Logotherapy

I'm bored.

What a horrendous utterance! But it's true. I'm completely bored. I have lots I can and should be doing, yet I'm not. I have no will to meaning right now; well, I'm not realizing that meaning currently at least.

I read a book recently called Man's Search for Meaning. I highly recommend it!

Meaning should be the driving force in our lives. Without meaning, why do we continue to live? Why do we not take our own lives? Perhaps the apathy and lethargy that has seeped into our pores is often the very thing keeping us from suicide; our lack of decisiveness to even kill ourselves. Or perhaps it's the artificial, superficial highs of life that keep us distracted from the severe lows that unavoidably follow... at. least sometimes

By comparison, most would probably say that I live a life of meaning and purpose. And I often do. But it's hard to live in a blazing house without getting burned. Naturopaths say that the acidic nature of our bodies is the underlying cause of much of the disease we encounter. That if we would just eat to properly alkalize the pH of our body, many of the health issues that ale us, would disappear.

I run into many people who know their diet is awful. They are convicted to change it, but they don't. Knowledge is of no benefit to these people. I see the same thing in life issues. I have many friends who know the lifestyle they are living is killing them physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, or all of the above, yet they continue to live this way. And I'm not excluded.

My point is, understanding meaning does nothing if you are continually surrounded by lifestyle pollution. Excessive entertainment, lack of rewarding labor, rampant sexuality, a dearth of moral absolutes, disbelief in an ultimate being (God), disregard for our physical health, consumerism, superficiality, short attention spans, great faith in politics/government, idolatry of celebrities are all examples of pollutants that make it nearly impossible to have a truly worthwhile existence.

We accomplish very little, and the things we do accomplish are often lacking significance in the big scheme of things. We are left asking the question, "Why did I work so hard on that? Was it only for pride?" Or even asking if our accomplishments are helping the world or tearing it apart. Society encourages to not ask these questions, but rather buy into the idea of having fun today! Carpe Diem!!! We do this so much that our later years our destroyed by the effects of our "fun," thus we are ill-equipped to fulfill some basics of man's purpose by the time we're middle-aged. Then we are sorry and bored, rather than vital and progressive.

Living fully requires, I believe, a mixture of interaction and separation. A person must keep oneself free from the toxic effect of society. But man also desires to be courageous, which may require diving into the vat of suffering to save one being eaten alive by despair. Suffering is sometimes not avoidable, and can teach a lot; but suffering sacrificially solidifies a reason of being and inspires the world to find that same reason.

Why so bored? Because I'm closing my eyes. I'm being apathetic today. My work is not giving me meaning because it isn't always making the world better. Because I'm busy playing with expensive toys I've bought, rather than connecting with the least of these. The truth is, the least of these don't even exist when I'm the only one who matters in my world. Today the focus is on me, so unless I'm reason enough (in and by myself) to have meaning, it just will not exist. I need an outside source.

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.

The Bible In A Beaker

I attended a lecture at Pitt yesterday, where Bob Enick (who wrote the book Evolving in Eden) spoke about the compatibility of science's claim of The Theory of Evolution and a creationism viewpoint.

It's a claim I've thought about since my very intelligent friend Seth showed certainty of evolution (despite that he's a strong Christian) and said it could be the most beautiful means of creating. Ever since I have not had a strong foundation on whether I believe in both or with the more traditional creationist version.

It's largely a question of intention within the Bible; especially in the Genesis 1 accounts. Is the purpose to give a factual representation of the happenings and their order, or merely to show truths about how things are and that they ultimately were formed by God?

Enick explained how most evidence shows that the Earth is right around 4.5 million years old and there are signs the univers is somewhere around 16 billion years old. I have very little issue with this, believing the seven days to be most likely figuretive, rather than literal. However, when Enick began to talk about the evolution of man, I felt like something was wrong. His interpretation is that the creation of "Man in God's image" means the point of receiving a spiritual side. Before which humankind was merely another animal brought forth from evolution. I must confront myself in asking do I disagree with this just because I don't like it, or because it matters.

A few months ago I had a conversation with a parent of some of my campus life kids, who said he sees God's "breathing into the dust" as a very straightforward indication of evolution from primal elements. To believe in the evolution of man, and God graciously bestowing a spirit on him may not be too different, but at the same time I do feel like it reduces the specialness of man in relation to God's heart.

Overall it was a decent lecture. I learned a bit, but had heard a lot of the material before. I may skim through the free copy of Evolving in Eden that I received.

Then, this morning while browsing through Facebook, I saw a comment my buddy Jonathan had about a little kid with super-strength that was mentioned on the Early Show. It sounded interesting so I looked up some info on it.

Once I heard this story I immediately thought of Samson from the Bible. His agility and strength seem to resemble what could possibly come of this disorder. Was that the case? God placed a genetic disorder on Samson so he could be super-strong. It then raises the question of why would Samson's strength leave him when his hair is cut?

Interestingly enough, Samson seems a little slow, in the fact that he doesn't realize this chick, Delilah, has already tried to subdue him several times based on what he tells her his weakness is. Scientists have concerns about mental development in people with this disorder, due to the lack of fat from a high metabolism, which the brain needs for development. So maybe Samson wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed for that reason.

Even if Samson had this defect, would it give him the strength to collapse an entire temple with a push of his arms? Maybe, we don't know much aboutt his temple, but it must have been big. So is this a genetic thing or a supernatural thing? Is it a mix of both? My guess is a mix.

I have no problem with science, and I certainly have no problem with God using science. Heck, He created science. Why shouldn't he have created it to meet his purposes? There is no direct attack on the legitimacy of God in relation to science. The potential risk, is the trustworthiness of the Bible. It's a fact of Christianity to believe the Bible to be a spiritually inspired book. It's common for said Christians to believe it to be very or entirely historically accurate. There are some, but not as many who consider it to be a book of both faith and science.

