The Bible tells us that the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much.
Are these adjectives (effectual, fervent and righteous) prerequisites for a prayer to "accomplish" much? I know I don't meet the "righteous" one.
Guess that's why I'm glad the Holy Spirit makes intercession for me with groaning which cannot be uttered. I'm pretty sure He's righteous, and that His prayers are effectual and fervent.
Only problem is -- odds are -- He tends to pray for what I need, not what I want.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The Few Versus the Many
It is usually foolish for a person to accept an accountant's evaluation of electronic theory over that of an electrical engineer. Few do this.
It is usually foolish for a person to accept a theologian's evaluation of evolutionary theory over that of a evolutionary biologist. Many do this.
What's the difference between the two? The first threatens few. The second threatens many.
It is usually foolish for a person to accept a theologian's evaluation of evolutionary theory over that of a evolutionary biologist. Many do this.
What's the difference between the two? The first threatens few. The second threatens many.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
More on Faith
Words like faith and love have picked up a lot of deceptive meanings over the centuries. Their inaccurate (but assumed) definitions bring much unnecessary harm to many people. The Bible advises us that Satan is the "Father of Lies" and confusing people about what words like faith and love really mean has to be one of his greatest successes.
For example, we grunt and groan to "believe" things that are naturally unbelievable (like eternal life) -- because we feel God requires it of us. He does not require us to believe such things. To do so would be asking us to do what, in many cases, is impossible for us to do.
Unfortunately, this has led many to fight against or deny their doubts. Even more tragic, it has led others to become atheists. Neither is necessary, and it is certainly not what our Creator intended.
He asks us to HOPE for such things and to ACCEPT them by faith. There is a BIG difference, and understanding that difference will free our minds and bring peace to our hearts. We can then cease to make unreasonable demands of ourselves and others -- demands which bring harm to the cause of the Gospel.
Faith is choosing God because He is what we hope for, not what we are convinced of due to the massive amount of evidence. Faith requires us to accept things based more upon hope than upon evidence -- and that makes the world call us fools.
Some would say, "Faith is trusting without any doubt whatsoever and this is how you should pray."
I say that faith is the substance of things HOPED for. Until hope is realized, there will always be room for doubt. But that's OK, because by grace we are saved through our faith and not through our intellect.
I accept Christ as my Savior from eternal death, not because I'm intellectually convinced He is, but because I have enough personal evidence to hope He is.
For example, we grunt and groan to "believe" things that are naturally unbelievable (like eternal life) -- because we feel God requires it of us. He does not require us to believe such things. To do so would be asking us to do what, in many cases, is impossible for us to do.
Unfortunately, this has led many to fight against or deny their doubts. Even more tragic, it has led others to become atheists. Neither is necessary, and it is certainly not what our Creator intended.
He asks us to HOPE for such things and to ACCEPT them by faith. There is a BIG difference, and understanding that difference will free our minds and bring peace to our hearts. We can then cease to make unreasonable demands of ourselves and others -- demands which bring harm to the cause of the Gospel.
Faith is choosing God because He is what we hope for, not what we are convinced of due to the massive amount of evidence. Faith requires us to accept things based more upon hope than upon evidence -- and that makes the world call us fools.
Some would say, "Faith is trusting without any doubt whatsoever and this is how you should pray."
I say that faith is the substance of things HOPED for. Until hope is realized, there will always be room for doubt. But that's OK, because by grace we are saved through our faith and not through our intellect.
I accept Christ as my Savior from eternal death, not because I'm intellectually convinced He is, but because I have enough personal evidence to hope He is.
I Agree
The following words are not mine, but I agree with them. They come from a person I only know as, "hortonthrockmorton".
I am a citizen and a taxpayer. I'm part of the "people" that this government is "by", "of", and "for." The President works for me.
I'm also a Christian. This President has been quite vocal about his Christianity and the role it plays in his politics. When the President behaves in a way that I consider to be inconsistent with Christian principles, it is perfectly legitimate for me to criticize him on those grounds.
