace and resources to help us do what He has called us to do within that time frame.
The truth is, we don’t need more time, we just need to get God’s vision for our lives and start making daily decisions that line our lives up with His plan. It is there that we will find purpose, joy, peace and victory!
Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people perish...”
By Kristi Overton Johnson/Washington Times/January 11, 2012
Foot Note: Kristi Overton Johnson is a wife, mother, and the world record holder in water-skiing from 1992-2010. Having retired from professional sports, Kristi now helps others fulfill their God-given destiny.
She is the founder of Champion’s Heart and In His Wakes, divisions of KOJ Ministries. Kristi currently resides in the Lake Area Region with her husband, Tim, and their three children.
Gratitude
Everything starts from gratitude. Everything.
From there, all else lines up for you.
Gratitude is magic.
When I fill my heart with gratitude, anything is possible!
What's the greatest gift the world has given to you today? Look for it.
Be grateful and more will flow your way.
No matter how bad things may look, ask yourself, "What's great about this?"
and watch things shift because of gratitude. :)
Today, please send one peep a personal tweet of appreciation spread
the love and happiness and watch what happens.…
If what we focus on grows, why not make it gratitude?
~ Gail Lynne Goodwin ~
From there, all else lines up for you.
Gratitude is magic.
When I fill my heart with gratitude, anything is possible!
What's the greatest gift the world has given to you today? Look for it.
Be grateful and more will flow your way.
No matter how bad things may look, ask yourself, "What's great about this?"
and watch things shift because of gratitude. :)
Today, please send one peep a personal tweet of appreciation spread
the love and happiness and watch what happens.…
If what we focus on grows, why not make it gratitude?
~ Gail Lynne Goodwin ~
Salon: Muslims More Loyal Than Christians To The U.S.
The liberal progressive Salon.com weasels its readers with the headline “Are Evangelicals a national security threat?”—a question it had no intentions of really answering.
Instead, it’s a rhetorical jibe based on data from two recent polls:
Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated . . . that Muslim Americans are one of the most — if not the single most — loyal religious group to the United States. Now, comes the flip side from the Pew Research Center’s stunning findings about other religious groups in America (emphasis mine):
American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46 percent of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90 percent), Germany (70 percent), Britain (63 percent) and Spain (53 percent) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion. Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70 percent in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22 percent say they are primarily American.
First, note that these are polls. Conclusions are based on what these interested groups say they believe, especially in reference to Muslims. When asked by an official poll which they know will be published and reflect on Muslims in the U.S. in general, they say they put the U.S. first.
From what we know of Islam in general, and especially the reactions of human nature when under suspicion, we can hardly take an “Oh yes sir, I put America first, always, all the time, indeed, uh huh” at face value.
Secondly, the Salon author obliviously strains this brilliant data to find a “double standard”:
If, as Islamophobes argue, refusing to assimilate is defined as expressing loyalty to a religion before loyalty to country, then this data suggests it is evangelical Christians who are very resistant to assimilation. And yet, few would cite these findings to argue that Christians pose a serious threat to America’s national security. Why the double standard?
Yet he sees the obvious reason why:
Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter.
Exactly: the predominant culture of this nation has been, historically, Christian. To “assimilate” at all means to assimilate to Christian values in general.
But, in true leftist style, he builds this into a straw man: “In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state.”
But in reality, it is the leftists above all who desire using state power to enforce their values on an unwilling culture. While Christians expect cultural assimilation, people more loyal to the political state first—Muslims and liberals—are more interested in power first. They want to impose their values on culture by force rather than build up a culture from the family, values, and grass roots.
This is why leftists like Salon.com don’t really mind Muslims right now, but see Evangelical Christians as a threat to national security—their version of national security. –By Joel McDurmon/American Vision Now/December 2, 2011
Instead, it’s a rhetorical jibe based on data from two recent polls:
Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated . . . that Muslim Americans are one of the most — if not the single most — loyal religious group to the United States. Now, comes the flip side from the Pew Research Center’s stunning findings about other religious groups in America (emphasis mine):
American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46 percent of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90 percent), Germany (70 percent), Britain (63 percent) and Spain (53 percent) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion. Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70 percent in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22 percent say they are primarily American.
First, note that these are polls. Conclusions are based on what these interested groups say they believe, especially in reference to Muslims. When asked by an official poll which they know will be published and reflect on Muslims in the U.S. in general, they say they put the U.S. first.
From what we know of Islam in general, and especially the reactions of human nature when under suspicion, we can hardly take an “Oh yes sir, I put America first, always, all the time, indeed, uh huh” at face value.
Secondly, the Salon author obliviously strains this brilliant data to find a “double standard”:
If, as Islamophobes argue, refusing to assimilate is defined as expressing loyalty to a religion before loyalty to country, then this data suggests it is evangelical Christians who are very resistant to assimilation. And yet, few would cite these findings to argue that Christians pose a serious threat to America’s national security. Why the double standard?