I remember hearing about Newton's belief that God had written two great books, the Bible and science. He believed that the Bible wasn't a book of science (even if it contained some) and that science didn't, on its own, give a spiritual look at existence.

I'm not a scholar who has dedicated his life to deciphering between allegoric poetry and literal intent. In fact, I don't believe anyone has mastered this art/science. I think it's healthy for Christians to accept their way of reading the Bible may have been a little off, as knowledge increases, but at the same time we cannot explain away the validity of the Bible in containing Truth, especially in the areas of most important Truth.

I think with time the truth will become more evident in some ways, and completely lost in others. The bottom line is that we cannot fully know what happened before we have records for, we can merely look at evidence and come to conclusions or take by faith a book written by the Author of Life... or both.

We Are Still Called To Be Fruitful And Multiply

I can already tell you that this post probably isn't what you think. I'm not going to call birth control evil. I'm not going to tell you that your purpose as a man, or especially a woman, is primarily to continue the species. I'm joking ladies, and I do see an importance in continuing humankind. And believe it or not, this isn't going to be an analogy of how you should be multiplying your finances with the blessing of God. This is something much more Biblically inspired than that.

I was reading Luke. I have been going through the book of Luke with some of the high school kids in my Campus Life group. A few weeks ago we were at the end of chapter 9, and this week we started chapter 10. I was coming home from a trip to Atlanta today, and I figured it was as good a time as any to prepare for the Campus Life meeting this evening. I began to read, "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him two by two into every town..." I kind of stopped an pondered. I still had 23 1/2 verses to go, and I was already pondering after the first half of verse one.

I thought to a play that a woman who used to go to my church, Missy, wrote and directed for the children. The name of the play was "Two by Tow." I remember it well because I video taped it and made a DVD of it. The play was a story of Noah and the ark. Two by two. I know that Jesus is very aware of the Old Testament; in fact he probably has it memorized, if he's a good learned Rabbi. Throughout Jesus' teachings he constantly refers to OT scripture, whether directly or just by mimicking a thought or phrase to show connection. Maybe Jesus was connecting the sending of these 72 followers with Noah and the ark. I turned to Genesis 6 to refresh my mind on any nuances of the Noah story... maybe something I could pick out.

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

Genesis 7

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven ^[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

- Genesis 6:17- 7:3

I was honestly shocked to find something I didn't remember at all. God calls Noah to bring in seven of every kind of clean animal and two of ever kind of unclean animal. 7 clean, 2 unclean. 7 2. 72! Some may think this is just a weird fluke, but Jews love playing with numbers. I think this is a very justified thing here. Jesus is somehow trying to put what God did with the flood
together with what God is doing now through Jesus' message. What could this message be?

I'm not going to claim to have this in its entirety, since I have been slightly dwelling on it for only about 10 hours now. But here are my thoughts.

Why did God have at least two of a kind come on the ark of every species? In Genesis 6 and 7 you see that the reason for bringing the animals was to keep these animals alive. They are coming to Noah to be kept alive for the duration of the flood. Did these animals choose Noah? No, God chose these animals. Because God chose the animals they went to Noah and were saved with a purpose. The purpose of their salvation was to multiply and restore.

Jesus finds himself with a similar adequate lack, that Noah had. Noah did not have an excess of animals on the ark, but he had enough. In verse 2 of Luke 10, Jesus expresses this, reiterating an idea from the previous chapter. Here, there are many people who are "willing" to follow Jesus and live as he teaches. But throughout these six verses Jesus continually rebukes people who seem willing to follow him. It's because they're saying one thing with their mouth, yet believing something else in their heart. There is a hesitation and they are not fully committed. That is a problem to Jesus. So although it seems like many are called, few are chosen.

But this is ok, because as you can see we have enough rabbits in the world. Species survived. How did they survive? How did they more than survive, but prosper? They multiplied. Jesus is reinventing the flood. God vowed he would never destroy the Earth with a flood again, but what was the initial purpose? This was an "attempt" at renewal. God essentially restarted and gives the same command he gave in the beginning of creation "be fruitful and increase in number." This is God working to make things right again. Despite God eliminating the unrighteous, it did not eliminate unrighteousness. Very shortly after the flood we see Noah behaving badly... I feel like that should be a commercial you see on late night TV, "Noahs Behaving Badly! *Uncensored*" It's funny cause Noah does end up naked and his sons see him, so he really was uncensored.

Unrighteousness is still around, this whole flood thing appears to be a "failed" attempt, notice that's in quotes. God vows that he will never destroy the whole earth or curse the ground again because of man's wickedness. It's kind of like God does it to show that's now how to do it. Sounds barbaric at the cost of so many lives, but very likely necessary for the time.

God still desires for man to follow Him, but also decides that cursing "the ground" because of the evil of man is not the way to go. If God is not giving up on this rescue mission of man's heart, how will he accomplish it? This is where we fast forward 4,000 years or so. Jesus has his 72. Jesus has his pairs, set with the duty to be fruitful and increase. This is a restoring of the Earth, just like God was working toward with Noah and his family. They failed, and in doing so, established something very important. It takes more than killing wicked people to bring about righteousness.

The new Way will not be that of purging people from the planet and physically rebirthing the population in hopes of better success; rather it is a movement to purge the evil out of them and restore humankind through a spiritual awakening (rebirth) one by one. These 72 sent out aren't "makin' babies," they're bringing about spiritual renewal and thus restoration. Man and the world were created good, the restoration is the process of bringing everything back to that good.

