Just a Thought

Hannah and Daniel entered a poetry contest at school. Daniel won for his grade, but Hannah’s is no less wonderful. Neither had prompting for their poem, they simply composed the following on their own:

Jesus’s Birth and When He Died
By Daniel Nandor- Rm. 21 Mrs. Bruns

Jesus was small
As small as can be
He was small,
Very small, Like you and me.

When He was a child,
He saw lots more
Like you and me did before.

And Judas Iscariot
Betrayed Jesus
And Got 30 pieces of silver
To make them crucify Jesus.

Jesus was on the cross
With two other robbers
One did not believe
And the other did.

And Joseph from Arimethea
Got him down from that cross,
And put him in a tomb.

Three days later
He rose from the dead.
An angel rolled the stone and said,
“He is risen,” To two women.
And they ran back and told the disciples.

They didn’t believe He was risen
And Jesus came to where they were .
And they all believed in Him.

My ruler is peculiar
In many many ways
He is the Holy Ruler
He is the one who paid
I love my peculiar Ruler
He paid for all my bad ways
He is stronger than the fooler
My sins are something that cannot be weighed
My one and only Ruler is Christ

Tags: Family // Add Comment »

In the Ventura County Star, an article appears today reporting on the California Lutheran University Gay-Straight Alliance. The reasons given by some of the students at Cal Lutheran include, “To me, this is about civil rights, and it’s about acceptance and it’s about human beings being able to connect however it works for them.” But what if having four wives “works best for them?” Should we as a society say this is wrong? There has been a fairly large uproar over a sect of Mormons who believe in polygamy and in marrying off girls under the age of 18. What if that “works for them?” A number of female teachers have been in the news because they were impregnated via a relationship with a male student. If this is about connection and working for individuals, then why are these relationships criticized?

Another student claims, “I’m just really supporting people’s choices on being able to marry whoever they want.” However, in most states you may not marry your first cousin. Is that fair? What about a brother or a sister? What about your parents? If the goal is to marry whomever you want, then should they not also support these marriages as well? To push the point further, what if I would like to marry a dog? If this is how I best connect and I want to marry a dog, why should society stand in the way?

A third student claims, “If you want to call it a domestic partnership, then call it a domestic partnership for everyone, but if you want to call it marriage, then it has to be marriage for everyone.” This statement makes an equivocation error. The student believes marrying someone of the same gender is the same as marrying someone of the opposite gender. Clearly they are different activities since the genders are different. Is marrying a human the same as marrying a dog? If one holds they are not the same, then marrying someone of a different gender is not the same as well (unless discrimination based on species is justified). It is the law of non-contradiction. Marriage to someone of the opposite gender cannot be the same as marriage to someone of the same gender.

There are a number of philosophical reasons (not given here) why marriage between humans of the same gender should not be allowed, however, in this article, no good reasons are given to allow homosexual marriages.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts // 1 Comment »

In her recent letter, Cheryl Rollings makes numerous claims that abortion should be kept legal. She primarily makes the claim based on the safety of women who are seeking abortions. Ms. Rollings states, “it’s difficult to imagine that abortion in the U.S. could actually be criminalized once again.”
Although I am sure her claims are heart felt, nowhere in her article does she explain what abortion is. It seems that once a definition for abortion is given, her quote would be ridiculous. Abortion is: intentionally killing an innocent human being prior to biological separation from her mother.
I understand some readers may disagree with this definition, so allow me to break it down. “Abortion is intentionally killing,” simply denotes the purpose of an abortion is to intentionally and permanently stop the growth of a human being. If we cut down a tree, we permanently stop it from growing and we kill it.
“An innocent human being,” carries with it the meaning of that the unborn growing being has human parents, human DNA, and if nurtured grows into an adult human being. All of these demonstrate that the biologically growing entity inside of the mother is a human being. What else could it be? If one says, “it’s a blob of tissue,” they are missing two points. One is that we are all blobs of tissue, and the second is that this “blob of tissue” is nurtured becomes an adult. This definition also means the unborn child has not committed any crime other than being alive and in a location that is inconvenient to the mother.
“Prior to biological separation from the mother,” means that during an abortion, the unborn child is killed (stopped from living) while still inside of her mother. If this definition is spelled out, abortion becomes: intentionally and permanently stopping the growth of a human being, whose only crime is to be living and located where she is unwanted, before she leaves her mother.
In order to clarify Ms. Rolling’s comments: “it’s difficult to image that,” intentionally killing an innocent human being prior to biological separation from her mother, “in the U.S. could actually be criminalized once again.” Once we know what the terms mean, it seems there is something wrong with her defending the lives of women, the overwhelming majority of whom have made the choice to participate in activities leading to pregnancy, at the expense of killing children who do not have a choice.
Near the conclusion of the article, Rollings writes, “the lives of our mothers, daughters, and granddaughters are at stake.” How true she is. For if abortion took the lives of our mothers, we would not be here; and if abortion claims the lives of our daughters and granddaughters, we will destroy the lives of young ladies yet to be born. The real misery is not for the women who have to take responsibility of their actions, but for the unborn children who never receive the opportunity to do so.