Yet he sees the obvious reason why:
Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter.
Exactly: the predominant culture of this nation has been, historically, Christian. To “assimilate” at all means to assimilate to Christian values in general.
But, in true leftist style, he builds this into a straw man: “In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state.”
But in reality, it is the leftists above all who desire using state power to enforce their values on an unwilling culture. While Christians expect cultural assimilation, people more loyal to the political state first—Muslims and liberals—are more interested in power first. They want to impose their values on culture by force rather than build up a culture from the family, values, and grass roots.
This is why leftists like Salon.com don’t really mind Muslims right now, but see Evangelical Christians as a threat to national security—their version of national security. –By Joel McDurmon/American Vision Now/December 2, 2011
Big Question for 2012: Will We Find Earth 2.0?
Astronomers using NASA's Kepler space telescope announced the discovery of two Earth-size worlds orbiting a star 1,000 light-years away.
Kepler has detected many more candidate worlds of this size, but this was the first time confirmation of small rocky worlds with terrestrial dimensions had been announced.
Does this mean Kepler's mission has been accomplished? Is this proof that Earth 2.0 exists? It is after all Kepler's prime objective to seek out Earth-like worlds -- or "Earth analogs." Isn't this exoplanetary duo "Earth-like"?
Right Size, Wrong Place
Though both Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f will go down in the history books as the first confirmed Earth-sized exoplanets, that is where the similarity ends.
Both worlds orbit very closely to Kepler-20 (their parent star), so they have very short orbital periods. In fact, the entire star system of five exoplanets orbit within the distance Mercury orbits the sun!
Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f orbit their star every 6.1 and 19.5 days respectively. Compared with our planet's 365 days to complete an orbit around the sun, there is nothing familiar about a 6.1- or 19.5-day "year."
As a consequence, both worlds are extremely hot as they are much closer to their star than the innermost limit of their habitable zone -- the zone at which water can exist in a liquid state on the planet's surface.
In the quest for Earth 2.0, the potential to support liquid water on a planetary surface is of paramount importance. Liquid water, after all, is crucial for terrestrial biology.*
Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f may be the right size, but both are in the wrong place to be called "Earth analogs."
Now, turn the clock back to Dec. 5, when another Kepler announcement confirmed the discovery of a world orbiting its star within the habitable zone.
Naturally, the mere fact that Kepler-22b orbits smack bang in the middle of the habitable zone surrounding a sun-like star was enough to get the world excited about the potential for life. Kepler-22b also has an orbital period approaching the length of one Earth year -- 290 days.
It's sounding pretty Earth-like, right? Sadly, there's a catch.
Wrong Size, Right Place
Astronomers consider Kepler-22b to be a "super-Earth," as it's 2.4 times wider than our planet, but they're not sure whether it's a small gas giant (like a dinky Neptune) or a large rocky world ... or something in between. It may be the smallest world discovered orbiting within a star's habitable zone, but physically it's not very Earth-like.
Kepler-22b is in the right place ... but it's the wrong size.
Kepler's mission is to find a world (or worlds) of Earth-like dimensions orbiting in an Earth-like period around a sun-like star. Only then can we describe the discovery as being "Earth-like" (a term that is widely misused by the popular press).
But when will a bona fide Earth-like exoplanet be discovered? Well, such a world may be announced in 2012.
2012: An Earth 2.0 Discovery?
Kepler detects exoplanets by constantly staring at the same patch of sky, along the Cygnus arm of our galaxy. Approximately 100,000 stars are in its field of view.
Exoplanets can only be detected if they orbit in front of their parent stars from Kepler's perspective -- an event known as a "transit." Therefore, star systems with their ecliptic planes tilted in any other direction cannot be spotted by Kepler. Of the many stars Kepler is monitoring, a few are tilted just right to allow their worlds to be spotted.
As an exoplanet passes in front of its star, Kepler will see a slight dimming of starlight. But the detection of just one transit (one dimming event) reveals very little about the nature of the exoplanet's orbit. A single dimming event may also be an error or some random event on the surface of the distant star.
These transits are known as "candidates," and follow-up transit detections are needed. Only when multiple (periodic) transits are recorded can a "candidate" exoplanet be confirmed as a discovery.
Now, for the confirmed discovery of a bona fide Earth-sized world, with an Earth-like orbit, around a sun-like star, Kepler requires the detection of four transits. This can only happen after 3.5 years of continuous observations of the same patch of sky.
Kepler was launched in March 2009 and began taking observations the following month. Assuming April 2009 was the earliest possible time for scientific observations, 3.5 years from that date is October 2012. (The primary mission duration for Kepler is 3.5 years -- the minimum possible time for the confirmed detection of a real Earth analog.)
