Jerry Nixon @home

If what's legal is not immoral, then is it immoral to do what's illegal?

2010-02-04T10:22:00.001-07:00

My, oh, my, how skilled I am at justifying what I want to do. But this time, I hit a wall. This time, the Bible wins.

First there’s this:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. – Romans 13:1

This makes one point: Christians cannot ignore the law. It says that if an action is illegal, Christians have a moral obligation to obey it as if in obedience to God. However, this is not the whole story. There is the case when the Earthly law contradicts God’s Transcendent instruction.

So, there’s this:

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!' – Acts 5:29

This makes another point: Christians are not subject to man’s law when man’s law contradicts God’s instruction. And so, to know which laws are to be obeyed we must identify those laws which contradict God.

We should categorize laws into two camps.

First, Moral laws that corresponds to God’s law or contradicts God’s instruction. An example of these would be Abortion laws, Capital Punishment laws, some laws regarding Religion, Marriage, and Military Service.

For this first group of laws, many will be in harmony with the teachings of the Scriptures. Some will be in stark contrast, while other are fuzzy – their relationship to God’s law is not obviously in accord or against it.

Second, Cultural laws (sometimes called Ceremonial laws) generally have more to do with contemporary, practical matters. An example of these would be zoning laws, speeding laws, and tax and immigration laws.

For the second group of laws, some may have some tangential reference to God’s instructions, but generally have more to do with a majority’s will in a society. Few would martyr for a zoning law.

But, you might ask, what if a Cultural law seems like it should be elevated to a Moral law? An example might be immigration. What if you feel the immigration law, as it stands, seems immoral?

First, remember that God has placed over us Authorities. And we are responsible, and have a duty to, humble ourselves before these Authorities – operating inside our society as Christ’s ambassadors, not combatants.

Second, remember that issues are complex. Most people who are “religious” about issues abstract the matter away from the realities of it, to a simpler, less complex, more convenient moral dilemma. Resist this.

Third, remember God has spoken clearly about some moral issues, but other moral issues he has only alluded a greater principal. The application of these secondary issues requires an interpretation. And you could be wrong.

Forth, like me, most people misuse their God-given intellect to scour the details around us in search of loop holes and justifications for the actions and issues we prefer. It is very difficult to recognize when this is happening.

Finally, God has given us counsel in 5 ways, and as a matter of general guidance in our lives, these counsels should generally agree with us. To that point, let me lay out the 5 counsels of God:

The Holy Scripture. It is imperative that your perspective not be in contradiction to the Bible. However, there are issues that the Bible does not speak to directly. The key here is to avoid contradiction.
Christian Witnesses. One of the purposes of the local church is to place around us a cloud of Christian witnesses to help hold us accountable. Your issue should rightly resonate in the ears of these Christian counselors.
Prayer and Revelation. A real way God speaks is visions, quickening the mind, and giving understanding. God may speak directly to you as a counsel, but even this needs to be weighed against your own mind’s tricks.
Signs and Miracles. Sometimes God speaks through the miraculous. These are often overlooked unless our mind is open to see them. Should we allow skepticism to dominate our mind, we may miss these confirmations.
Practicality. Although I know God transcends this material world, I also know his truth is consistent.I also know that, generally speaking, what is truly good is not just ethereally, but practically good.

Using these as a guide, you can weigh the convictions you have against them. Assuming that a majority are in concert with you and none are diametrically opposed, you can feel confirmed in your conviction.

Should you find yourself at odds with these five helpers, it does not mean (necessarily) that your issue is unjust, and that you are incorrect. What it does mean is that your confirmation is not as easy.

Should you find yourself in harmony with these five helpers, conversely, you must also review the circumstances and be assured you are not allowing the circumstances and your own intellect construct the desired answer.

Nonetheless, God has given us these counsels. And although we may abuse them, and although we may prevail for a season of wrong, they are what we have been given to guide us when the answer is not clear.

When you feel the need to elevate a Cultural law to a Moral issue, be sure, first, that you are rightly align with the scripture (the foremost of God’s counsels) and then with the remaining. Should you find yourself outside this counsel, don’t give up, but certainly do not charge in as if justified.

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
       And what does the LORD require of you?
       To act justly and to love mercy
       and to walk humbly with your God. – Micah 6:8

To tailor back to previous posts, God’s Justice is a matter of moral consequence. But remember, speeding (as an example) may be a Cultural law, but your duty to obedience is a Moral responsibility.

Then there is one more question.

What if this Cultural law exists, but the Authorities do not enforce the law? Should then our Moral duty to obedience apply when the law only exists as a vestige of bureaucratic delay?

I don’t have an answer to this one. Not yet.

Two of a Kind

2010-02-02T19:30:00.000-07:00

We were noticing that Anna Laura and Jeri Anna's hair color looked almost identical. Then we put them side-by-side and wow! They really are close!

Anna Laura's hair is super stright while Jeri Anna's has little curls; but that could grow out with age like Alexandria's curls have. But for color, it's a near-perfect match.

It's like they are related.

To have Sex or not to have Sex

2010-02-01T19:53:00.001-07:00

Oprah is so dangerous. But why are people not smarter?

Recently, Oprah interviewed Sarah Palin; Sarah was starting her new career on Fox and her daughter/teenage mother (while holding her bastard son) was promoting abstinence.

Oprah questioned the daughter like this: “You are promoting abstinence but statistics show more than a third of teens have premarital sex by 18. Is abstinence realistic?”

Now, why does the daughter say abstain? Because experience taught abstaining from premarital sex is not just a moral, but a practical matter. But how did she respond to Oprah?

Oprah represents and legitimates mainstream, quasi-spiritual America. What she was asking is what everyone wonders when they talk about sexual abstinence.

