A Little Too Dangerous

So apparently the U.S. Military has destroyed many Bibles that an American soldier was desiring to distribute to the Afghani people.

The government does not want to be tied to the promotion of any particular religion, which I can understand. It's not their place. And the Bible is probably more dangerous than the U.S. Military is prepared for, so their fear is appropriate.

On the other hand, I guess those who are truly brave should reconsider joining the military, and instead go to Afghanistan without guns, to hand out Bibles. If people actually start doing this, you can expect certain death, but also, certain life.

Just imagine.

This Is How We Vote

Every election year politics capture the attention of the American people, mesmerizing us with its hypnotic chants of civic duty, and instilling the fear of "the other guy" deep within us.  Everyone is affected by this quadrennial holiday of sorts; whether they react with gusto toward their man, concern of who to vote for, or apathy due to the overwhelming information or a disheartened state from deceptive promises and corruption in our political parties.  However we act in response to this time of year, we all are all made aware of what is happening, and thus we make our choices of how to react in accordance with our stance; whether it appears as action or inaction, we are in fact making a decision that involves us in the process.

So,   how  will  you   react?

Does your vote make a difference?  Will either candidate fulfill all your hopes and dreams for this country?  Is Democracy no longer effective, rendered paralyzed in its ideality by a straying from Constitutionality and a bureaucratic roadblock in the way of true choice?  When only the Republican or Democratic picks ever have a chance of becoming President, do we really have the choice we should as Americans?

Does any candidate fully represent you?  Are you voting for a lesser of two evils?  Are you compromising some of what you hold as truth, voting for him that comes closest in the areas that you deem as most important.  Wouldn't it be great if there was a candidate that held all of the right perspectives on what really matters?

Good news!  You can be the President.  Perhaps not of the United States; we'd have to be pretty crazy to elect you, but you can be President of your own life.  After all, isn't the President the one chosen to act out the Constitutional truths of this land, upholding justice through knowledge, wisdom, and perhaps God.

No matter who you are, you can make your vote known everyday.  Not for a politician or other elected official, but for truth.  Make an informed decision on what merits your vote in your heart and in this world.  Every word we speak and action we present casts a ballot.  When the chads of our life are counted, do our votes match our "politics?"

If you are a Christian, this remains true, but takes an entirely new perspective and depth.

9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. 

11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 
- 2 Corinthians 5:9-21

If we really know the Lord, we fear Him, in understanding that he holds us accountable to these votes (actions) we take in our lives daily.  And thus we persuade others, for we have been given the truth, and along with that truth the duty of being ambassadors to the Truth.  We testify to the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God for those who believe.  We do this to be Christ's righteousness to the world, and in doing so you would know who we our, in our intentions for truth and love of others, within your conscience

No candidate can take your duty for you.  No man on Earth can act in your stead and alter the judgment set forth for you.  Obama or McCain, if elected, will have a new set of responsibilities pinned to his chest, but none of them will be your responsibilities.

Let's stop pointing fingers.  If America is in moral decay, and if our leaders are corrupt or unwise, let us assess what part we have played in the state of our country, rather than pretending the problem originates in politics.  The problem originates in our individuals and our families forsaking the truth by not living it and not sharing it as they should.  Politicians are puppets that find their power in appealing to the populus.  Any corruption or ill-decisions is a direct result of the heart of the people.  Christ is in the business of changing hearts, and we are called to the business of making Christ known.

Let's purify ourselves.  Let us vote for our officials to the best of our ability, but let us not find our hope in politicians or politics.  Let us find our hope in moral virtues, righteousness, forgiveness, and a God who holds a truth stronger than any man's convictions and any legal document ever penned.  Vote everyday, in everything you do.

Ex-Nun Left Convent For Compassion

I've been really wanting to read some books by Karen Armstrong. Some of her book summaries seemed to address some important ideas about religion that others ignore.

I found a posted video of her speaking at TED.

This talk is very neat and incredibly hard to disagree with. Perhaps the sheep will finally be united into one flock.