Jesus was the good restoration, so we could know what it looked like. Jesus is the white. When white balancing a camera, you need absolute white. The camera looks at the absolute white, and decides it is white. By knowing that white is really white, all colors come out truly represented. If you place the camera in front of a light blue, the camera can decide that is white. When that happens, all the other colors will be seriously flawed. Man has a tendency to white balance to an odd color, believing it is white. It screws up his whole perspective of everything, where the world doesn't make sense; when grass isn't green and the sky isn't blue. Jesus is that white that sets us straight. Through him we can see the world in it's truth and color.

By knowing that truth, we can then go out and make that truth known. We can act according to life in the truth, where actions fit nicely with faith in the Kingdom of God. By living this correct life we inspire truth among others. We preach it whether we're speaking or not. As the truth is lived out, people acknowledge it. We are chosen by God, just as the animals and humans were for Noah. We are chosen in Christ to be saved and then bring salvation through increase in those experiencing this Life.

At times this may seem like a simple truth. Many may take it more as a naive idea. But I would say it's a powerful truth that is simple once your white balance is set. Once you know how God's kingdom functions, you can forget how the world's kingdom functions and stop relying on it. The Truth is finally here, so many wanted it, how can we not take advantage of it. Become like a child and forget what you knew, forget what is "realistic" in the eyes of the world, forget how things "work" in the ways of the world; focus on the Way of Jesus.

21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

23Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. 24For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

- Luke 10:21-24

Married To God Or Married To A Hottie?

I've been thinking about myself in lines with dating/marriage stuff. The truth is, I don't really know what I think about it. Truth be told (and anyone reading this probably already knows) I am not so great with the ladies. Regardless of this, or maybe partially because of this, I don't even know if that's the lifestyle I'm being called to.

I want to follow the call of God with my all, and sometimes I wonder if a wife would hinder that. At the same time I also wonder if a wife would help that, or if I'd go crazy being single for the rest of my life.

I look at the words Jesus said in Matthew 19. It's like Jesus is saying that there is hope even without a significant other. Some have this thrust upon them because how they were born or what others have done to them, but then there are those who willingly give it up for a higher cause.

But then again Paul says that it's better to marry than to burn with passion. Now what he's referencing here might be sexual or just that desire that Adam had for a counterpart. Either way the idea seems to be that if you can't control whatever this urge is, it can be distracting and unhealthy. God has called the union between man and woman good, so if it's called good and you want it, might as well go for it. Paul says it's good to stay unmarried, like him, but that it's fine if you can't do that. Perhaps it can be much wiser for the sake of the ministry to not marry if possible.

I guess in either verse it's not a straight forward thing, it's a one or the other. Neither are wrong, but maybe one is more right than the other on a person to person basis.

To me there are certainly attractive aspects to a life in humble service to God, by being free to do whatever he can imagine for me; as well as a life in humble service to God via my bodaciously hott/fun/caring wife.

If anyone has more insight on what these scriptures are saying historically/culturally, if you have more scriptures that should be looked at, or if you just have life experience or thoughts to share, all are welcome.

This is a very open post that requires your interaction.

I Don't Know If You Can Handle My Jesus

My apologies if this is scattered. I have a bunch of things prancing through my head (yes prancing) and I think they all have a common thread, but we shall soon find out

I spent much of this week, and especially the last few days, studying. Tonight I had another encounter of the Mormon variety. You know those encounters, you're a little unsure of how things are going to go, they say a few cool things, some weird things, and before you know it you're back home, having lost 2 hours, but your pants are pressed, your shirt is buttoned, and you think somehow your teeth seem whiter than they did before. At least I was able to pick up some chicks on my way home. By the way, if you don't know me that's a sarcastic lie used to make people grin or possibly chuckle if they have not developed a tolerance to me.

So I was studying because tonight it was 4 on 1. Four Mormons on one lowly rejected Christian. I didn't know how things would go tonight, but I always like to prepare as if will be a debate, especially when the odds appear so stacked against me. I'm not attempting to sacrifice any Mormons at the altar of Steve's Knowledge, but I don't want look foolish either (I seriously spent 3 minutes thinking of a witty way to say the latter half of that last sentence, but all of them seemed inappropriate or made no sense).

Our night was heavily consumed with Baptism. The attendees of Scripture Smackdown '08 were Kyle and Steve (the Mormon missionaries) , Morgan and Morgan (a father and daughter duo with the same first name... weird), and myself. Missionary Steve said little as usual. Dad Morgan was in and out of the room, but generally liked to gloss over the differences with long simple statements that resounded to "Can't we all just get along?" I appreciated these and they helped refocus us, but at the same time they sometimes tried to give negligence to the importance of an issue at hand... luckily they only helped me refocus to what crucial element was at the heart of the topic. Daughter Morgan was really neat. She'd listen. She'd agree if I said something that may not agree with what she said, but was correct. She had a sweet way about her that was patient, kind, and knew scripture really well; so it was nice discussing these things with her. Kyle was usually the leader. He likes to talk and try to dominate his way into being right, but not in a horrible way. He will not admit he has interpreted a verse wrong when I put it in context. He will say he can see where I'm coming from, but he will not say that he was mistaken and hold to his original viewpoint. That bugs me more than anything.

The talk was concerned mostly around the idea of baptism. They believe you must physically be water baptized to be saved (in a manner of speaking). I do not agree with this though. I believe it is really an issue of a repentant heart and a life that takes on the calling of Christ. We talked about water baptism vs. spiritual baptism and other stuff that didn't matter much. At the heart the problem was that even though I've been baptized, it doesn't matter. The authority of my baptism wasn't correct for me to have fulfilled that command they believe God ordained. I don't believe it's man's authority but God's authority through Jesus. I was baptized in the name of Jesus just as the Mormons were. This is the issue, and it seems like one they struggle with too to a certain extent.