The daughter responded (actually Sarah jumped in to save her) that “Abstinence is what is right for me, but other girls need to choose what is right for them.” Oh, brother.

Why is this “what is true for me isn’t true for everyone” talk tolerated? Safe sex advocates don’t say that – they want safe sex for everyone. Alas, the Palins are just more secular fodder.

You know what I would have said? You know what I would have wanted my daughters to have said? Man, if I could have only been the one Oprah was interviewing. Seriously.

I would say, “The US Department of Education estimates that 25% of all black high school students will drop out. Did you hear that? 25%! It’s not realistic to tell kids to stay in school anymore. We’ve already lost. We need to teach them how to thrive in poverty. We can’t call people to a higher standard, Oprah.”

I would like to see her apply her own logic there. Of course, she never would. It’s demonstrates how ridiculous it really is. But unmarried Oprah would have to answer some hard questions.

The double standard is pretty pathetic. Everyone knows that 75% of people misuse or make up statistics to prove their own opinions. The other half just don’t know how to count.

Why not rank movies by Tickets?

2010-01-25T17:08:00.001-07:00

Is Avatar (such a weak movie) really the “King of the World”? Not so much. Gone with the Wind sold an estimated 202M tickets. Avatar’s nearly $2B revenue is misleading because of inflation and higher 3D ticket sales.

Rank	Title	Est. Tickets	Year^
1	Gone with the Wind	202,044,600	1939^
2	Star Wars	178,119,600	1977^
3	The Sound of Music	142,415,400	1965
4	E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial	141,854,300	1982^
5	The Ten Commandments	131,000,000	1956
6	Titanic	128,345,900	1997
7	Jaws	128,078,800	1975
26	Avatar	75,980,500	2009

I think it’s okay to ask, “How many people saw the movie?” I saw Avatar and walked away impressed with the effects, but not the shallow plot, the weak metaphysics (Oprah-esque), or that the leading lady was partially nude (computer generated breasts are still breasts) in almost every scene.

Data Source…

Something on Problem of Evil

2010-01-24T22:05:00.002-07:00

In a problem of Evil discussion (the problem of Evil is: where did Evil come from?) someone asked an interesting question. I wanted to talk through this question.

He asked: If Man was created perfectly (as God does all things so) and if Man was created as perfect (or innocent – that is, without sin) how could Evil be tempting?

The point is simple: Man was new; God created him. Man was presented with sin’s temptation; if sin was tempting then Man must have desired it – or desired Evil.

My initial thought was that temptation is spontaneous.

I may not want an ice cream sundae. However, after entering and smelling the ice cream parlor, something inside of me can begin to desire something that previously it did not.

I may not lust after a woman I have never met. However, after meeting the woman, something inside me can begin to desire or lust after something that previously it did not.

My point would be that we can be tempted to something we have never been tempted to before. And, ultimately, I would suggest even Evil in a pre-Fall state.

I suppose, it begs the question: why did God make us capable of the sin in the first place. That’s a significantly different question. I’m going to move past it for now.

Then I got a little “pushback”.

What if our nature is axiomatic (which means self-evidently true). I started to think – is it possible man’s sinful nature existed before the Fall (the first sin)? Is it our original design or because of the Fall?

I will not flesh this out sufficiently, I know that. But I will hint at a theology suggesting our sinful nature was introduced from the Fall – it was not a “preexisting condition”.

Before I do, I want to say that if God originally designed a sinful nature desiring us to resist it, he would not be logically responsible for sin – as long as he gave us the tools and freedom to resist it.

So, we go to man’s disqualification. We have fallen and we can’t get up. Since the first sin we have been disqualified to enter God’s perfect presence. One infraction has poisoned all our perfection.

This is a fantastic perspective, very different of most.

It is not our sin that disqualifies us. Yes we all have sinned. But even still, our sin is the result of our sinful nature. An alcoholic is not an alcoholic because he drinks. He is an alcoholic because he is an alcoholic. We are not sinners because we sin. We are sinners because we are sinners.

Our disqualification is fundamental to us. Our actions do not disqualify us – our very nature has disqualified us from the moment of conception (or whenever you believe life begins).

As a result, our actions cannot redeem us. Our nature must be unwound. We are capable of changing our behavior (behavior modification). But we cannot change who we are, or what we are.

If our sinful nature disqualifies us from the perfect presence of God, then it could not have existed before the Fall, because our pre-Fall status was “qualified” – the Fall was tragic.

We haven’t concluded much here. But, I know God was not taken by surprise by Man’s Fall. At least, I don’t think he was. If he wasn’t, then perhaps that alone is one of the hardest things to make sense of – at least, for me.

A Real Christmas Tree

2009-12-18T15:45:00.001-07:00

This year we managed to get the best, real Christmas tree ever. A nice, full fern brightens our living room even now. It hardly reminding us of the –6 (that negative 6 Fahrenheit, ouch!) weather we faced to get it.

In the photo above, Anna Laura, Alexandria, and Jeri Anna wait patiently, and warm, in the car while Kyndall and I tie down the tree on top of our car. After 9 years of fun with the forest service, we have a nice routine in place.

This year we invited our church’s new pastor. He and his family (from California) came a tad unprepared and left just before frost bite. Our normal campfire kept everyone tolerably warm, but we didn’t wait for hot chocolate.

In the photo above, Pastor Jeff’s family tries to melt their tennis shoes, moist and cold from the tundra’s trudge to find their own Charlie Brown-rival. They’ll need to add show boots to this year’s Christmas list.

The Simple Pleasures

2009-12-18T15:07:00.001-07:00

Few pleasures in life rival the joy of going to the garage to get the electric screw driver and finding it plugged in and fully charged – opposed to just laying there, not charged. It gives one pause to appreciate forward-thinking to be ready when a need would arise. Just lovely.

