Die and go straight to heaven?

In one of the forums, there was a debate about whether people go to heaven when they die or not. Some participants say that they do while other say sleep until Jesus returns. None of the participants referenced any Bible verses.

I found the following verses:

Luke 16:19-31 seems to imply that Lazarus the beggar went straight to heaven before Jesus returned.

However, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 seems to say the opposite:

According to the Lords own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

If that's the case, there's the question of "Where's the souls of the dead believers during the time between them dying and when Christ returns?"

I dare to suggest the answer is "Nowhere".

They don't have to be anywhere during that time duration.

God's perspective transcend time.

So they can just as well die and rise up immediately at the time when Christ returns.

Thus, they can do both. die and go straight to heaven after dying and go to heaven at the time when Christ returns.

Pure speculation from a physics person... :-)

Algorithm for time synch of multiple data streams

Because I am tired of big corporations acquiring patents and copyrights for everything in sight, I decided to do my best to keep as much in the public domain as possible. So, every time I think of anything that some stupid company can get a patent for, I will create a blog entry for it. So when any company attempt to get a patent for it, I can point at my dated blog entry and prove that the idea is MINE!!!!!!

So, here's my first contribution.

When time synchronizing multiple data streams, the following algorithm may be applied to determine which data stream(s) are behind, which stream(s) are ahead, and which are within tolearance.


e = error tolerance

n = number of data streams

T = array of n time codes (64-bits signed integer), one for each data stream

D = array of n x n time code differences between each data stream

S = array of n status, one for each data stream in which the values
-1 means the data stream is behind
0 means the data stream is within tolerance
1 means the data stream is ahead



// populating the array of time code differences
for ( CurrentStreamIdx = 0 ;
CurrentStreamIdx < n ;
CurrentStreamIdx++
) {

for ( CompareStreamIdx
= CurrentStreamIdx + 1 ;
CompareStreamIdx < n ;
CompareStreamIdx++
) {

D[CurrentStreamIdx,
CompareStreamIdx]
= T[CurrentStreamIdx]
- T[CompareStreamIdx];

D[CompareStreamIdx,
CurrentStreamIdx]
= - D[CurrentStreamIdx,
CompareStreamIdx];
} ;

} ;



// for each data stream,
// determine if more than half of its time code differences are behind or ahead
for ( CurrentStreamIdx = 0 ;
CurrentStreamIdx < n ;
CurrentStreamIdx++
) {


for ( CompareStreamIdx = 0 ;
CompareStreamIdx < n ;
CompareStreamIdx++
) {

aheadErrorCnt = 0 ;
behindErrorCnt = 0 ;


if ( CurrentStreamIdx
!= CompareStreamIdx
) {

if ( D[CurrentStreamIdx,
CompareStreamIdx]
> e
) {
aheadErrorCnt
= aheadErrorCnt + 1 ;
}
else if ( D[CurrentStreamIdx,
CompareStreamIdx]
< -e
) {
behindErrorCnt
= behindErrorCnt + 1 ;
}
} ;

} ;

if ( aheadErrorCnt >= n/2 ) {
s[CurrentStreamIdx] = 1 ;
}
else if ( behindErrorCnt >= n/2 ) {
s[CurrentStreamIdx] = -1 ;
}
else {
s[CurrentStreamIdx] = 0 ;
} ;
} ;

A very bizarre night.

I know, I know... most of you, who know me, know that bizarre stuffs happen to me all the time. Like when Jay and I were coming out of the Buttery Restaurant and a homeless man w/ AIDS wanted a hug from me because he hasn't had human touch for a long time. Or when I gave the drug addict prostitute a ride home, because it was pouring down rain, and I got stuck by her syringe needle in her sweater pocket.

Last night, however, was more bizarre than usual.

Last night (technically, it's this morning since it was after midnight), I went to the main post office on Fayette Street. When I was done at the post office and pulling out of my parking spot, a hysterical young woman ran to my car screaming that she was attacked by and robbed by a black man and a black woman.