Watch this video and leave some comments. Controversial stuff... probably.

Time For Christians To Wake Up And Think

Sometime in the 1980s, Christians in the West began to label evangelistic techniques and reconfigure church services to reduce the message to the lowest level of cognition in the audience. As nobly intentioned as that was, the end result was the lowest level of writing and gospel preaching one could imagine. Mass media was brought to aid this purpose, and before long evangelicals were seen to be masters in entertainment and minimalists in thought. As this was happening, the intellectual arenas were being plundered and young minds gradually driven away from their “faith” in the gospel message. Christians are paying our dues today and likely will pay for an entire generation.
- Ravi Zacharias - An Apologetic for Apologetics

My friend Jamie sent me a link to a debate of atheist Richard Dawkins against Christian theologist Alister McGrath. I've seen and heard some stuff from Dawkins in the past. He certainly has become seen as a threat by orthodox Christians, but in some ways I think it's a good thing he's here to shake things up. The quote above is all to true, and maybe Dawkins will help to reignite Christian thought from its slumber. The debate is below in two parts. I think it's about an hour total.

Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 1
Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 2

A decent bit of this talk, on both sides, doesn't do much. They find themselves at a sort of standstill as far as the debate goes. I think it is largely due to the fact that they are coming from completely different frames of reference. McGrath draws attention to this in slightly different, but similar words. It's not so much that religion proves God, but religion gives a frame of reference in which to test everything you see. He illustrates this with a quote from C.S. Lewis...

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

The real criticism that I see against Dawkins, at which point his side is not proven wrong, but begins to loosen is this: at any point I can accept and understand his facts and evidences as a human being of reason, but he cannot do the same towards my faith because he is not a believer.

Dawkins assumes that he can test Christianity or even faith in God by knowing their doctrine, their beliefs, and their history. I don't believe this is true. You can test physical things without being a part of them, but you can't test things of the mind or things of the soul (if you even believe you have a soul) without being actively involved on the inside. I cannot know exactly what an aardvark is able to think or deduct or what the exact level of their awareness is since I am not one of them. In the same way, and C.S. Lewis speaks on this in Mere Christianity, I can understand human awareness or what our comprehension and thought processes look like because I am human. Now reason is something all men are capable of, and I would say a spiritual connection with God is also. I cannot relate to someone of reason if I have no experience with it. Fortunately, our whole social structure is largely, even fundamentally, formed on reason, thus I am well acquainted with it and can relate to others who reason. But if Dawkins denies a God and is unacquainted with the practice of spirituality, especially that of Christianity for this instance, how can he assume to question a Christian?

In truth he may have more knowledge, but we Christians have an entirely different dimension or vantage point to look at the situation by (according to us at least). Sure he has every right to be skeptical of our "spirituality." I am living a life of reason. Dawkins is not living a life of Christianity. If he were really desiring to scientifically test Christianity, it would require for him to partake of it to test it, not stand outside observing it without experiencing it. The truth is, Dawkins can take this in somewhat of a scientific sense if he desires, but the rules are slightly skewed from tradiational science, where he must now observe from the inside and not the outside. This becomes a bit of a mix, like psychology is, where we understand psychology from others and also incorporating that with the inside perspective of ourselves.

Once inside he would have the opportunity to give an unbiased look at what is happening, seeing as how he can look through both a frame of reason and a frame of Christian spirituality. Christians obviously don't nearly agree on what that framework shows, but it's somewhere between "spirituality is the more important and dominant frame of reference," and "Christian spirituality and reason are equal frames, but rely on each other for the most truth." I tend to side with the latter. I suppose there could be reason to suggest that there is a third option that reason is the dominant frame of reference, which would be supported by those who abandon their faith for science. Either way Dawkins has not done sufficient testing if he has not sunk himself into the Christian life to judge for himself. I'm not saying then that it will come out proving anything for sure, but I don't think it could bring means to deny the Christian points and could have unexpected results.