Not that I have experienced that pleasure. I’m lucky to even find my stupid screw driver – let alone find it partly charged. My work bench is more like a rat’s nest this time of year; but, it’s something to strive for, I suppose.

I’m sure I am the *only* one.

Do the rocks cry out?

2009-10-14T21:04:00.003-06:00

Pocahontas is a cute Disney princess. She paints with the colors of the wind. I'm not bothered by pantheistic delusions, but my daughters haven't developed discernment. The other night I asked, "Do trees really have spirits?"

They both answer "no" like good Sunday School students. I can tolerate rote replies while the girls are young. But then Anna Laura speaks up: "Dad, do the rocks cry out?"

"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." - Luke 19: 40

I smiled at the opportunity to explain a simple truth. I said, "And the Bible even says the heavens declare God's glory, and the stars sing." How confusing are these characterizations of inanimate things.

"While the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" - Job 38: 7

I asked, "Does this mean rocks and stars are alive?" They didn't know what to say. After all, the Bible says they cry and sing. I understood their hesitation.

So, as they lay in bed, I forewent a bedtime story for a 2 minute theology lesson.

Something like this:

Once there was a man. He could not speak. One day he walked into an art studio. Nobody knew him. They just watched as he picked up a paintbrush and began to paint.

Everyone was amazed because, as he painted, the canvas began to come alive. He had a wonderful way with shapes and colors. The painting was emotive and wonderful.

Now what do we know about this man? We know a lot – we know he is a painter. We know he is a talented painter. And we know he has a style and a way with colors.

But how do we know this? He is mute. He did not tell us. It is because the painting told us. Indeed, the painting "cried out" that this is an artist! But did the painting really talk?

What if I asked you to create a rock? I don't mean from dirt and clay. I mean from nothing at all. I wanted you to CREATE a rock. Could you do it? Of course not.

But God created a rock. He made it have shape, color, and texture. He gave it mass, and molecules, and created an entire subatomic physic to hold it together. Wow.

So, does the rock say something about God? Is like the painting and the painter? Yes. Painting is impressive, but CREATING something? It declares God's glory just because it is there.

And so do the heavens, the stars, and everything else. God created everything. And everything was created by Him. And if you and I don't proclaim his glory, all of creation will (and does).

I asked them again if the painting really talked. And I asked if rocks really talked. With confidence, they answered "no". Ah, the confidence of understanding.

I praised them; and with a kiss I tucked them in bed.

Nobody wants justice

2009-10-06T20:41:00.001-06:00

Everyone wants justice. And everyone dislikes injustice. Even a child understands those fundamentals. But most of us struggle to articulate exactly what justice is. Even great thinkers struggle…

“Equitable distribution…”
- Plato, The Republic

“Rectificatory through retribution…”
- Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

“Blind, social fairness…”
-John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

Justice is not "you get what you deserve". Justice like that is a human convention. And because humans are broken to the core, what we mean is "you get what I think you deserve". Human justice is not just at all. Human justice is revenge.

It turns out that nobody wants really justice – at least for themselves. What we want is justice "for" others. We want others to get what's coming to them – and rarely do we mean a pat on the back. We mean retaliation.

What do we want for ourselves? We want mercy. We want a reprieve of justice. We want to NOT get what we deserve. We don't truly believe we are innocent. And we don't truly believe we don't deserve retributive justice. We just want a break – warranted or not.

Because it seems impossible, we typically don't desire grace. We don't deserve to get something we don't deserve – although mercy itself is a kind of grace. Grace, selfless grace, isn't on the menu. From a human perspective, it's ridiculous.

Consider you are a student in school. Someone pushes your books out of your hands. Justice is swift; you turn around and punch the offender square in the face. He gets what is coming to him. That's human justice. That's revenge.

What if you turned and forgave the offender? That's mercy. But what if you turned and, out of selflessness, you offered to carry his books. Is that justice? It is so different from the human sense of justice it's almost injustice. That's grace.

Justice is easy for humans, and mercy is harder. Grace is nearly impossible. Because of that we see the pattern: first justice, then mercy, and rarely grace.

Nothing is difficult to an all powerful being. Nothing is difficult to God. So, the (justice -> mercy -> grace) pattern isn't necessary. He can start where he wants. He can start wherever is best. And selfless grace, the most beautiful of the three, the most divine of the three is God's starting point. God starts with grace.

Where (justice -> mercy -> grace) is the human pattern, (grace -> mercy -> justice) is God's. And as mercy is a kind of grace, so we ultimately see selfless grace as a fulfillment of perfect justice. God's justice is grace. He doesn't need to differentiate, because his end game for either is identical.

So, we need only consider the ENDS of justice's MEANS. And what are the means of justice? The means are punishment. Justice begets punishment. But why would God punish us at all? Why not just forgive through grace? He does forgive through grace. But his goal is not JUST for us to be forgiven.

Consider, for a moment, yourself as a young adult. Your mother is in the kitchen preparing your favorite meal. You walk right up to your mother and with all your might you punch her in the face. She staggers to the floor, and you retreat to your room. There is a silence in the house and a dagger in your heart. No one honors the son who hits his mother. Universally, you have a violation counting against you.

Now imagine something big happens in your life. You need counsel. You need a shoulder. You need a friend. Do you feel like you can go to your mom? No. You just punched her, and your violation of her trust in you has damaged the relationship between you. You cannot go to her.

Now imagine your mom approaches you shortly after you hit her. She is stern. She is serious. And she explains the punishment you are to receive. What you really want to ask her is to hit you back, but you know she would never do it. She loves you too much to hurt you. Instead, you can't do this for two weeks. You can do that for a month. And on and on come the punishments. You nod, accepting the punishments she gives and then you genuinely apologize. Your heart is recovering.