This post was sent as a letter to the Ventura County Star.  It’s posting and the discussion on this article and others can be found here.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word // Add Comment »

In an interview today, Barak Obama said, “I have to say just broadly, you know, the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling.  If you have something that just directly contradicts the facts and it’s coming from a former president, I think that’s a problem, because people presume that a former president is going to have more credibility. And I think there are certain responsibilities that are carried with that.”

It sounds as though Obama is surprised at this.  If the former President is willing to lie during a deposition (which led to him losing his being disbarred in Arkansas), why should anyone think he should be held to a higher standard as a campaigner?  Especially since campaigns are known more for their vibrancy than for their veracity. I understand Obama has to call President Clinton out for his lack of truthfulness, but by sounding surprised and giving so many qualifiers while doing so makes him sound unintelligent.  He politically cannot say, “we all know former President Clinton has a problem telling the truth,” but sounding and acting surprised makes him look foolish.

Tags: Politics // Add Comment »

The discussion of whether or not the 2007-8 Patriots are the greatest team in history, or if Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback in history is actually tiresome to me at this point. It stems partly from the amount of attention and discussion from the media, and partly because the scoreboard tells the story. If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, they will have played a season which betters the 1972 Dolphins by two games. But the real story, I think, is that the team is exemplary in very few ways. The players excel in their positions and different players make significant contributions each week. But there is one way in which the team may be better than any other team over a seven year period. They just win.

Terry Bradshaw, and the Steelers of the 70’s, won 4 Super Bowls in six years, a mark still unmatched by these Patriots. However, Tom has done something that Bradshaw has not matched. As a starter, Tom Brady has started 126 games and won 100 of them. This is a 79.4% winning percentage. For their careers, Roger Staubach won 74.6% and Joe Montana won 71.3%. These two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks are second and third on the career winning percentage list behind Brady. Tom may not look flashy, he may not excel in moving his feet, and he may not throw like Peyton Manning, but the quarterback just wins.

It seems as though the true test of greatness on the field is the scoreboard. So yes, Tom is terrific.

Tags: sports // Add Comment »

A recent Time Magazine article revisits James Cameron’s ‘discovery’ of what he believes could be the tomb of Jesus. Cameron’s made for TV search for the lost site of an ossuary bearing the inscription, “Jesus, son of Joseph” has many holes in it both historically, mathematically, and logically. In this article, Princeton Theological Seminary, Prof. James Charlesworth comments on whether or not finding the actual tomb or ossuary of Jesus would affect Christianity. In regards to finding the Jesus of the Bible’s full tomb he concludes, “I don’t think it will undermine belief in the resurrection, only that Jesus rose as a spiritual body, not in the flesh.” He also states, “Christianity is a strong religion, based on faith and experience, and I don’t think that any discovery by archeologists will change that.”

Unfortunately, reading the New Testament in the manner in which the author’s intended the readers to understand it is a lost art at Princeton. Although Charlesworth is not the first to propose this theory (Gnostic did as well two millenea ago), he is simply the latest to not understand Paul’s pronouncements in 1 Corinthians 15.

First, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul writes, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ” (NASB). Please notice that Paul associates the burial with both the death and the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, both in the NASB as well as in the Greek, the phrase “and that” is written to connect all of these events. It is one flowing testimony from death through Jesus’ appearance to Cephas (Aramaic name of Peter).

Second, Was Jesus killed spiritually? Was He buried spiritually? Paul clearly associates Jesus’ physical death with His physical burial, and His physical resurrection. To believe that Jesus only appeared to the disciples spiritually would not account for the manner in which they lived their lives from this point on nor for the rest of the passage. The disciples clearly believed they saw Jesus in bodily form. They committed themselves to this message and became bold proclaimers of this testimony within 2 months of the crucifixion and within two weeks of the ascension of Jesus. Verses 6-8 also demonstrate a bodily resurrection since Jesus appears to skeptics such as his brother James and Paul himself. He is also seen by 500 followers at one time. There is no evidence a group hallucination of this magnitude nor of this importance can occur.