The other marvelous point made by a woman questioner, is that McGrath and Dawkins interchanged God and religion like it was nothing. I noticed this from the beginning and was bothered by it. As McGrath agreed with after the question, these are very different things being said. One assumes a particular doctrine or sect of people, and the other assumes any who claim God. It's important to realize the difference, that God is not religion and religion is not God! I would certainly agree that religion makes people do bad things. Religion should be an expression of our search for knowing God if it is anything; however, God does not make is do wrong, rather it is our misconception of Him within religion that makes us do wrong. At least that's my take... but I think it looks pretty good personally (pride flaring).


Hopefully this will raise some discussion. Although I won't get so hopeful as to think anyone will post comments. I know my readers don't do that!

Holy Hillary!

My gosh do I love Photoshop!

I'm learning something about politicians. When all is said and done, they are people.

When someone is running for office, it is so natural to assume they are lying. How can you gauge their sincerity? What about that gut reaction you get every time you see them on TV, whether positive, negative, or hungry.

Thanks to another one of my better-liked bloggers/authors Matthew, I am gaining more perspective on other candidates.

As much as I would love to deny it, I'm biased to a sinful extent. I am denying candidates their humanity, and stamping them with their policies, their pasts, and even their political parties.

Every time I see or hear Hillary Clinton, my grandfather's voice creeps into my head saying "What a sad sack of sh*t she is!" "She's just a socialistic baby-killer." It's like I have to cringe when she appears because, much like Pavlov's dogs, I have been conditioned my whole life for this reaction. But I must come to the place where I realize Hillary Clinton isn't evil... well no more than you or I at least. She is a person with feelings, dynamics, beliefs, convictions, and humanity.

Hillary does not hope for the downfall of America or morality, as some might think.


And, despite her husband's fall into a sin made public, that was not Hillary's sin. It is unfair to label her immoral because of an action her husband did, and did against his wife as well as himself.

In an interview Hillary talks about her faith, which seems genuine, and whether or not it truly is genuine, I want to believe her. She talks about the role of her faith in shaping her life. She answers questions very clearly, without stumble, about her beliefs in scripture, God, and other faith-based topics.

"I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship. But we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. So I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understanding of the time in the Bible might actually be missing the larger point that we are actually supposed to take from the Bible."

- Hillary Clinton

I spoke of the religious right losing it's solid hold on the republican party, and instead having something that is a combining of the right and left into what Jesus really addresses. Where we often associate Republicans with being strong Christians, and Democrats with being without any substantial faith, this really takes away a persons name. This takes away who they are, their nature, their individuality, and it labels them.

"Well I was bewildered by it, that it was somehow illegitimate to talk about faith as a democrat. I just found that so bizarre, that we were being written out of the whole faith experience. So much of the faith journey in this country are people who put their faith into action on behalf of others; people who fought for abolition, people who fought for women’s suffrage, people who stood up on behalf of the concepts of justice and so much more."

- Hillary Clinton

Perhaps in some ways the Republicans have been the faith and the Democrats have been the works. I believe James makes specific mention of how necessary and interconnected the two must be.

In some ways I think adding the Democratic sympathy of the weak to the Republican notion of God's goal of justice can create a satisfying stew. It will allow the two to check each other, not too unlike how I mentioned in this post. It would appear Hillary is at least somewhat in line and prepared for this bonding together. Once again realizing that Christ is available to all... neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, neither Republican nor Democrat...

"I’ve always been skeptical of people who wear their faith on their sleeves. I think it’s a good skepticism to have. But we’ve gone too far the other way where it was somehow illegitimate to express your faith in the public square. So many of us… we’ve been trying to search for the common ground where we can have these discussions without falling into the trap that is too easily tempting; that we are somehow judging based on our personal experience instead of trying to offer a perspective to kind of move forward together on."

- Hillary Clinton

I don't care who you vote for, and I probably won't vote for Hillary... but let's get to the point where we can appreciate everyone; where we can appreciate differences; where we can recognize that we are all unique, but equal, humans made in God's image.

It Borders Something Naughty, But I Might Like It

Jim Wallis is a man that is in close contact to a lot of books I read. It seems he's usually writing the forward or mentioned in many books, mainly because of his political and social action involvement.