Now imagine something big happens in your life. You need counsel. You need a shoulder. You need a friend. Do you feel like you can go to your mom? Of course you can. She is your mom. And because your punishment was not to make you suffer; it was for reconciliation. Because you have paid the price for what you did, your relationship is restored. She did not hurt you back or make you pay, she brought you back.

Why did your mom punish you? It was because she wanted to restore the relationship. Why does God punish you? It's because without proper payment for sin, the relationship is damaged, the fellowship is damaged, and the friendship is damaged. God's justice is not revenge. God's justice is reconciliation.

Consider how, prior to knowing God, your life was full of sin – fundamental to the core of your being. Punishment for your sin you always scorned, and apology for your sin you never gave. So deep was your violation that the dept you owed was too great for you to pay. How could your relationship be restored? The punishment was too severe. You could not survive it. You could never pay it. But it must be paid.

So God agreed, through Grace, to wipe the slate clean. He would pay the price. It's your father who pays for the replacement stained glass window after your stray little league foul. Not because you don't owe the debt. It's because you could never pay it. And, it's because it must be paid. When you have no currency, he makes good on your debt.

She carries a pearl in perfect condition
What once was hurt; what once was friction
What left a mark; no longer stings
Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things
- U2, Grace

You may still be punished, but you are punished only on the scale you are able to actually pay. The punishment does not fit the crime. In fact, the payment is paid in full no matter what. Your personal part of the punishment is balanced by your father's willingness and ability to share your burden.

Unfortunately, we often misunderstand the value of punishment as a means to reconcile our relationships. Consider how The Shack characterizes God’s punishment:

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring people from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it”
- God’s character to Mack in “The Shack“

The author may have been making a great point. I grant him that. I enjoyed the book. But this short snippet can be a teaching moment. We see the human desire to erase punishment; we fear it. It’s not fun. We won’t enjoy it; nobody is punished for their pleasure. But we can anticipate the purpose.

In the end, God applies justice how he wants. And, what God wants is reconciliation. He pays the debt you can't pay and prepares a new punishment suited for you – temporal, limited, and bearable. It's a punishment for reconciliation. And, he requires an apology – a repentance.

This brings up an interesting aside. In my house, with three daughters, we have rules. Rule three is that apologies never include the word "sorry", and always include the word "forgive". It takes little reflection to see this truth. What God desires from us is a true apology. Not an "I'm sorry". That's just lame.

Regardless if we want justice; God does – by way of grace.

An apple and two smiles

2009-09-14T23:20:00.000-06:00

My daughters are, in a word, beautiful.

Go Rockies

2009-09-09T00:45:00.000-06:00

My little Colorado Rockies fan

Battlestar Galactica

2009-06-08T18:04:00.001-06:00

"Fleeing from the Cylon Tyrany, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest for a shining planet called, Earth."

Yes, I realize we are a little late to the party, but Kyndall and I have started working through the now-over Battlestar Galactica series on Netflix.

Except for all the stuff I liked about the old series that is now missing, I totally dig it. The new Cylons are totally more scary. We don’t have the Sci Fi channel, so I’ve been waiting for BSG end and then this season’s various shows to wrap so we would have a slot to invest in the show.

Any good series on DVD is dangerous because you always say, “we have time, let’s just watch one more.” And there goes the night.

Joy and Victory

2009-06-02T17:11:00.001-06:00

Joy is an interesting concept. As a believer we understand joy to be a supercedant of fleeting pleasures like happiness. Joy is a deep, warm recognition of harmonies around universal truths and their parts in your life. It is as simple as a baby’s coo and as complicated as purpose in sacrifice.

Nonetheless, joy is the greatest and most durable of qualities; it dichotomously motivates us while inherently cannot be pursued. Like compulsory love, pursued joy is unattainable. It cannot be purchased, earned, or retrieved. Joy can only be discovered once it is already present.

It is an interesting discussion to consider if joy itself is a spiritual emotion. We know that physical emotions like agony, elation, and even happiness are tied to current conditions. Joy, on the other hand, is not subject to the current condition. Is that because it is a spiritual matter?

Some non-believers experience joy. I believe this. I think joy is a gift endowed by God. I think God gives to all people some measure of pleasure. But is joy a condition through which all spirits naturally pass? I believe it may be tied to our physical alignment with universal intentions.

I talk about that more in my past blog on destiny.

Someone once said humor’s vice is that there is always a victim. I can’t argue with that, but I disagree with the conclusion if the conclusion is to disparage humor. Similarly, joy reflects this unattractive trade-off and would not be discounted as a valuable and desirable quality.

An example is: a friend of mine leading an Alexandria, Virginia church. He and his family felt called to move to a new congregation in Newport. Every sign confirmed them. As they proceeded through the process it became even clearer. This was what they were supposed to do.

The receiving congregation became enjoyed by the anticipation of his coming. But their joy, as one congregation member pointed out, “rested on the backs of his current congregation’s pain” as they will bear the realities of his leaving. It was a painful, real trade-off of one’s joy for another’s.

So, is it consequentially invalid?

To that end, I think joy may have a built-in natural trade-off for to accomplish it. As humor may require a “victim” to formulaically deliver, so joy may have a contrarian “sorrow” necessary for it to be fully transmitted. Is there a yin to the yang of joy?

When I teach my girls about winning, we talk about how great it is. But the most important part of winning is the honor of losing – especially the precarious position of second place. The first may be last in God’s collation, but the volunteer loser enables a winner.

I worked at Kanakuk. Every term had a race where the entire camp would race around the property and return to a glorious finish line of cheering counselors. Every single camper, the fast runners, and the fat slow runners. Turning this race, “winning” was a variable term.

One term I worked had hundreds of kids pouring out from the race’s start. We received them back rather quickly. Except for our faster runner who was noticeably missing – he was the director’s son. We soon found him at the end of the peloton, jogging next to the fattest camper huffing and puffing.