When we were attacked by Al Queda, led by Osama bin Laden, under the protection of the Afghani Taliban, I had no objection to Bush taking military action against Al Queda and the Taliban. Neither did virtually anyone else in the world.
We had the sympathy and support of most of the planet. Bush had the opportunity to do real good, to forge a broad, global anti-terrorism effort, and to push the American people into supporting what would be a difficult effort to alleviate one of our most dangerous national security weaknesses - our dependence on foreign oil.
But what did Bush do? He squandered all of it on an unnecessary preemptive war that we now know was not about facing a clear and present danger, but was in fact an experiment in social engineering -- "Let's see if we can create a democratic, Western-friendly nationstate in Iraq and see how that changes the picture in the Middle East." What's more, he launched this social engineering crusade before our effort in Afghanistan was finished, and Afghanistan remains a problem even to this day.
Well, you know what? That is not good leadership. That is not Christian. I personally resent Bush and Cheney and their pro-Iraq war social engineering cabal for each and every American who has been killed or maimed (physically or psychologically) in Iraq. Bush and friends have innocent blood on their hands.
I am a citizen and a taxpayer. I'm part of the "people" that this government is "by", "of", and "for." The President works for me.
I'm also a Christian. This President has been quite vocal about his Christianity and the role it plays in his politics. When the President behaves in a way that I consider to be inconsistent with Christian principles, it is perfectly legitimate for me to criticize him on those grounds.
When we were attacked by Al Queda, led by Osama bin Laden, under the protection of the Afghani Taliban, I had no objection to Bush taking military action against Al Queda and the Taliban. Neither did virtually anyone else in the world.
We had the sympathy and support of most of the planet. Bush had the opportunity to do real good, to forge a broad, global anti-terrorism effort, and to push the American people into supporting what would be a difficult effort to alleviate one of our most dangerous national security weaknesses - our dependence on foreign oil.
But what did Bush do? He squandered all of it on an unnecessary preemptive war that we now know was not about facing a clear and present danger, but was in fact an experiment in social engineering -- "Let's see if we can create a democratic, Western-friendly nationstate in Iraq and see how that changes the picture in the Middle East." What's more, he launched this social engineering crusade before our effort in Afghanistan was finished, and Afghanistan remains a problem even to this day.
Well, you know what? That is not good leadership. That is not Christian. I personally resent Bush and Cheney and their pro-Iraq war social engineering cabal for each and every American who has been killed or maimed (physically or psychologically) in Iraq. Bush and friends have innocent blood on their hands.
Polygamy
What we homosaps have labeled "polygamy" is what natural selection selected to ensure the survival of our species.
What many do not realize is that in nature, it worked both ways. Not only was the strongest male able to dominate the gene pool by mating with multiple females, but the strongest females would jump from one strong male to another to ensure optimal fertilization.
Those instincts are still very much alive and well within us naked apes. Our social (including religious) taboos slow us down -- but can't stop us completely.
Does this unnatural governing of optimal reproduction bode well for the genetic future of our species? Only time will tell.
What many do not realize is that in nature, it worked both ways. Not only was the strongest male able to dominate the gene pool by mating with multiple females, but the strongest females would jump from one strong male to another to ensure optimal fertilization.
Those instincts are still very much alive and well within us naked apes. Our social (including religious) taboos slow us down -- but can't stop us completely.
Does this unnatural governing of optimal reproduction bode well for the genetic future of our species? Only time will tell.
The Dos and the Don'ts
As with our own children's training, our Christian behavior modification begins with a multitude of don'ts. They serve as our schoolmaster until we mature to the point we can understand the reasons behind them. Biblical laws were our spiritual schoolmaster. Mature, Holy Spirit-filled Christians who love others as they love themselves have graduated from spiritual law school.
Little Johnny was given the law, "Do NOT shove your sister!" Years later, an older and wiser Johnny shoved his sister VERY HARD -- and prevented her from being ran over by a train. The firm "don't" was negated by a loving "do". Both the "don't" and the "do" existed to ensure that he behaved in a loving way towards his sister.
