Friday, August 20, 2010

My Thoughts On Mosque At Ground Zero Controversy

Until yesterday I had not really been paying much attention to the Mosque being built at Ground Zero controversy. I knew it was in the works. I had thoughts about it, but did not realize the scope of the details concerning it.

My primary thought was that the same rights that protect any religion from building anything protected them as well and to forbid one risks forbidding all. However, I now see that there is more to the story.

Apparently, according to Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it is possible that funding for this project is coming from terrorist groups in the Middle East. Moreover, New York officials have asked in an effort to promote healing and good will for the Imam to come to the negotiation table regarding the placement of this Mosque. The request has been met with silence.

Moreover, this Imam stated in a 60 Minutes interview that while he could not say that America was responsible for the events of 9/11, we were an accessory to the tragedy. On Sean Hannity’s show, last night, Giuliani and the Attorney General of New York expressed great concern about this project continuing at the designated location.

They agreed that unless there was proof of illegal activity in the funding of this building that it was well within their rights. However, just because you have the right to do something legally, it doesn’t make it ethically right. Respect for the families who lost people on that infamous day ought to lend to renegotiation of the location of this building.

Just the same, the actions of one Imam and those associated with him, ought not cause anger towards other Muslim people who would not think of trying to build there. Giuliani even said, if it was any other Muslim group from the many who have Mosques in New York, he would not be as concerned. There seems to be something peculiar in the spirit behind this choice that has Americans across the political spectrum quiet disturbed.

At the same time, Jesus said to love your enemy and to do good to those who persecute you. So if this is a strategic placement to further unsettle Americans, then while there is a place for publicly expressing our dismay and, for some, even anger, there is also a greater place to do so with respect and love. That does seem to be the ultimate paradox, to love your enemy and to do good to those who do wrong to you. What would that look like in this situation? How does a nation, not just an individual, practice this wisely?

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Note To Readers

I have been busy writing, just not here on my blog. I have been working to increase my articles at Helium.com as well as polishing some writing for other potential publishing.

I have also been busy caring for my niece and nephews while my sister-in-law works. My husband and I enjoy having the three of them over several nights a week. It’s been a learning experience, and a lot of fun including a trip the zoo, the beach, and the movies.

Needless to say, my blog writing time has been suffering. As I do not have a topic in mind to write about, I thought I would just give a life update explaining my silence.

Feel free to visit my Helium link for my recent articles, although the majority of them are written in the Christian channel to a Christian audience. Still you may find some of interest. I have about 230 articles to choose from dating back two years.

As soon as I finish one of the several books I am reading I will do a book review. I think I picked too many intellectual books to read at once. One is a fictional dialog between Kant and Socrates, one explores mythologies of the world, and one is of a theological nature. Just the same, I should be posting here again soon.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Musings on Mythological Origins

I am reading a book entitled Parallel Myths by J.F. Bierlein. I have only read the first couple chapters. It is fascinating to discover how many everyday words are derived from mythology. Common words like cereal, chaos, chronology, days of the weeks, months of the year, and even the number of days in a year all have a mythological origin.

While stories are seemingly given preeminence in today’s postmodern culture, it is really only a reemergence of what as been common to humanity for centuries. We live in a culture that values creatively weaved stories over cold facts. Lectures, essays, research papers, and the like, pale in comparison to those who can weave their message into a creative story or recounting of a personal experience.

Just the same I have a love for both forms of communication. I enjoy the lectures, essays, and research papers as well as the eloquently fashioned stories and personal testimonies.

The etymology of many a word has a story behind it that gives it greater context and meaning than the definition found in a dictionary. These words traveled down through oral stories of mythic proportions into words we have no context for other than our common usage.

Pouring a bowl of cereal we do not give any thought to the Roman god Ceres meaning Mother of Barley. Nor do we think of the Muses (the patroness spirits of culture) when we enter a museum. Just the same, these words bear a history worth investigating.

The romantic as well as the brainiac in me beckons me to learn about the origin of words. Thus, I read on to discovery their history as I delve into a fascinating book concerning world mythology.

Causes of Atheism

There seems to be some interest in my Helium article on the causes of atheism. The link to this article is here.