He came in dead last, letting the fat camper take whatever glory remained. The campers and counselors witnessing this marvel cheered like the Olympic Village after a host country’s gold. And at that moment the first came in last, and the last became first. There was honor and joy in that loss.

DotA

2009-05-23T14:56:00.001-06:00

Jag talar inte svenska och jag inte spelar DotA, men jag fullkomligt njuta eurodance musik, och jag verkligen gillar den här låten. Om du inte har hört den än, Google det.

Okay, here are the lyrics:

Det är det enda ni gör på dagarna. Ni sitter där i Ventrilo och spelar DotA. Vi sitter här i venten och spelar lite DotA å pushar på å smeker, med motståndet vi leker. Vi sitter här i venten och spelar lite DotA å springer runt å creepar, och motståndet vi sleepar.

What is Fate?

2009-05-21T22:43:00.001-06:00

[draft]

Before we start, let's make this clear: fate and destiny are pawns to God's will. On the issue of sovereignty, there is no question. Indeed, as we struggle to understand the nature of things, nebulous constructs like fate, destiny, purpose, super intention, and providence are useful.

Fate has a varied definition. Does it mean the consequence of our choices, like "sealing your fate" after untoward acts? Or does it mean an outside hand, like "fate dealt that hand" to explain why circumstances occur? Or does it mean the ultimate destination, from the shared root of destiny, like "you must accept your fate". Just saying "fate" doesn't really say anything at all.

Insofar as fate as a consequence, there is no issue. Consequences do follow decisions. In this context, none of the other terms really share this definition. I like to consider fate in this singular way.

Now, there's the concept of the outside hand. This is most like super intention or providence. Is it God, the devil, nature, or gremlins? Something somewhere is influencing things. I think providence is the best term here. It best sums the concept of an active observer, and squashes basic deistic premises God as an inactive observer. He's been clearly involved in the past and hasn't indicated he plans to step away.

Turning to fate as a destination, this is the ugliest use of the term. In no small part purpose and destiny are best transposed here. And of those two, destiny best indicates the destination. Knowing your destination does not preclude your destination, I might add. Those ascribing to predestination would not agree. However, the logic simply does not follow that destiny must be absolute.

There's this contrast with purpose. In no small part destiny seems to indicate the "where" or "what" of a journey's end. Your destiny is your destination. However, purpose seems to better reflect the "why" of such a journey. It addresses the reason and sometimes the intrinsic value of the journey.

Let's briefly dance with the mother of all terms, super intention. Super intention is the will of God, typically. It is what God wants or intends for our lives. The problem is not that God desires something. The question that has plagued man for centuries is if we are capable of accomplishing less, more, or just different than that intention. Is God's sovereignty compromised if God's intentions are not realized?

The issue falls back to free will. We know free will exists for God's pleasure to be volitionally loved. We know that free will is important so God's control over our actions does not result in God's preordainment of sinful acts. Free will seems important to make the world go 'round.

Many contrarians here would tell me that free will is illusive because it is a necessary idea for man in light of the ultimate consequences of God's ultimate sovereignty. That is, we don't really choose anything because God decided long ago.

I have an opinion on the issue of predestination. But to this particular discussion the only question required is, "Can God allow free will?" The answer to that tricky question opens windows of possibilities. And possibilities, the root of all evil, bring about a potential liberty in Christ.

And as we describe the complex tapestry of how God orchestrates all of nature, time, and the cosmos, it is terms like fate, destiny, super intention, purpose, and providence that we use like tools. We are attempting to say a number equivalent to infinity. Of course it comes up short. However, imperfect terms are at least terms. And with terms there is discussion. And with discussion, growth.

Carl Friedrich Gauss

2009-04-06T08:32:00.001-06:00

There is a story about the 7-year-old, German, mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss. He responded to his teacher, Büttner's, request to sum the first 100 counting numbers (1 to 100). While his classmates toiled, Carl wrote a single number and handed it in. He was correct.

Gauss on the old Deutsche Mark

When asked how he did it, he explained that there were 50 pairs of numbers adding to 101. So, the sum must be 50 x 101 = 5050.

Here's he formula: (n*(n+1))/2

That version requires an even quantity and the first integer is 1.

For example: start easy and ask yourself:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = ?

Here's Gauss applied:

[1 + 10 = 11]
[2 + 9 = 11]
[3 + 8 = 11]
[4 + 7 = 11]
[5 + 6 = 11]

So, it's 11 five times; that's 55, right? Check a calculator.

This simple formula has saved me lots of time.

Is Satan Omnipresent?

2009-03-27T11:45:00.001-06:00

You know that question: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? That question has two problems: 1) the answer is not important, and 2) it asks how many spiritual creatures can exist in a physical space – which is also meaningless because there is no direct correlation.

So what is omnipresent? It means all places at one time. But if you have no physical boundaries, can you effectively be in all PHYSICAL places at one time? Honestly, it’s not clear, and it’s defiantly not addressed in the Bible. But it’s like asking if the wind can be in more than one state at one time… or even more than one country… or even all places.

But since omnipresent is one of the three core attributes of God, many believers feel compelled to NOT prescribe it to Satan. They say, “Satan is not omnipresent, only God is omnipresent.” I don’t think they can base this on anything but their gut and weak reasoning. Is there a scripture I am missing? However, they could be right. I recognize that.

Okay, let’s assume that Satan is NOT omnipresent.

Here’s my next questions: is Satan multi-present? Don’t we assume Satan is either flawlessly efficient or multi-present? Consider how everyone feels Satan is working against them in their lives. How could this be true with 6 billion people on the planet? I mean, seriously. Is he tirelessly working or does he have something special to help him?

I will admit there is a possibility that Satan only tempts a few and the rest of us, our sinful nature tempts us. Maybe.