I offered to called the police with my cell phone, but she insisted that I call her bank first so that she can cancel her credit card before her muggers use it. When it became evident that she was not going be persuaded that calling the police first would be the better course of action, I relented and called Chevy Chase Bank's 800 number (using directory assistance). As it turned out, the bank was transitioning to a new phone system and customers would not be able to get to an operator until the next day.

Finally, she was willing to let me call the police. When a woman police officer arrived, she was reluctant to give any detail about where she was coming from and where she was going.

At one point, she broke down and revealed that she was working on "the Block" and was headed to a main road. Evidently, she had lost her warehouse job in Glen Burnie. With her savings dwindling and no prospect of a new job, she had to resort to working on "The Block". And when her shift was over, she was hoping to "hitch a ride." But because she was not familiar with the city, she got lost and ended up in a secluded area where she was mugged. She confessed that she wasn't willing to give that part of the detail to the police officer at first because she was afraid that the officer wouldn't treat her like a regular robbery victim.

Now, here's the bizarre part. She wasn't able to give a coherent story and the details of the attack were sketchy at best.

For instant, she described the location as a park area where there are benches next to a tennis court. There's no such place.

Then, she said that the muggers took her credit card and cell phone. However, they didn't take any money since she didn't have any cash. That's strange because if she had been working on "The Block", her entire night's earning would be mostly in cash tips.

Without any lead to track down the muggers, the officer wasn't able to do anything for her except to give her an incident report with which to report the stolen credit card.

After the police officer left, I let her use my cell phone to ask her friend to come pick her up and take her home. I waited with her at the post office until her friend arrived. Although her friend lives in Glen Burnie, near her, he arrived rather quickly (less than 15 minutes).

As I drove home, my thoughts spun trying to figure out what actually transpired. Nothing seems to make sense. Suddenly, a thought occurred to me. Could it be some kind of scam? Is it possible that by calling her friend on my cell phone, they would have my cell phone number and they can exploit my cell phone number?

As I turned south from Fayette Street onto Martin Luther King Blvd, still pondering over the possibility of being scammed, over half a dozen police squad cars with their lights flashing and siren blaring, made the same turn right behind me. As I pulled over, five or six of them flew past me. But, one pulled over behind me.

So I waited for the officer to approach. And I waited. And I waited.

Finally, I stuck my head out my window and asked the officer if he had pulled me over.

The officer laughed and said, no, he pulled over because there's something wrong with his squad car.

As I said, a very bizarre night!

What is the meaning of life?

In one of the Christian forums, a young lady posted the question, "What is the meaning of life?"

This question caught me by surprise. I used to ask myself this question all the time before I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. However, I can't remember asking it once in all this time since becoming a believer. In fact, I don't remember anyone asking it in any of the bible studies that I've been part of. Usually, we skip straight to man's sinful state and his redemption.

This is peculiar! Isn't answering this question the essence of all religions?

Everyday, we flail our lives against the tide, barely able to keep our head above the waterline, only to be slapped down just when we think we are making a little headway. So, we ask, "What's the meaning of life?"

Even good times cause us to ask, when it is all over, "Is this it? Is this all that there is? What's the meaning of life?"

Isn't this why we are drawn to one religion or another?

Yet, I never asked myself that question since becoming a believer despite not finding the answer.

So, I thought about it and did some research. Here's what I've come up with:

Through a Christian perspective, the question "What is the meaning of life?" can be broken down to the three following questions:

1. Why did God created the universe? i.e., What is context for the question of life?


2. Why did He created mankind? i.e., What is the meaning of Human Life?


3. Why did He created me to be part of the human race? i.e. What is the meaning of my life?

When we read through the creation story, we find that after each stage of the creation, "God saw that it was good." And after creation was complete, "God saw that it was very good."