I believe in a Jesus that is all about the heart. I believe in a God who is all about what Jesus has shown Him to be about. God cares about our heart. His punishment is for our heart. His blessing is for our heart. His example is for our heart. Through these his Spirit of Truth dwells within our heart. This is why the Spirit is so much greater than the law. The law is Jewish. The law is religious. The law is rigid. But the Spirit is universal. The Spirit is flowing. The Spirit is life-giving.

This isn't to say that the law is pointless and void. Like Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But the law as a religious ritual is dead. It is about taking the wisdom that the law showed and incorporating it with the passion of hope and love. This isn't a religion of exclusivity, but it's a life choice to which all are welcome. I think of Jesus with the Samaritan woman saying that a time is coming and is now here when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. I think of Jesus talking to a Roman centurion, probably believing in mythological gods, and yet Jesus says that he hasn't seen such great faith in all of Israel as he has seen in this man. It's just... available. It's not set on rules. It's set on hoping in the impossible Jesus hoped in. It's about loving God and loving others. It's about having a pure, repentant heart that desires to live out the hope it professes. Beyond that, what does it matter?

We've made a legalistic religion out of a Way. That's what the early church called itself. It wasn't a religion. They were Jews before and they were still Jews. The difference was the life they lived. Jesus can go further because he's not bound down by legalism. He is uplifted by a universal call to trust in God and not man, to realize how he unfairly (for Him) stuck with us, and to love in good nature and good work. This allows Jesus to live outside of religion. You can corrupt doctrine, but you cannot corrupt the Truth.

When I got home tonight I went to FriendlyAtheist.com. The first article I noticed was about Mormonism ironically. A young man faced with what his church doctrine actually endorses made him question it. His questioning led him to research. His research led him to more doubt. His church led him to no answers. And no answers led him to atheism. All because Jesus had a anchor of doctrine tied to his feet. When this man grabbed onto Jesus, despite all the good Jesus brought; the undeniable good found in Him, you're still going to sink from the weight of legalism. You can't swim freely with an anchor chained to your feet.

I could relate to this story. How the more I learned the more I doubted some of the things I had been spoon fed as truth. The reluctance for anyone to try to supply a real satisfactory answer is leading me away from them. Luckily God has proved Himself. I will not give up on the Gospel of Jesus because of the bad news of rigid, unchallenged doctrine.

I continued on to the comments and found another story of interest. In some ways I felt like this story is my story. Surely not exactly, but a majority of the feelings (both good and bad) are identical. We have become division mongers. We separate against anything different in fear of contamination. We don't even realize sometimes if something is becoming infected until we can compare elsewhere. Tap water looks fine until you put it by distilled water.

I'm not opposed to doctrine completely. I adhere to doctrine, as does every other person (I believe). They are the rules of what you believe, even if you believe in nothing. The danger comes in making those rules stiff to keep outsiders out, while not allowing additional truth to sneak in. We adhere to doctrine for its wisdom, but if we do not give it room to grow we may all either be squished like playdough or squeezed out of the box we have put faith in. Thus why you find cookie-cutter Christians or ex-Christians so often.

I haven't fully discovered Him, but I definitely believe in a Jesus that is for everyone... not just theologically or theoretically, but pragmatically.

WiFi And The Omniscience Of Man

I don't know how to feel about this. It's kind of cool and kind of scary.




I just can't help but think man is getting a little too prideful with all this technology.

I mean heck... if the invention of brick lead to a pride God would not stand for, how much more would the instant knowledge of everything man knows be conducive to an even greater pride.

All unified under the common language of the World Wide Web.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching Doomsday here. I just fear for our salvation as a race when we constantly rely so heavily on our own ability and achievement.

I do wonder if God will choose to devastate our arrogant unity someday, "scattering" us by destroying the Internet or something. Maybe then we will stop building our city. Y2K (part 2) is coming, watch out baby. This time... it's for real!

Give A Man A Fish, Teach A Man To Fish

This entry will be something of a follow-up to my last post.

I have not been able to shake the last chapter of Amos from my mind lately. The end of Amos chapter 9 speaks of Israel's restoration. But it's final words seem obviously related to words spoken by God in Deuteronomy... except almost opposite.

God is no longer doing and giving to man in such a direct way, as he did in the times of Exodus. You see in Deuteronomy he gives them all these lands, cities, houses, vineyards, etc. that the Israelites did not create. They were just a straight up gift.

In Amos that is not the case. In essence, the cities and things given to the Israelites are now in ruin (both in what they symbolize and their physical status). It is now their duty to rebuild and recreate the things God desires for them. God is involved because he is the one that encourages the creation and good, as well as showing us what that good is, but he is not necessarily providing directly the final products (in the traditional way of thinking of this). Are we not called to go out into all the world and are we not called to do greater things than Jesus?

The response may be that we are able to do all of those things through Jesus. True. I do think there are two important sides to Jesus.

1. Jesus's humanity - The relatability of Jesus to the everyday man. It allows us to see potential of man when we are one with God. It is not foreign or impossible, but it is possible for man to be righteous through God, as Jesus was.

2. Jesus's devinity - Jesus speaks the truth of God. This divinity of words brings grace, hope, peace, knowledge, and love. These words instruct man on the way life truly works. It instructs man on the way to live that will make things better, even though it may seem foolish.

To do something in the name of or in or through Jesus is not just to "name it and claim it" because he's "the right God." To do something through Jesus is to take on the personality and teachings of Christ in what you do. When Jesus says our Heavenly Father will give good gifts or whatever you ask for in his name, it's the same thing. Those who love Jesus will obey his commands; those who obey his commands will produce fruit. False prophets are shown as those who seem to be saying good stuff that is pleasing to men, but is not convicting of God's will. This could be like giving a man a fish.

Jesus didn't come to bring enlightenment directly to all men, while he was on earth. He came to bring it to men and have it carried out by them. He appointed apostles. Much like a candle lighting another candle, Jesus was the initial flame. I realize that this seems, to many, to under-merit who Jesus was, but I don't think this statement can be denied. Jesus came to teach man how to fish... he came to teach man how to live and to spread such life.