Now, you might answer, that’s why Satan has demons. They do his work. If this were true, we would not call Satan the father of lies and the great tempter (both referenced in the Bible) but instead we would consider him the foreman of liars and the coordinator of tempters. But, we don’t. He seems to be the perpetrator.

There’s another option. And it’s not unreasonable. Perhaps Satan is outside of time. Perhaps, indeed, all spiritual creatures are outside physical time. It sure sounds reasonable. And it would allow for a kind of multi-presence without having to be anything but one place at one “time”. But again, this is conjecture, not scripture.

But then we see the timeline. Satan doesn’t seem to understand the endgame. How could he not – AND be outside of time? The arrival of the messiah, salvation through Jesus’ crucifixion. Surely Satan would have tried to prevent Jesus’ death if he could have seen what it meant next. Maybe he did try, I don’t know, but nothing eludes to that in the Bible.

So, I think we have four choices:

1. Satan is omnipresent or multi-present

2. Satan is outside of physical time

3. Satan is tirelessly efficient almost to perfection

4. Satan is spiritual so he can be in all physical places at once

None of these really rest very well with me. They all seem to go against the Sunday School answers I have heard. But nothing else seems to make sense.

Any ideas?

You only owe $35,959!

2009-03-16T10:25:00.001-06:00

I get confused by micro economics. When it comes to macro economics, my ears bleed. Still, it seems a simple guy like me knows more than the average politician: debt isn’t good. But since 1791 America has had a debt. Back then it was a cute little $75M (which to them probably seemed ridiculous). But today our debt grows by an astounding $3.75B a day. That’s right, a day.

Now, we could get out of debt quickly. We just need every single citizen (and those here illegally could help out, too) to pay their share – a miserable $35,959. Are you in? Now for me, with a family of 5, I need only pay $179,795. I have the check written and am just wondering where to send it. :) That poor lady who just had the octuplets – she’ll need to sell more books.

Honestly, my stomach hurts over the whole matter. We’re either going to print money to “pay” our way out of this, go to war, or forfeit. Are there other options? We certainly can’t afford to actually PAY our debt. And I don’t think we can just walk away from our house like many homeowners are choosing these days. The numbers defy imagination.

Below, I have put together a simple chart from government data here (http://tinyurl.com/3xjc7y) to see just how silly this mess really is. I’ve bracketed presidencies so we can do some blaming and name calling. That should help us feel better for a period. Meanwhile, our debt has increased about $100M while you were reading this – unless you are a speed reader, then it’s more like $50M.

So, give credit where credit is due. Of the past four presidents (not counting spend-happy Obama) the three republicans have been terrible. I give Reagan a pass, he ended the cold war with crazy spending. I give George Bush a pass, he had Reagan’s spending to curb. Bill Clinton had a pretty nice economy to swim in – and holds the best record of the four. But George W. Bush somehow has managed to more than double our debt to a whopping $10 trillion dollars in 8 short years. Can you imagine? Why haven’t we stormed the capital and burned it down yet?

To me, President Obama doesn’t offer much hope here. His Keynesian economics will spend us out of this recession. Will it work? It’s too late to ask that. He’s there and we’re going to see. It’s a real science experiment. The resulting debt might rival Bush. I hope not. I hope it all works. I hope we are successful. I hope we recover. I hope we kill the deficit. I hope we pay down the debt. But, seriously.

I see now that we probably should have elected Ross Perot when we actually had a chance. His nerd-like approach to economics might have been a good jolt of medicine to America. When he said “hear that big sucking sound? that’s American jobs going overseas” he was more prophetic than any of us would want to really admit now. But the charts… oh man, he needed a publicist.

Seriously, where do I send my check?

Crowns in Heaven

2009-03-09T16:32:00.003-06:00

You might have a reward waiting for you in heaven! It sounds like a spam email. But it's true. The Bible makes it clear that while Jesus is preparing a place, he is also planning to present a reward.

Consider this text:

"Rejoice and be extremely glad, because your reward in heaven is great!" Matthew 5: 12

Consider this text:

"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people in order to be noticed by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." Matthew 6: 1

Consider this text:

"Stop storing up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but keep on storing up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal," Matthew 6: 18

Consider this text:

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me." Matthew 19: 21

Consider this text:

"Don't be afraid of what you are going to suffer. Look! The devil is going to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested. For ten days you will undergo suffering. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the victor's crown of life." Revelation 2: 10

Those passages indicate something that some are given as a reward in heaven. It can clearly be great, it can be absent, it is secure, it can be from selflessness, and it can be from faithfulness.

But what it is?

Insofar as this reward, we know it is not equal. Everyone doesn't get the same thing or the same portion. But in heaven there is a shared reward. Jesus Christ is the reward. And, in a sense, he is all we really need. Our "goodness" which may result in reward will be so clearly a result of Christ's love, we won't bear to claim it. Throwing our crowns at Jesus' feet will be very easy.

But don't forget, we know something else about Jesus.

To him, people are very important. He cared enough to die for them. And in heaven, when we are regenerate and of a truly renewed mind and heart, people will also be very important to us.

Finally, for those whose salvation in which we played some role, we will receive a tremendous pleasure in their salvation and presence also in heaven. That may very well be the nature of our reward for obedient service and faithfulness to Jesus Christ on earth.

If it is, I am satisfied.

Accept that Blessing as a Duty

2009-02-02T15:49:00.001-07:00

Allow me to put on my "old prude" hat for a moment. I have wanted to write this blog for more than a year, but it's not easy to write. Recent technologies sort of pushed me to it.

A client of my previous employer was a local ISV who created an "eraser" for your computer. It erased evidence of visiting pornography web sites from your computer. And, they were printing money – it was "flying off the shelves" (if such a thing is possible on the Internet).