The English word "good" was translated from the Hebrew word "tobe". "Tobe" means more than just good; Tobe embodies the adjectives good, beautiful, and pleasurable.

It seems that God is a creative being who wanted to create something beautiful and pleasing to Him. The creation was his canvas and his art is not only multi-dimensional but also extends across time and between the spiritual and physical worlds.

The most good, beautiful, and pleasurable part of creation, God reserved for mankind for He had made man in His own image.

It seems, however, that one man is insufficient to exhibit the multifaceted character of God so He created men and women of not only different shapes, sizes and shades, but also of different character. In Revelation 7:9, we see a description of the completed masterpiece:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

The meaning of each of our lives? Each of us is created to be a piece of the best, the most beautiful, and the most pleasurable part of God's artwork.

Sin, however marred this artwork in two ways. It marred the body by causing it to age and die. And it marred the soul, weakening its character.

The redemption process is for the purpose of restoring the beauty of the soul.

And when He returned, we shall receive glorious bodies [Philippians 3:20]

At this time, God's masterpiece is restored to its full glory.

Being A Man

One of my MySpace friends, Lena, is a big movie fan. Like me, she finds it a challenge to find a good movie, at Blockbuster, that she hasn't yet seen. With her birthday coming up, I decided to put together a list of really good rarely viewed movies that I think she'd like. Plus, since women are always wondering what goes on inside a guy's head, these movies would be about what it means to be a man.

I started with a list of great relationship movies about men, trimmed off all the popular ones, trimmed off all the recently released ones (5 years old or less), and trimmed off those that don't seem to make a point about what it means to be a man.

After all that, the list got shortened to only thre recommendation (sorry, Lena). They are "To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)", "Beautiful Girls (1996)", and "High Fidelity (2000)"

1. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
   Many people think that this movie (and book) is about racism in the south. However, this theme is only one of the devices used to illustrate what it means to be a man. The movie is seen through the eyes of a 5-6 year old girl (Scout) as she compares the behavior of the men in her life. The movie opened with Scout's brother's (Jem's) view of what it means to be a man: athleticism (playing football), power (a gun), and risk-taking (boy's idea of bravery). Not in the movie, but in the book, Jem participated in a pissing contest with their neighbor, Dill (competition involving urinating: for distance, acuracy, endurance, and sometime creativity like writing or drawing in the snow). i.e., A man has the right equipment to compete in this contest that obviously Scout can not participate. But as Scout watches the actions of her father (Atticus Finch) who is a lawyer, his black client (Tom Robinson), and the mentally ill neighbor (Boo Radley), and compares their action with those of other men around her, she starts to see that a real man does not get his identity from physical power, political power, finanical power or any other things that most men pursue. She sees that a real man gets his identity from the strength of his character. A character that pursues justice, shows compassion, and sacrifices for the ones he loves. The movie is not only poignant but has a lot of very funny comic reliefs (relieves?). "To Kill a Mockingbird" is considered by many to be Gregory Peck's best movie. Robert Duvall played Boo Radley.


2. Beautiful Girls (1996)
   Girls, if you want to know why men have trouble committing to a relationship, this movie is the one to see. It has an ensemble cast that includes Timothy Hutton, Natalie Portman, Matt Dillon, Uma Thurman, Mira Sorvino, Rosie O'Donnell, Lauren Holly, Michael Rapaport, and Annabeth Gish. The movie follows Timothy Hutton's character as he goes home to a high school re-union and anguishes over whether his girlfriend is the ONE. Uma Thurman and Natalie Portman put in a terrific performance as characters who represent the unknow options. Thurman's character represents the woman who could be the ONE but geographically removed. Portman's character represents the woman who could be the ONE but has yet to grow up to be a woman. Thurman's character shows Hutton's character that while he thinks her boyfriend is the luckiest guy in the world, other guys are thinking the same about him and his girlfriend (Gish). And while Hutton's character pines for the woman that Portman would become, he discovers that his girlfriend (Gish) is already there. This is another movie that is both poignant and funny.