Third, in verses 13-19 Paul relates this bodily resurrection of Jesus to tenable faith. If Jesus is not raised from the dead, faith in Him and in Christianity is not only useless, but pitiful. The premise for Paul’s assertion is that Jesus has physically risen from the dead (vv. 3-8). So for Charlesworth to claim it makes no difference to “a strong religion” like Christianity if Jesus is not raised from the dead, is simply dead wrong.

Most likely, Charlesworth would like to believe all religions are based on faith and experience. What you have experienced it true for you. However, the ‘experience test’ for the validity of a faith falls short since there must be at least some minimal truth in which to have faith. If it is my experience that President Ronald Reagan appeared to me, claimed to be God, and will save all of mankind who believe in him, is that just as valid as the claims of a faith and experience based Christianity? If not, why? I have faith in the hallucination of President Reagan and it is my experience so you cannot tell me it is wrong. This Reaganity religion would be just a ludicrous as Christianity without a physically risen Jesus.

Everything about Christianity hinges on the person of Jesus Christ. God in the flesh, who came to be a savior to sinners and a pattern for our current living. If He has not risen, and Cameron has indeed found the bones of Jesus, we are pitiful creatures if we continue in Christianity.

ONLY an empty tomb can produce a full faith.

Tags: Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word // Add Comment »

Today Clinton said, “I have so many opportunities and don’t want us to fall backward. I see what’s happening, people. … Some of us are ready some of us are not. When we look at the array of problems and potential for it to spin out of control, this is one of the most important elections.”

Clinton seems to think, along with Edwards for one, that she is the only one who can help. I understand campaigning, but I think she, at some level, genuinely believes she is the only one who can put this country back on the ‘right track.’ She is the only one who sees. She is the only one who feels. She is the only one with the answers. She is the only one who can save us. If this is the case, then God save us.

Tags: Politics // Add Comment »

Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama saying, “You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose.”

That is so good. It is so good, it’s poetry. Oh wait, she’s criticizing herself. By waxing poetically, she has herself become, in her own words, a campaigner and not a governor.

Is it too much to ask candidates to speak logically, and not be self-refuting? I guess when symbolizism is more important than substance, it is.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts // Add Comment »

The Orthodox branch of the Christian church observes Epiphany today. Epiphany is the celebration of Christ’s incarnation by remembering Christ’s baptizism or the visitation of the Magi.

Although Orthodox Christians believe the goal of salvation is to become like God (which confuses salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) with sanctification (Ephesians 2:10)), they church has something that most western Protestant churches do not have: the ability to evoke proper adoration of God.

Many western churches eschew emotion, and those that do allow it to detract from the worship of God rather than focus the worship on God (1 Corinthians 14:33). Just as the most emotional Protestants can leave behind proper theology, the Orthodox can as well. The veneration of saints is a typical problem here. However, the sense of awe and mystery that can be generated in an Orthodox service should not be thrown out by conservative Protestants.

Jesus taught we should worship with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Luke 10:27). Too often we only use our minds in the western church. This would be the equivalent to loving your spouse with just your intellect. True commitment, devotion, and love comes by utilizing out whole soul - which includes not only our mind, but our emotions, service, and desires.

What does this have to do with the Epiphany? If we truly have a passion for the Incarnate Savior, shouldn’t we live out that passion by celebrating His humility at the incarnation daily (Romans 12:1)? Shouldn’t we serve Him with exuberance and energy? Shouldn’t our lives be focused on God’s glory (Philippians 2:11 & 1 Corinthians 10:31)? What are we doing today to celebrate the Incarnation today?

Just a thought.

Tags: Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word // Add Comment »

John Owen said, “There is nothing more fully expressed in the Scripture than this sacred truth, that there is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which are divine, distinct, intelligent, voluntary, omnipotent principles of operation and working; which whosoever thinks himself obliged to believe the Scripture must believe.”

That being said, many still find it difficult to comprehend. These discussions prove the Trinity in such a way as to use the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation and logic. It is a theological tool, an apologetic tool, and an evangelistic tool.

Trinity Part 1

Trinity Part 2

Tags: Podcasts, Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word // Add Comment »