What Jesus gave us was a way to reconstruct our faith and our world. We are going to rebuild. This doesn't mean that we gained nothing from the past. There is much truth in the old testament, just not the fullest fulfillment of truth. I would argue that the truth Jesus gave was not complete either. Everything he said has laid the foundation of on which to build, and is all the deepest ultimate truth. However, we must build off of his words, just as the authors of the New Testament did. We must destroy the places of society (of our cities) that are not portraying the life Jesus calls us individually and as God's people to. We must rebuild these and reinforce them with the foundation of truth, while exposes any weaknesses in structure. This is where faith and deed meet. At their intersection a daring new way beings.

Jesus started something wonderful. He built the foundation. It is our job to carry out the construction that Jesus started. Jesus could have given us all a fish (simple salvation), but instead God chose to make us his people again, he chose to entrust us with a great honor. We are now his workmanship, called to create in his image, just as he created us in that image. Since we have been taught to fish, let's fish.

How Are We Forgiven?

For a while now I have been questioning atonement. I ask why God was unable to forgive us without Jesus. Doesn't God forgive us because he is good, merciful, and just? Without Jesus do these aspects of God change? Does a good heart, righteous works, and a desire for God not bring his justice only because you have not declared belief that a certain man was God?

I have been around long enough to hear most of the standard rebuttals to this question, I have even given many of them. I know the story of man needing a perfect offering to be forgiven of sin, but did all of the goats, lambs, and bulls slaughtered really forgive anything? If forgiveness was not actually brought about by the act of killing these animals, why is the act of Jesus dying different?

One might say that what was done before was a symbol for what Jesus did on the cross. I might also ask why Jesus dying on the cross might not point to something greater. Perhaps the extent of God's love for us and his desire for us to be reconciled to His ways.

I have many thoughts on this, but none, other than my foundation, are set in stone. I am very open to comments here, but please justify your claims.

Also, I am going to quote the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 here. It has interesting things to say about God's ability and desire to forgive, as well as our ability to receive.

Ezekiel 18

The Soul Who Sins Will Die

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

5 "Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.

6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife
or lie with a woman during her period.

7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

8 He does not lend at usury
or take excessive interest. ^[a]
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between man and man.

9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things ^[b] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.

12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.

13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.

14 "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 "He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife.

16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

17 He withholds his hand from sin ^[c]
and takes no usury or excessive interest.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. 27 But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. 28 Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 "Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

I don't downplay salvation that comes from Jesus on the cross. I just question whether we are seeing the salvation as what it really is, what the source of that salvation is, and whether we are accepting it in the most appropriate manner.

Does The Church Have A Complex?

I will start off this blog with a warning. I'm upset and disappointed with my church right now, so the things in this post may be unfair and/or an oversimplified stereotype.

I have heard the expression asked before "when did A CHURCH become THE CHURCH?"

Why does a denomination or a dominant interpretation about Christianity automatically deem itself the ultimate truth? At what point do we distinguish between heresy and open mindedness? Should a Christian question? Should a Christian believe blindly? Should it be a mixture where we believe certain things blindly based on other things that have proved themselves?

Would things we believe blindly change if the things we thought were "proved" showed to be inconsistent?

Would it be beneficial or destructive to show those inconsistencies?

I like questions. Questions spawn thought. I like to think. So I guess liking questions and thought compliment each other well.

I have to ask myself... does the church like questions and thought? If so, does it like all questions and all thought, or just "contained" questions and thought?

Thinking just now if questioning can be dangerous, I'm sure there is backing for that. Often times you will hear thoughts along the lines of "if you start asking those questions they'll lead you to destruction." I don't know if I've ever heard that verbatim, but certainly those ideas.

It is a thought that is backed by something. The beginning of the destruction of humankind began with a question... "Did God really say?" The beginning of humanity starts with Satan questioning what God really said. Now this might be legitimate, except in Genesis 2:16-17 God clearly states that man must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is also interesting to note, as maybe you've heard before, that Eve responds by saying they are not to touch the fruit. It's important to note that this is in no means God ordained. Some might say it is a good idea, but it is not what God says. For Eve, it may be just as sinful to touch the fruit as to eat it, for obviously there is temptation there, but to place that same law upon another could be quite pointless and burdensome.

We see questioning in another early book (chronologically). In the book of Job, Job has lots of bad stuff happen to him. First his servants are killed and livestock are stolen. Next a fireball from heaven kills his sheep and more servants. Then some raider come and kill even more servants (he must have had a lot) and steal his camels (I picture them stuffing camels into bookbags for some reason). Finally, his sons and daughters are having a big party and the house falls on them and kills them. Now all Job has is his wife, 4 messengers (that told him about these events), and his health. Oh wait... scratch that last one.

A little while later Job gets painful sores all over his body too. He's pretty bummed and says some sad stuff. His friends and wife don't do much to make things better. Job just kind of sits in his questioning misery. Job questions the justice and righteousness of God and the path he calls his righteous to. Job in essence questions if God knows what he's doing and if he's even good, if he really cares about justice.

This is very similar to the question that Eve ponders in her mind. Why would God not want me to know what he knows? Is he ripping me off? Does he even care about me? Is he even just?

God is shown to be unquestionable in these matter though. To Eve it is shown that her way has led to a spiritual death God did not desire for man. In Job's circumstance, Job becomes the one questioned. I love this verse, it makes me whither! God shows that because he is greater and has experienced all of creation, he knows more about justice than we ever could, he knows more about what's right for us than we ever could. But we "forget" that.

This was all to show that yes, questioning can be horribly wrong for man when it is an attempt to discredit God and justify ourselves. This is something that is deemed in the scripture, both where I showed and elsewhere, that questioning God's power in this manner is not good.