I have never read one of his books yet, although I recently bought God's Politics.

This interview sounds like it should be wrong. "Religion has no monopoly on morality." I guess this goes to suggest that those who are not religious can be more moral than those who are. I do believe this to be true. Certainly some very immoral things were done in the name or religion, but also some great things and even healing things were done in the name of a same or different religion or no religion.

I think Jim is on to something straight from the Bible. Maybe you can see it in Jesus a bit, like when he talks to the Samaritan woman, using the whole "living water" analogy, rather than insisting on religious doctrine (even though some is present); also appealing to her morality by mentioning the man she lives with whom she isn't married to.

You see it eve more with Paul, who travels all over the place and meets all kinds of peoples who have varying beliefs and histories. He speaks of morality rather than religion when he warns not to do anything that will cause someone else to stumble. Everyone has their own practices that help them live right, don't mess with that, but join them. He also welds together religious outlooks by finding commonalities. You might say he makes his faith flexible to incorporate others rather than mandating a need for religious conversion in order to participate.

Wallis is very correct that you will exclude and divide people if you make this primarily about a religion (religious right vs. left). If this is people of faith who are foremost about restoring righteousness and beauty to the world, and they are opening to everyone who can comprehend the moral truths of life, then no one is left out. We all will have en equal opportunity to venture into something very spiritual, but not so religiously exclusive.

I'm sure this will spark some major thoughts, but mostly disagreements. Please share with some comments!

The Good Life?

I constantly have this war inside of me anymore. Am I doing well, am I doing right, or am I doing wrong?

When I see good things come from my life or I hear a motivating message or ideas that lines up with goals and beliefs I have, I feel confident. I feel like this must be right because it's exciting and I'm not the only one supporting these ideals, lifestyles, and beliefs.

On the other side of the coin I often feel like I'm a complete loser at life. I don't have the things people want me to have. I don't look how culture wants me to look, so I am jabbed with criticisms for it. I don't think like most people think. I don't live how people think I should live, so I feel like an outcast. Sometimes I wonder if I'm even a nice person to be around, because there are some who don't seem to appreciate my company or get annoyed with me far more often than I'd like.

I know everyone thinks this is my identity "being different and radical." And sometimes it is that, but not usually. Am I radical and different? Yes, but not as much as I aspire to be. The thing about that last few statements is that this isn't a relative thing for me. This isn't something where I always want to be the same distance from society in my non-conformist attitude. I'm mostly static, but not completely.

I see an overall idea of how the world should be and I'm working toward it. I look radical right now for two reasons.

#1. The world is much different than I believe God desires it to be

#2. I emphasize what I believe to be the wrong more often than applauding what is good in our culture.


The thing I really don't understand is why I am so offensive to people. I don't rub how I live in their face; at least I try not to do so knowingly. I share my thoughts on life as much as possible, but I don't think I condemn people for how we differ.

My goal is to help and care. I want to find good things in life that we have forgotten about or journeyed away from in our country's or our humanity's history... maybe even some things we had never found before, and I want to offer them to people. Not force, but offer. I would love nothing more than for us to celebrate in truth at the glory of the unveiling of God's desire for humanity.

But maybe it's arrogance to think that I have found anything good or true in my short number of years. Maybe it's my own conceit that makes me think that I have found anything better than the next guy (or girl).

One can rationalize their own way that isn't appreciated by quoting scripture saying "the way of God is foolishness to those who don't believe," or that we are to be a "peculiar people." But does what you're doing accomplish anything? Maybe the proof is in the pudding.

I have a few people who take note of what I'm exploring and have started journeying with me in their own way, but the overwhelming majority resents me for it. I feel largely alone and unable to express what is deepest in me, and scared even to share joy I have found in partaking of a new discovery. Instead of unifying I feel as though I've become a dividing force. Perhaps most of all my life is dividing me from everyone else.

God forgive me if my next action is apart from you, be it staying true to the path I'm on or diverging to the road more traveled.