Note: this article is not speaking in reference to individual reasons to align with atheism, but with great brevity addresses the cultural and historical context of atheism and new atheism. This is by no means a comprehensive article.

I chose to address it in the historical movement context rather than citing various reasons individual people are atheists for those answers are diverse and I would do them an injustice to lump them into a handful of reasons.

Just the same, all feedback is appreciated.

Monday, July 19, 2010

True Hope

True hope is not wishful thinking. Hope is a product of faith in God. The first verse of Hebrews chapter eleven elaborates that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Scripture also records that Jesus is our hope of glory. All these eternal things are not ethereal concepts, but substances of the nature of God personified in Christ. Hope, faith, love, truth, life all of these are in Christ.

When I say these things are in Christ, substance of His substance, I am not referring to wishing, blind acceptance when there is no evidence, emotions of romance or affection, doctrines, or biology. I am talking about eternal substantial hope, faith, love, truth, and life. I am talking about them in their true form. A form that is available for us to experience tangibly in Christ.

We do this when we encounter Him. Each encounter with Him reproduces what He is eternally into us. Thus, we have hope because we connect with His substantive reality of being. Our hope is not wishful thinking, but something so real it resonates within us and awakens us to the eternal reality.

Christians believe with such tenacity because we have been made alive on the inside and our inner man knows the reality of that which we profess.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Growing Healthy Children

My 7 year old niece was a bundle of energy the other night. She would not settle down to bed. My husband asked her if she wanted to settle down, or if she needed something to do. She ignored him and continued her rambunctious actions. He calmly requested she accompany him into the other room where she would be given something to do. Somewhat confused at the request, she followed, unsure of what awaited her. He picked up a broom and dust pan and handed it to her as she pensively looked up at him. At his request, she began to sweep the kitchen. He checked on her in about five minutes and asked her if she was tired now or if she needed something else to do. She was tired now.


Danny Silk’s book Loving Your Kids on Purpose provided the illustration of how to lead children without resorting to threats and punishment. He teaches how to avoid the “I’m bigger than you, so you have to listen to me and do what I say.” My husband and I have borrowed from the instruction we learned in this book on multiple occasions with our nieces and nephews. The difference is astounding. It really works.


The two biggest principles illustrated by Silk are to give children safe choices rather than telling them what to do. Secondly, he advocates allowing the consequences to be received by children rather than punishment. For example, his daughter leaves her lunch at home that she was given the responsibility to pack and take to school. She calls her mom. Guess what? Mom is going to allow the consequences to fall upon the child. She will not drive the lunch to school. The child now has to learn how to procure for herself a lunch by either speaking to the office about loaning her money for her lunch, or sharing lunch with a friend. She chooses the latter. Moreover, she never forgets her lunch at home again.


She never had to face an angry parent who was displeased with her. She never had to be grounded. She simply endured the consequence of her action.


Adults primarily live in a world of consequences rather than punishments. If we fail to pay our electric bill, the electric company will simply turn off the power. If we fail to show up for work, we will lose our job, not as a punishment, but as a consequence.


Children are fast learners and they are very smart. Allowing the consequence to befall them will enable them to learn early in life that each action has either a positive or negative result. If they are sheltered from the consequence they will not learn to develop maturely in that area. If they are met with disdain and punishment they will only fight harder to do the thing which is forbidden. Such is the rebellious human nature.


If however, they are met with unrestrained permissiveness where all behavior is permitted unchecked and without consequence, they will become unruly undisciplined adults. Consequence is good and helpful in maturing a child into a responsible adult fully capable of managing their own freedom, hence adept at self-governing. Such an adult will not encounter the consequence of the law of the land, for he has learned to govern himself without need of anyone parenting him any longer.


There is a proper place for punishment, but it is typically reserved for out right rebellion rather than child like behavior. Rebellion is not something that is good for the child and proper punishment fitting to the level of rebellion should be delivered out of love for the child struggling with this in his heart.


The job of the parent is to prepare the child to live in freedom thereby being one who does the right thing when no one is looking. Moreover, the parent is to cultivate this into their child’s very being rather than just their external behavior by protecting their child’s heart. They do this by having their child’s trust and respect, for a child who honors and respects his mother and father will enjoy a long and prosperous life. This attitude of the child speaks both to the parents’ and the child’s character and heart nature.