Such is a mature Christian's relationship with the law.
I will follow the guidance of God's Holy Spirit within me. If following a law (Biblical or otherwise) causes harm to befall my brother or sister, I will disobey it -- and follow the greater law of love.
Little Johnny was given the law, "Do NOT shove your sister!" Years later, an older and wiser Johnny shoved his sister VERY HARD -- and prevented her from being ran over by a train. The firm "don't" was negated by a loving "do". Both the "don't" and the "do" existed to ensure that he behaved in a loving way towards his sister.
Such is a mature Christian's relationship with the law.
I will follow the guidance of God's Holy Spirit within me. If following a law (Biblical or otherwise) causes harm to befall my brother or sister, I will disobey it -- and follow the greater law of love.
God Bless The USA
God bless the USA and all who dwell within.
What threatens the USA and all who dwell within? What is most likely to harm you, me, and our loved ones? Should we not expect our elected leaders to know the answer to that question -- and to prioritize their efforts accordingly?
A brief Google on the leading causes of death and disability in America would answer that question for anyone, including the President. For example, the odds of you, me, or our loved ones dying of contact with hot tap water is statistically greater over a lifetime than being killed by terrorists.
Virtually all of us will die from heart disease, cancer, drunk drivers, Alzheimers, poverty-related problems, and so on. Such things are the enemy, and logic demands that such things are where our leaders should focus the majority of their attention and our country's finances.
If terrorism or any other factor ever starts climbing the mortality tables, then prioritizing it will be justified. Until then, we can only hope that a leader will be elected who can understand the laws of diminishing returns -- and react less to the laws of the jungle.
What threatens the USA and all who dwell within? What is most likely to harm you, me, and our loved ones? Should we not expect our elected leaders to know the answer to that question -- and to prioritize their efforts accordingly?
A brief Google on the leading causes of death and disability in America would answer that question for anyone, including the President. For example, the odds of you, me, or our loved ones dying of contact with hot tap water is statistically greater over a lifetime than being killed by terrorists.
Virtually all of us will die from heart disease, cancer, drunk drivers, Alzheimers, poverty-related problems, and so on. Such things are the enemy, and logic demands that such things are where our leaders should focus the majority of their attention and our country's finances.
If terrorism or any other factor ever starts climbing the mortality tables, then prioritizing it will be justified. Until then, we can only hope that a leader will be elected who can understand the laws of diminishing returns -- and react less to the laws of the jungle.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Free Will?
Free Will is a logical (and ethological) impossibility. What we have is a simulation of free will, complete with choices and variables, etc. -- just like our American illusion of freedom. But having choices is not the same as having free will. Only with perfect knowledge would our wills be anywhere close to free, and even then our decisions would be constrained by the perfection of our knowledge. (Thanks, Geo).
We want to think we have free will because the alternative is instinctively unnacceptable. In order to feel safe, we need to feel in control of our destiny. Untimately however, our behavior, thoughts, beliefs, and choices will be made in accordance to our programming, both genetic and conditional. My hound dog is genetically programmed to track rabbits. She is also conditionally programmed to stay out of my recliner (at least when I'm around).
We respond to stiumli as do all animals in the manner which natural selection has deemed best suited for the survival of our species. For reasons we have yet to fully understand, this obviously includes the need we have to intellectually pursue answers to unanswerable questions.
We want to think we have free will because the alternative is instinctively unnacceptable. In order to feel safe, we need to feel in control of our destiny. Untimately however, our behavior, thoughts, beliefs, and choices will be made in accordance to our programming, both genetic and conditional. My hound dog is genetically programmed to track rabbits. She is also conditionally programmed to stay out of my recliner (at least when I'm around).
We respond to stiumli as do all animals in the manner which natural selection has deemed best suited for the survival of our species. For reasons we have yet to fully understand, this obviously includes the need we have to intellectually pursue answers to unanswerable questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)