But, alas, since Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox X internet users have these tools built into their internet browsers. Erase for free.

There's no denying the untoward application of these functions. But if we could meter their usage, it's a fair gamble they are routinely and universally exercised.

With the forthcoming Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 browsers, we have simplified clandestine internet surfing with "InPrivate" and "Incognito" respectively.

These features launch a special browser instance whose tracks are absolutely invisible. They keep no cookies, no cache, and mask their browser string to the consuming sites.

It will now be possible to visit pornography sites on the internet without the fear of getting caught – other than someone walking up behind you or sampling HTTP traffic.

We know a lot about pornography.

Everyone knows pornography is prevalent and incredibly available. But it is also addictive, manipulating the brain to require regular stimulation. Therapies and groups exist to help victims.

We know pornography is destructive as it infests lives, families, and souls. It corrupts minds with violent and distorted images, and unwinds the trust between couples.

We know it preys on children. 5,000 Indian little girls are kidnapped into forced prostitution every year. Russian and Chinese (all Asian) numbers are higher. They are victims of sexual commerce.

Experts estimate 2 million children (mostly girls) are enslaved in sex trafficking right now. That's nearly one for every 100 Americans.

If these girls live to their teens, they are physically subjugated, chemically controlled, and brutally malnourishment to keep them skinny, dependent, and afraid.

According to the International Justice Mission, many enslaved prostitutes live in closets and small rooms with other slaves and service more than thirty customers a day. It's horrific.

These hopeless girls, especially in Russian and Slavic nations, are commonly the subjects of Internet pornography videos – forced to participate, raped, terrified.

But pornography also victimizes teens. Sites advertise "teens" and other youthful adjectives to suggest usurping child pornography laws. The message is: exploit the young, don't protect them.

Girls are approached in malls and other safe places. They are solicited to pose for money, eventually graduating to sex. Drugs and violence are often used to entrap victims into a new lifestyle.

Run-away children, neglected children, abused children, and mentally disturbed children are the most at risk. They are "taken in", accepted, and then victimized into prostitution and pornography.

Now, we have to consider. Is there a virtue to pornography?

What is pornography? I define it like this: nudity or false intimacy for the purpose of sexual arousal or pleasure. I know that many popular movies, television shows, and songs would qualify. I am not afraid of that. The escalation of the industry is the propagation of its victimization.

There is no virtue in pornography, because it requires a victim.

The next time you are tempted, the next time you consider the anonymity of the Internet to allow you to consume pornography, don't consider YOU – consider the thousands of victims.

Protect your mind, protect your soul, and protect the hopeless others. Were you born into any other circumstance you, too, might have been a victim. Accept that blessing as a duty.

Is it okay to eat pigs?

2008-12-18T14:16:00.008-07:00

A friend recently asked, if the Old Testament says:

Leviticus 11:7 - And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.

Then, why do Christians still eat pork?

Here's my response:

For one, we can deduce that because the early New Testament church did not constrain new believers with the Old Testament Jewish practices that we are similarly not compelled.

Second, there's an overwhelming theme throughout the New Testament of unseen virtue contrasting people's almost valueless external actions and rituals.

Then, there's the issue of moral versus ceremonial law. Many Jewish observances are contextually relevant to their culture or time and do not transcend to others.

An example of ceremonial law would be "don't wear clothes made of two materials woven together" and an example of a moral law would be "do not steal".

Cerimonial "laws" are basically regulations constraining cultural/contemporary activities to best serve and coexist with a given environment and circumstance.

Cerimonial laws are true for a time, moral laws are always true. For example, mixed material is foolishness today. It's purposes have past. But stealing is never right. You may "justify" stealing, but you could never "honor" it.

Nonetheless, this disenfranchisement of the Old Testament to New Testament believers broadly removes provisional, ceremonial requirements while maintaining moral law. When Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it, his meaning had more to do with moral law and prophetic fulfillment - not what we eat or wear.

By itself, though, that's not perfectly clear.

So, consider these verses (Colossians 2):

14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Ethical Decision-Making

2008-12-08T17:15:00.001-07:00

When you have a choice, how do you choose? You choose with the help of your Conscience. The conscience has two roles. It links man to the Natural Law and reminds us of violations.

Natural Law

C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law the Law of Human Nature. It is cannon of universal goods and evils. Like Aquinas, he described it as mathematics – in every culture 2 + 2 equals 4. Similarly, in every culture victimizing the innocent is evil and helping the needy is good. These simple examples belong to a body of truths – the Natural Law, morality, or a moral system.

Thomas Acquinas believed Natural Law was both in harmony with and discovered by human rationality. We can realize Natural Law through reason. We can appreciate it through reason. Moral Law ultimately makes sense to man. But, our broken perspective sometimes makes this difficult.

If we were to summarize the Natural Law, as Lewis and Aquinas have, it is to minimize evil and maximize good. Obviously, we want to eliminate evil and institute good – but our brokenness limits us. Natural Law then is the flagship of our failure and a beacon our potential. It is also the promise of life to come.

Right versus Good

Contemporary ethics tend to blur right and good. Typically, right is the ethical "ought", and good is the "should". Ought is the decision outside of the situation, and should is the decision inside the context. They are theoretically the same, but practically different.

Consider how wrong action can have an essence of good without being right. This essence misleads the ethically weak to categorize wrong action as right action.

Moral dilemma

A moral dilemma occurs for two reasons. The first is because the actor has to choose between a wrong they want and a good they do not want. This is not a true dilemma. It is a struggle the actor wrestles in his own heart – and is typically founded in human selfishness.

This type of moral dilemma is typically covered with phrases like "I did what I had to do", "I have to look out for number one", "The ends justify the means", "There's no such thing as a right/wrong decision", and "It's not all wrong." When the consequence is minor, these decisions are overlooked by a degraded ethic.