The atmosphere the parents cultivate for the children will be reproduced in their lives. If the parent cultivates an atmosphere of royalty where each child is a Prince or Princess in training to be a King or Queen they will grow up to be thus. However, if an atmosphere is created where the children are managed as inferior members of the household and are seen as more trouble and hard work then that will be the reality that defines their identity.


The parents set the tone for what kind of atmosphere will be reproduced for many generations onward. Many times, parents have their own atmospheres that need adjusting before they can extend a healthy atmosphere around their children. In order to make this adjustment they need to take time to get their own hearts and perspectives in line with what is true first.


Children are treasures from heaven. If you cannot look at them and have hope and joy for who they are and who they are growing up to be, something needs adjusting and that something starts with the parents and then is reproduced by them into the children. Today is a new day to start fresh with a true perspective and right heart.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Retiring the Term Open Minded

I leafed through a News Week magazine today and read the cover story on Sarah Palin’s evangelical following. The story itself is not what started the thinking that led me to writing this post. Near the end of the article the word “open minded” was used in the author claiming that evangelical Christians have not become open minded concerning abortion.


This post is not a post about abortion or Sarah Palin, but a post about the often misappropriated words “open minded.”


I looked up the definition of “open minded” on dictionary.com. It means “having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.” It also means “unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.”


It would seem that this word is often misused. How is someone who is firmly against something less open minded than someone who is firmly for it? Is it not more accurate to say that both parties have a prejudice towards their way of thinking or else they wouldn’t hold to it so adamantly?


This seems to be a term thrown against those who have traditional values. Because the values are longstanding and traditional rather than new, hip, and revolutionary, the bearers of these values are seen as closed minded rather than open minded.

A person can be open minded and still be more wrong than a person who is close minded. The level of commitment to the idea has no bearing on whether it is true or not, thus such terms are not helpful or accurate.


I think it would be better to cease the use of such terms that only carry negative connotation and do not aid in accurately evaluating a value or idea as good, bad, valuable, useless, etc. To throw in words like “closed minded” or “open minded” creates a false perception that avoids the actual issue as to if something is sound wisdom or a harmful idea.


What do you think?

Monday, June 14, 2010

Thoughts On Oil Spill

Reflecting on the current oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, I am reminded of how people want someone to blame. In the midst of a crisis and well after there will be much discussion of whose fault the crisis was and whose responsibility it was to prevent the crisis.


I do not think we have even begun to understand the magnitude of the current oil spill crisis nor its lasting effects. To see so many pictures of birds struggling for breath trapped in the oily mire makes me not want to turn on the news. However, my desire to not be ignorant of the unfolding tragedy and to try and find my roll in contributing to the solution compels me to watch.


I was talking to a friend yesterday about how people are proclaiming a boycott against BP. We agreed this response could hurt the situation more. If BP does not have the money to pay to clean up this mess and provide relief for those who lost their livelihood, then this will become a further burden upon the victims and the taxpayers. The government is overburdened enough. It should be the responsibility of the business to clean up its mess and this requires a sufficient flow of funds.


I can’t even imagine what the executives of BP are going through trying to deal with such a large disaster with the public opinion railing against them every step of the way. It is not that the public doesn’t have a right to be outraged. It is just that any person or group of people with this kind of pressure and responsibility must have an enormous weight upon their shoulders with little hope of relief in sight.


I applaud the thousands of volunteers offering their assistance. It is frustrating for all to see that they are not yet being well utilized as no one has ever organized such a large clean up before. The legalities and red tape do not help the situation.


It is the duty of an organization, person, business, government, etc. to own up to its mistakes, but it is also the responsibility of the rest of us to forgive them and move beyond the blame casting to solutions. While more mistakes are sure to be made in a situation so mind boggling, we need to have an attitude of grace and look for ways that we can be part of the solution rather than adding to the problem.


We are not under the pressures that the leaders of BP and their consulting scientists are under. Most of us are not living in the areas damaged by the oil spill and are not standing looking out at the devastation knowing America awaits them to do something about it. The loss of life, jobs, and wildlife weighs upon them as what may be the greatest ecological disaster in the world continues to grow as they struggle to find solutions.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

It's All About Jesus

I just read an article on Helium.com by an atheist on the topic of how atheists view apologetics. I agreed with the writer’s assessment for the most part of the failure of at least the majority of what is classified as apologetics.