But there was also distortion in both of these. I mentioned about Eve not touching the fruit. That was a distortion. Also we see Job's friends accusing him of not being righteous, but Job knows himself to be righteous by God's Word. His wife calls him to forget about God for what he's doing or not doing, but he knows this to be incorrect due to God's Word.

There is both adding and taking away in these examples, which are not God's word, but man trying to reconcile himself with his situation.

Has "the Church" done the same?

Is it easier to take certain routes or justify certain paths because they fit culture better or they seem more successful? When leaders get ahold of scripture do they bow before it, or do they manipulate it to fit them? Or maybe not only leaders, but regular men.

The Crusades

The Salem Witch Trials

The Spanish Inquisition

The Ku Klux Klan

All using the name of Christianity as a dividing mechanism. One where they win and the others lose. One where they are right and those who oppose are wrong. We are looking at theological Darwinism here. Whatever version of Christianity survives is the correct version. God certainly would not let us live a faith that is not inspired by him, right?

That is seen over and over in the Bible. Israel falls away and is living by an incorrect manner. God allows them to see the punishment of what their people and leaders have chosen to believe and how they have abandoned and distorted God's call. Then God sends a prophet to bring them back to his way.

Perhaps for hundreds of years we have been astray or being led astray. The beliefs we follow are based on Jesus, but have also been crafted by the hands of men, as to what scriptures we will read. A council of men decided the canonized Bible. Scholars believe that these decisions were not solely based on the criteria cited, but also on what was popular and widely held as "the best."

William Barclay said, " It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so."

So for one to question the interpretation of man into our understanding of God is completely justifiable, I believe.

In most churches we read the same verses and ignore many. We place the Bible into the 20th and 21st centuries and expect it to fit. How can we compare our lifestyle with that of the 1st century? We have completely different lifestyles, customs, metaphors, outlooks on life, etc.

I believe we need to reexamine the Bible as it was written. See what it looks like with a shadow of empire, a brilliant reflection from simplicity, the haze of self-serving theology, all wrapped up in the culture of the day and of the people. Once you have this vivid picture in your mind, which history so greatly provides for us, you can compare it to our world and see how the Bible can and is meant to fit in our world.

I question men for God, I do not question God for men.

I would say that there are places in our theology that we are mistaken. Some I am pretty sure about, others I am exploring. Theology isn't the main problem, but it does have a barring on the main problem. Our problem is focus. What are the things God is really concerned about. If we make our theology purposed in eliminating homosexuality and abortion we lose site of problems Jesus actually addressed.

Corporate and government overgrowth and greed, lack of communication across economical gaps, lack of leveling economical gaps in a personal manner, turning religious institutions into businesses, not opening up a faith to all (really opening it, not just saying you are or having a "policy"), minimizing government/political officials and becoming a land of people governed by their God, loving, being sexual moral on a deeper level, not inciting war by hating a neighbor, embracing harmony of creation, and on and on. We don't talk about these so much, but Jesus didn't stop talking about these things.

We've become a people about theology, rather than a people of spirit. Where caring and intelligence meet with humility to retrace our steps, find our mistakes, and insert Jesus's word in all of those shortcomings.

What's Better Than A Nice Day Of Manual Labor?

I was walking through Wal-Mart last night for about an hour with my friend Kelly. We talked about various things, but what ended up dominating our conversation was a question of the oldest curse on man.

Genesis chapter three tells the story of the fall of man into sin. Man sins, and then a curse is placed on man by God. I might argue that man placed the curse on himself by disobeying God, where God had created a world that dispenses "curses" in reaction to deeds done apart from God's pre-established will. But either way, it happens. **it happens.

The first curse involves humanity at the serpent. They will be each other's enemies for history. The snake's (Satan's) descendants and woman's descendants will stomp and bite each other. It's strange how this is especially directed at the woman, even though she and man both had consequences, as did the serpent.

**Throwing in a random thought that came to me. This isn't traditional thought so you can think it's wrong, but I do want to post it cause it makes some sense. What is woman's descendants and the snake's descendants are the same people. It kind of works to the duality of man, how we're good and bad. Like Paul talks about, we are at war with each other. It's not my doing, but the sinful nature inside of me... the serpent inside of me, waging war against my righteous humanity. Jesus crushes the head of that snake, and thus shows us we can all choose to crush the head of that snake inside of us. What does get me though is this. "You will crush his head and he will strike his heel" You'd think the crush of the head would come first. Unless Jesus crushes his head by denying his sinful nature in what will become a fatal blow, but the snake strikes his heel; evil in humanity crucifies Jesus. This is not as fatal a blow as would be expected, it has only gotten the heel, it will in fact only increase the blow sent to the serpent.

Surely some of you will consider this heresy, but although it just came to me now, it kind of fits. I'm not holding it as sacred law, but I'll continue to play with it.**

The next curse is to the woman. She'll have pain in childbearing (physical and more than physical (emotional maybe even spiritual)). She'll also want to control her husband but he will dominate her.

For man, the ground he works on for food and provision will be cursed. He'll have to work through the thorns and thistles to get the grain. His work will be toil. He'll be a slave to hard labor until you die and become the dust you worked on all your life.

The world for pain in the woman's childbearing, and toil in the man's work are the same Hebrew word. Interesting huh?

So the big question is this... are these curses something we have freedom from in Jesus? Our question was mainly geared toward work. Does work have to be hard because of the curse? I believe I've seen someone who is no longer under that curse. Our grounds keeper at RMU is a man with a tough job, but he loves life and his work. He is never upset or discourage as far as I can tell. He is an amazing man of God, whom I wish everyone could get to know. Get to know him a bit here.

Are these curses gone, or can we just get some relief from them, but never truly escape until we go to heaven, if that's what you believe.