So by the end of 2012, we could see the first hints of a confirmed world orbiting a sun-like star, with Earth-like dimensions, inside the habitable zone. Only then can we start celebrating the profound discovery of an Earth-like world orbiting another star: a real Earth 2.0.** -Analysis by Ian O'Neill/Discovery News/December 21, 2011
Kepler has detected many more candidate worlds of this size, but this was the first time confirmation of small rocky worlds with terrestrial dimensions had been announced.
Does this mean Kepler's mission has been accomplished? Is this proof that Earth 2.0 exists? It is after all Kepler's prime objective to seek out Earth-like worlds -- or "Earth analogs." Isn't this exoplanetary duo "Earth-like"?
Right Size, Wrong Place
Though both Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f will go down in the history books as the first confirmed Earth-sized exoplanets, that is where the similarity ends.
Both worlds orbit very closely to Kepler-20 (their parent star), so they have very short orbital periods. In fact, the entire star system of five exoplanets orbit within the distance Mercury orbits the sun!
Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f orbit their star every 6.1 and 19.5 days respectively. Compared with our planet's 365 days to complete an orbit around the sun, there is nothing familiar about a 6.1- or 19.5-day "year."
As a consequence, both worlds are extremely hot as they are much closer to their star than the innermost limit of their habitable zone -- the zone at which water can exist in a liquid state on the planet's surface.
In the quest for Earth 2.0, the potential to support liquid water on a planetary surface is of paramount importance. Liquid water, after all, is crucial for terrestrial biology.*
Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f may be the right size, but both are in the wrong place to be called "Earth analogs."
Now, turn the clock back to Dec. 5, when another Kepler announcement confirmed the discovery of a world orbiting its star within the habitable zone.
Naturally, the mere fact that Kepler-22b orbits smack bang in the middle of the habitable zone surrounding a sun-like star was enough to get the world excited about the potential for life. Kepler-22b also has an orbital period approaching the length of one Earth year -- 290 days.
It's sounding pretty Earth-like, right? Sadly, there's a catch.
Wrong Size, Right Place
Astronomers consider Kepler-22b to be a "super-Earth," as it's 2.4 times wider than our planet, but they're not sure whether it's a small gas giant (like a dinky Neptune) or a large rocky world ... or something in between. It may be the smallest world discovered orbiting within a star's habitable zone, but physically it's not very Earth-like.
Kepler-22b is in the right place ... but it's the wrong size.
Kepler's mission is to find a world (or worlds) of Earth-like dimensions orbiting in an Earth-like period around a sun-like star. Only then can we describe the discovery as being "Earth-like" (a term that is widely misused by the popular press).
But when will a bona fide Earth-like exoplanet be discovered? Well, such a world may be announced in 2012.
2012: An Earth 2.0 Discovery?
Kepler detects exoplanets by constantly staring at the same patch of sky, along the Cygnus arm of our galaxy. Approximately 100,000 stars are in its field of view.
Exoplanets can only be detected if they orbit in front of their parent stars from Kepler's perspective -- an event known as a "transit." Therefore, star systems with their ecliptic planes tilted in any other direction cannot be spotted by Kepler. Of the many stars Kepler is monitoring, a few are tilted just right to allow their worlds to be spotted.
As an exoplanet passes in front of its star, Kepler will see a slight dimming of starlight. But the detection of just one transit (one dimming event) reveals very little about the nature of the exoplanet's orbit. A single dimming event may also be an error or some random event on the surface of the distant star.
These transits are known as "candidates," and follow-up transit detections are needed. Only when multiple (periodic) transits are recorded can a "candidate" exoplanet be confirmed as a discovery.
Now, for the confirmed discovery of a bona fide Earth-sized world, with an Earth-like orbit, around a sun-like star, Kepler requires the detection of four transits. This can only happen after 3.5 years of continuous observations of the same patch of sky.
Kepler was launched in March 2009 and began taking observations the following month. Assuming April 2009 was the earliest possible time for scientific observations, 3.5 years from that date is October 2012. (The primary mission duration for Kepler is 3.5 years -- the minimum possible time for the confirmed detection of a real Earth analog.)
So by the end of 2012, we could see the first hints of a confirmed world orbiting a sun-like star, with Earth-like dimensions, inside the habitable zone. Only then can we start celebrating the profound discovery of an Earth-like world orbiting another star: a real Earth 2.0.** -Analysis by Ian O'Neill/Discovery News/December 21, 2011
_______________
*Just because the search for extraterrestrial life (or potential habitats for extraterrestrial life) focuses on the hunt for liquid water, it doesn't mean scientists are ignoring the possibility that other forms of life wildly different from Earth Brand™ Life may exist. It's just that searching for "life as we know it" happens to be the best place to start.
**However, the discovery will not be definitive. Follow-up observations by other instruments will be required to see if the Earth analog even has an atmosphere. As for the potential for alien life, well, we'll probably have to travel there to find out.
**However, the discovery will not be definitive. Follow-up observations by other instruments will be required to see if the Earth analog even has an atmosphere. As for the potential for alien life, well, we'll probably have to travel there to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)