The second type of moral dilemma is true dilemma. The choices available are bad, bad, or bad. They may be degrees of good, but no right option. Such a lose/lose scenario is not unheard of. Medical ethics are the best examples of lose/lose scenarios – and come out most in "applied" ethics.

In such dilemmas, actors choose between minimizing overall pain, minimizing competing pain, or minimizing personal pain. In simple Epicurus ethics, minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure is paramount. But maximizing pleasure is bedrock to selfishness.

Indeed, a robust body of ethics endures personal pain for a good – short circuiting pain to be a good itself. Firemen are the simplest example. They choose pain for good. The Epicurus perspective is most flawed in the projection of pleasure as tautologically good.

Aristotle discussed this. He said pleasure should be pleasurable for right reasons. A man raping a woman may feel physical pleasure, but will never feel honor, pride, or rightness from it; each buttress rightful pleasure. To that end, there are two pleasures – a rightful and an impersonating pleasure.

Teleology

Teleology focuses on outcome. It is "the ends justify the means". Many feel beneficial outcomes overshadow pain/evil induced by choices. It is shallow excuse-making. It is the human condition – children exhibit it without needing a teacher. "No harm no foul" reflects this; you see it in lots of CIA movies.

Teleology's flaw plays out in rape, molestation, abuse, genocide, and holocaust. No one approaches a woman being raped, cheering her up by telling her some potential/brilliant outcome. Neither would one approach a child being molested or Jew in a gas chamber. No outcome justifies horror.

Spock said in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" and proceeded to kill himself for to save other lives. Was he wrong? He wasn't. This is a "normative" ethic. And, there is a difference between self-sacrifice and victimizing the innocent.

But couldn't it happen that a rape or genocide result in a good? Yes. And this is not a contradiction. It does not justify evil, nor diminish it. This dividend of good from the investment of evil is a testament to good and its power to overcome – not the power of evil to create good.

But Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, earthquakes, or plagues could result in greater good. That's true. But, conversely, those are not evils. They are outside the discussion of ethics altogether. Unless James Bond-style you cause an earthquake, then we should talk about that choice.

What's the opposite of teleology?

It is deontology; focusing on right action, motivation, and immediate impact. Fundamentally, deontology is duty. It is what you "ought" to do without consideration of pleasure or justifiable outcome. It is antithetical to selfishness. To deontology, the means are the ends.

Prince Charming, from the fairy tale, is an excellent deontological example. Chivalry is duty-minded. Soldiers can be deontological in their ethics – and teleological. The truth is, anyone CAN be dutiful to what is right. Those experience rightful pleasure in faithfulness to Natural Law.

What's the source of the Natural Law?

God is the author of the Natural Law. But that's a longer topic. However, if a godless universe's physical complexity is to interleave successfully with boundless life, the source of Natural Law must the same as that which enables the interconnectedness of things. To that end, Natural Law's universality is a necessity.

Wow.

Here's our mountain home

2008-12-04T12:45:00.001-07:00

We live on Conifer Mountain. We face a smaller mountain Kyndall calls Little Mountain. The trail head to "summit" this healthy hill is a few steps from our driveway. When my brother, HiC, came for Thanksgiving, we made the trek. From the top you can see our house. This picture is the view of our house from the top of Little Mountain. (photo credit to Jeff)

If you look closely, you can see my white Mazda in the driveway. Look even closer and you can see the setup where we were frying our turkey for Thanksgiving. I can hardly make out the latter. :)

Enter Star Trek Next

2008-10-24T16:39:00.001-06:00

Just as I was getting psyched for the next James Bond, along comes updates from the Star Trek set.

Above: Captain Kirk helms the bridge.

In 2005, JJ Abrams, the mastermind behind Alias - my previously favorite weekly - agreed to resuscitate the dwindling Star Trek franchise. I, for one, could not have been more please. Abrams directed Mission Impossible 3 after Tom Cruise became addicted to Alias. During filming, Abram's series, Lost, appeared on televisions, panicking us about numbers and polar bears in Hawaii. It was beautiful.

And so what's the news? Time travel. Seriously, can Star Trek be Star Trek without time travel? It's hard to imagine. Still, the delicate topic seems born in the Star Trek universe - and refined therein. Star Trek is science fiction for smart people, at first. After a little watching, it is science fiction for deeper, even emotional people. As Romulans wrestle with early Star Trek characters in the forthcoming movie (May 2009), I'll relish the reinvigoration of a universe that molded my childhood.

You might already know who Randy Pausche is. He wrote The Last Lecture and since died from pancreatic cancer. He was quite a man, very positive. How much more the better is Star Trek? How much more the greater can I brag on Star Trek? But for to have Randy cameo the film? Kudos to JJ Abrams for having enabling such a treasure in the canon of Star Trek optimism. Frankly, I'm psyched.

Separation of Church and State

2008-10-23T11:10:00.001-06:00

I heard Whoopi Goldberg in a John McCain interview rudely demand, "Do you believe in separation of church and state? Do you believe in separation of church and state?" He answered "yes" with a follow-up about faith's inevitable role. Nonetheless, I imagine if McCain were Kabbalah, et al Whoopi would have down-shifted her attack.

Why do some feel "separation of church and state" (which insists the government cannot force religion on its people) means we must divorce our moral worldview from political decision-making? How can I determine what is right, without first considering what is right? Isn't it a first principle of sorts for decision-making? Am I missing something?

I heard someone ask – why does your religion create laws that influence me? That's because my religion is my worldview; I believe it is true. Everyone believes their worldview is true. Those who believe many worldviews are true believe the "many worldviews are true" worldview is true. You see? If you believe something, you have a duty (and right) to act on accordingly. Don't you?

Here's a quote:

"Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King—the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity."

What do you think of that remarkable quote?