Apologetics is typically a method of addressing philosophies and religions of the world from a Christian perspective with an attempt to overcome the arguments with Christian arguments. One of the good things about Christian apologetics is that it shows that Christianity is open to being challenged and has thinkers who want to address the challenge. Instead of meeting someone’s questions with violence or condemnation, we meet them with reason and explanation.


This is not to say that you will not find Christians ill equipped to give any reason for what they believe and emotionally angry and unreceptive to any criticism. This certainly happens way too often. Some will act like the questioner has mocked or blasphemed their God just by asking an honest question.


However, I am trying to think of another belief system that utilizes a philosophical defense such as apologetics. The only one that comes to mind really is atheism. I know atheists don’t call their philosophy “belief.” The point is atheists have many books and teaching DVD’s giving reasons for why they are atheists. I can’t think of any group outside of Christians and Atheists who do this on any kind of large scale.


On one hand I think being able to give an answer about what a person maintains as truth is very important and thus this is a good reason for apologetics no matter what philosophy is being presented.


The term “apologetics” comes from the Greek word “apologia” meaning to give a legal defense. This is why Socrates gave his famous Apology. He wasn’t saying he was sorry, he was giving a reasoned defense for his actions and beliefs. Thus, any person can give an “apology” for what they hold to be true and this is a good thing.


However, the problem that arises with Christian Apologetics is that Apologists often spend so much time defending doctrine and theology about God we often lose sight of the Person that doctrine and theology points to. If it is mere argument without the Presence of God filling the words, it really matters not.


“The fundamental truth about reality is truth about a Person,” wrote Alvin Plantinga is a book I am reading. I would revise that statement to “The fundamental truth about reality is the Person of Truth.” The truth isn’t that which is about the Person, but the Person Himself, who is known by the name of Jesus.


You can memorize every verse in the Bible and believe in your head every one of them, but it profits you nothing. The essence, the nature of Truth is not the Bible, but the one the Bible points to.


I could spend decades giving a description, and defense about the truth of Jesus and it have no consequence as it gives the illusion that people need only to know the right things in their mind rather than connect with the Right Being Himself. Apologetics has limits for it is not the way to Christ. It is a method of reasoning about Him, but is not the path to Him. The path to Him is Him. Nothing can substitute for that.


Ravi Zacharias, a well-known apologists/Christian thinker, says that his ministry is to clear away some of the confusion and cobwebs about Christianity so that intellectual arguments do not stand in the way of someone’s heart connecting with Jesus. But he makes no claims for apologetics being a substitute for the Spirit of God. The only way to Jesus is Jesus.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Substantive Faith

(This article is designed for a Christian audience, but all are welcome to read and consider the content. It's something I composed because I saw something this past week about the nature of faith that I did not understand before and this article comes from that revelation, so to speak, but it is the first time I transposed it from my heart and mind to "pen and paper.")


We were created for a Kingdom of faith and belief not of doubt and fear. It wasn’t that Adam and Eve needed to doubt Satan, it was that they needed to believe God. Satan was presenting a false reality, if they were living the true reality and believing accordingly, the deceptive offer would have been inconsequential in comparison. The thing that got them into trouble was doubting God, rather than, believing Satan. They could not have believed the lie, if they had not doubted the truth.


Christians are often conditioned to be skeptics rather than believers. We are fearfully skeptical of being susceptible to anything false—so much so that we live according to that fear reality instead of the true reality. More than fear of being taken in by a false religion, we fear being taken in by a false doctrine or a false prophet.


It is the Holy Spirit that leads us into all truth. If we are living in a place of believing God and being led by His Spirit, His Spirit will witness to our spirit the truth in which we are to abide.


We ought to be able to see truth in all things in all forms because Satan cannot create anything, he can only distort what is already real. It’s like opening a clam and finding a pearl. It may need a little cleaning, but a real pearl is still there.


Bill Johnson often states that under the old covenant you touch a leper and you become unclean, but under the new covenant you touch a leper and the leper becomes clean. I think this principal holds true for other things as well. We can touch something false and the falsity will fall away to reveal the true glory of the thing.


Click here to read the full article at Helium.com.