I believe that through Christ we have victory over the curse, and all other curses that come from sin and a sinful world. We may not see them disappear completely until the world is restored, but we can see hints of the old way passing and the new way coming. Now I believe that God desires the world to be restored by us through Him (Him in us), others of you may not believe that. Thus that could, but may not, be the dividing idea in if we can be completely free from the curse now or not.

Kelly and I ended up agreeing that you could be free of those things now, but I feel like our agreement was a fluke or unjustified. I need to talk to her about again in a location more conducive to thought.

This is a topic that I think I'm where I should be on it, but the solid foundation isn't as solid as I'd like it to be. I may find more holes, or maybe I just haven't thought through all the possibilities to be completely at peace with it yet.

How do you feel about that? How do you feel about my Genesis 3 blaspheming?

Foul Language & Lunacy Disclaimer, But Do Proceed

Evangelicals, Wake Up For The Election

:::I started this back in mid January and finished it today:::

Well, we’re almost two weeks into 2008, which means we are nearly two weeks into an election year. I must say that a year ago I was largely apathetic to the notion of choosing a new president, but I must say I now have the bug. I see this year as an opportunity for change in the U.S., or we may just maintain the same course we’ve been on for a while. New times mean new issues. New issues are ways of showing the deficiencies in our prior decisions/laws/declarations.

Everyone has the answer though. Every single presidential candidate has their own solution for the problems at hand, and all the future problems to come. This is certainly hailing as the election for change. I would say there is much desire for change coming from the Democratic party, which makes sense since they haven’t been running things for eight years. There is also a fair amount of talk for change coming from the Republicans, although on a much smaller level. As much as a party desires to uphold their own, there are certain consequences from G.W.’s administration that can’t be overlooked (although most of these decisions are not all from George, but have been handed down from president to president, sometimes in a snowballing effect). The Democrats certainly point the finger at George a lot, while the Republicans do their best to point the finger at Clinton wherever possible.

I wonder how important the Evangelicals will be perceived in the upcoming election, since they were widely credited as a (or the) major support in getting Bush elected for a second term. Are they still a driving force in our country? What do they look for in the President? What contributes to their common ideals? What are those common ideals? If Eric Clapton shot the Sheriff, who shot the deputy?

I found a website detailing what the “Evangelicals” in general are looking at as key issues, and answers to those issues.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51686

Here’s a brief summary…

The Candidate must be:

- A social/fiscal conservative

- Strongly opposed to abortion

- Strongly opposed to same-sex marriage

- Adamant about religious freedom

- Desiring to unite the government and private sectors

- Desiring to unite government and religious institutions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim? I wonder what Evangelicals mean by that.)

- Very strongly supporting the war on terror, both at home and abroad in countries like Iraq

- See the terrorist enemy as inhuman killers and incapable of rationality or being appeased civilly

- Immigration

o Close border with a $10 Billion fence

o Stricter laws for getting into the country/kick out illegals

- Use our country’s own oil

o “But a handful of environmental alarmists have convinced many lawmakers to pretend the oil is not there. I want to preserve the beauty of our nation as much as anyone, but I also think we need to utilize our God-given resources and thus liberate the U.S. from dependence on many nations who hate us”

Okay, let’s break this down. Since the most inherently unifying commonality of Evangelicals is Jesus, let’s get him in the mix.

I’m going to skip the first one for the time being.

Opposition to abortion and homosexuality is key to the followers of Jesus. To my understanding Jesus never directly addresses the issue of homosexuality. It doesn’t mean he’s in support of it, but it must not have been at the top of his priority list. I have some of my own thoughts on it, but that’s pretty irrelevant here. Other followers of Jesus have commented on homosexuality, just as many of his followers today have, but Jesus never mentioned it.

Abortion, by the definition could be considered murder. I know the word “could” in there might make people angry, saying “IT DEFINITELY IS!” The definition speaks of killing another person with malice aforethought, characterized by premeditation. Abortion is probably usually done without malice toward the child, but in the view of the one(s) making the choice, merely a sense of grace upon the child who would have an unfair life due to the parental situation. Often times it’s done from selfishness, where it isn’t convenient. And I’m sure sometimes it’s done with little to no thought. So the potential good-will or the supposed mercy of the abortion could negate it by definition as “murder.” I would go as far to say that many mothers know that what they’re doing is wrong, but consider it a necessary evil.

This takes me to the war on terror. Abortion is often justified by saying the fertilized egg is just a clump of cells and not a real human or child yet; an argument that evangelicals traditionally disagree with. How is it that Evangelicals could support the killing of full-grown, completely developed humans? Sure one could say that it is in the desire for safety and security that we must commit less than desired acts on others. But isn’t this similar to the necessary evil that a mother might take into consideration in order to secure her economic/education safety and security to help her ensure a better future for herself and the possibility to raise other future children in a more proper, less dysfunctional home? I don’t think it’s much different, and I don’t think either is justifiable by humanity (especially Evangelicals).

I do believe it was Jesus who said “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Maybe today we could put it, “he who lives by the easy way out that disregards others, dies by the easy way out that disregards others.” We have undeniably made enemies out of terrorists. Didn’t Jesus say to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. Didn’t Jesus make a huge stand and a huge impact by being at peace with those killing him, even forgiving them? Didn’t Jesus end up fine in the end, despite his lowly, humble position when faced with Roman injustice? I thought the Evangelicals were the ones who followed Jesus’ teachings. Why are they some of the greatest advocates of war, and then hypocritically against abortion? They are for the life of unborn children and opposed to the life of adults who have different belief systems.

Love could go a long way in this “war.” Considering a major cause of the hatred of America by Islamic fundamentalists is our progressive economic and dominating military imposition on the more traditional ideals of their own territory. Love and respect would go a long way… as well as perhaps learning lessons on how to live from their culture.

Religious freedom is the reason this country was formed. We certainly uphold this ideal to a point of near idolic worship. In our 21st century billboard infested culture advertisement rules. Sometimes advertisement might become a bigger concern than even quality control. We're all about winning... winning equals fame, pride, superiority, power, money, and probably some others. Religious freedom has become the right for me to advertise my belief system. It's not about what I practice, it's about what I believe in.
This goes right along with the evangelical desire to unite government and religious institutions. It's all about how much clout I can gain for Jesus. Christians have no desire for the Hindu religious affiliations or the mosque-run organizations to be holding hands with the United States government. After all, we're a CHRISTIAN nation!
I would agree that when our nation's first ancestors took their first few steps off the Mayflower they had trouble walking straight after being on a ship for a few months. But after that I think they had the intention for a theocratic society of sorts. Run differently than in England, but surely a nation of people like them. The problem is that it didn't work all that great, although we did survive... there were those darn witch trials though; the spawn of a theocratic society.
A while later this was all remembered, as well as how things were in England, and also the consideration of known history. The Constitution was not written for a theocracy, it was written for a democracy. If we're a Christian nation, we run the risk of deeming anyone who is not Christian as an evil threat to our society. If we are a nation that is filled largely with Christians, well that should be very different. It allows us to set up laws based on Christian morals one might say, another might say Natural Law that is common knowledge to all (or most) of humanity.
As long as a religious institution is conducting itself by means of this Natural Law it should not be judged any differently than another organization, Christian or not. We are not a Christian bully nation. We are not a Christian favoritism nation. We should not be a huge billboard for Christianity. But we should allow all people and groups abiding by the laws to represent themselves on their own, perhaps partnered with the government, but not specially endorsed by it.
Another issue is the illegal immigration. Who is our biggest culprit here? If I have read things correctly I believe it is Switzerland. Do you believe that? Why not? What about Canada? Who do you think the country with the most illegal immigrants in the U.S. is?
I should look this up, although I'm not, but I'd say it's probably Mexico. Why would Mexicans as opposed to the Swiss or Canadians by trying to sneak in? Because it's freakin' hot down there! Ok, not really. Probably because it's poor down there. Bad health care, bad living conditions, bad gas from all the burritos. So our idea to keep those people who are unfortunate away from our great stuff that is ours and not theirs is to build a 10 billion dollar fence.

Alright, I'm probably an idiot, but how about this. What if we put 10 billion dollars into their economy. What if we gave loans to their people to start business, to initiate trade, to better conditions, to promote better health care into the country? Will it solve everything? No, but it'll help. It should at least keep most of them occupied so they don't feel the need to come to the U.S.

Also, for all you Jesus lovers, I think Jesus told a story about a poor beggar that was outside this rich man's house. The rich man had walls separating him from the poor man, but when they died things reversed. The rich man tried to keep his superiority and authority over the poor, but it was no longer there. Maybe someday Mexico will rise up and become a power. How will we be treated by them? How are we treating them? Is this impossible? Was it impossible for China not too long ago? The Bible talks many times about allowing foreigners into your land. I do see an economic problem with that, and even some overcrowding. My solution is to reach out and make their land inhabitable for them, then we can live in peace. I kind of think Jesus would have liked that. He tends to support interaction between the rich and poor, where they both share what they have.

It's also kind of funny that these Evangelicals who are very conservative want the GOVERNMENT to build the 10 billion dollar wall. Why not have the states effected raise money for that. The immigration problem isn't in Nevada so much, ya know? But I'm against the wall anyway.

I think Evangelical conservatives can do so much to lessen government control. Just like the whole wall senario... they can share. The government just distributes money, with some corruption and improper spending mixed in there too. We wouldn't need them for many things if we'd seek out those in need and share. Welfare, health care, social security, unemployment, education, etc etc etc. These are things we can share. If someone can't afford a necessity and you are planning a nice vacation, give. If you're in a medical profession and someone needs looked at or treatment, give. If someone is without a job and you know of one or can create a job for them, give. Better yet teach them a trade so they can get a job. We're all about disconnected higher education, with its standards and tests; but we've lost the personal training found in an apprenticeship. We're spending thousands and thousands of dollars on an education you can learn from a mentor for free. Or how about this. Instead of both the mother and father in a family having a job, just let the mother get one, and the father can stay at home and cook/clean. That way more people can get jobs, instead of having them taken up by families who don't need the money, but just get bored at home all day. That's conservative. Think big, think different. In Acts 2 no one had any needs cause they shared. They sold their possessions to make sure no one was without.

And finally, oil. We are fools. We trick ourselves into thinking we're being ecologically friendly by getting the car that gets 35mpg, but we forget that we haven't walked anywhere in 3 years and that we have 3 cars for our 4 person family. It's overabundance that is draining our earth of resources and filling it with pollution. Oil wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't sucked up over half of the worlds energy for our %5 of its population. Sure we need to get cleaner and more renewable energy, but we also need to stop producing so much. I don't care how recyclable a car is, if you make billions of them, you will have waste and pollution. Americans believe we deserve it because we're so strong, but we're wrong. Evangelicals, you guys are building 7, 10, 20 million dollar facilities. Could you build with less and save the Earth some? Maybe God wouldn't mind your house for him not looking as lavish in exchange for his tabernacle of the Earth not being dilapidated.

I know this is long, and congrats if you made it this far. I don't mean to be a downer, but I just want to expose hypocrisy along with what doesn't make sense. I believe in the words of Jesus, although I get much criticism for what I say, even (especially) from Christians. I find they tend to have trouble seeing the big picture, being creative, and having hope toward new ways of living, God's ways of living. Just like the prophets who seemed to have bad news, I am presenting our woes. It's the opportunity to repent and find joy in repentance.