3. High Fidelity (2000)
   In this adaptation of Nick Hornby's book with the same title, John Cusack plays a character (Rob) who doesn't know what it takes to love a woman. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by guys who are just as clueless. Hornby uses the "knowing how to make a great compilation tape" theme as the analogy to knowing how to love a woman. In the beginning Cusack's character describes the techniques that he uses to put together a great compilation tape. At the end of the movie, he is making a tape for his girlfriend Laura, just putting songs, that she likes, on the tape. He learns that love is about putting what's best for Laura ahead of what's best for him. The book provides lots of great material for the movie; on top of that, Cusack makes every movie, that he's in, fun to watch.

We are so Cheesey!

When I saw the following post on one of the Christian forums, there was no doubt that I had to respond. Although not eloquent, he raised some very serious objections to how the church in America carries itself.

Here is his post:

Posted: Jun 4, 2006 11:05 PM

I have been struggling with somthing.... well some things. I find my self imbarassed to call myself a Christian. Its Because we are so Cheesey! I CANNOT DENY CHRIST... However...

..1) Christians send wrong messages. The other day I was at church and there was this potition goin around to "HELP SAVE MARAGES!! THIS IS WHAT GOD WANTS!!" In general... Christians send the message that Gay people are going to hell... instead of sending the message that Christ Died for Gay people and loves them unconditionaly.

..2) The other day I was in the park on a motor cycle charity ride for a pregnancy center. The MC got on stage and said "Give me a J!!!! Give me an E!!!! So on and so forth.... then he shouts "Who's That spell??!!""" Whos that Spell!!!??" At that moment .... I became sick to my stomach. I was soooo embarrassed to be in the park. I AM NOT ASHAMED OF CHRIST.... But at that moment... I was Ashamed to be in the park and associate myself with "CHEESEY CHRISTIANS." Then I started to notice somthing else... I started to listen to Conversations that people were having... and They were using CHEESEY CHRISTIAN Language... I realized that when your at church... surrounded by christians... you hear them... us...use phrases you wont hear in every day conversation.

Ever since then... I have been embarrassed of how Christians.

..3) I am also embarrassed to be a christain because my actions don't follow my words... I have become this luke warm christian. I cannot deny Christ, I can say that I know Christ... I can say that I believe in Christ, I can say that I want to be like Christ... But I cannot say that I follow Christ...


Thank you, Brian (Your A Daisy If You Do), for starting this thread of discussion on this forum. I agree w/ you that we do need to re-evaluate the state of the Church in America. Have we become sleepwalking believers who worship with their autopilot turned on?

We've expended too much resources on form rather than on substance. We've spent too much time concerning over the size of the fellowship rather than over the depth of their maturity. And our minds are more familiar with "Christian phrases" (and lyrics of contemporary Christian music) than with a deep life-transforming understanding of Biblical text.

You hit the nail right on the head when you pointed out, "Christians send the message that Gay people are going to hell... instead of sending the message that Christ Died for Gay people and loves them unconditionally."

Whatever happened to "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"? And "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

What happened? We've spent too much time and effort on our solution (political campaigns and lobbying effort) and not enough on God's solution (love and discipleship).

My favorite Christian quote is by St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

To paraphrase: Don't just say "Jesus loves you", show it and use words as a last resort.

Your generation of believers has been willing to point out the naked emperor and I constantly thank God for you.

Brian, I also thank you for admitting, "I am also embarrassed to be a Christian because my actions don't follow my words... I have become this lukewarm Christian. I cannot deny Christ, I can say that I know Christ... I can say that I believe in Christ, I can say that I want to be like Christ... But I cannot say that I follow Christ..."

These are the words of a true believer who understands what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and yet knows the struggle of being a work in progress.

I do, however, would like to leave you with these thoughts.

1. You receive your identity from Christ and Christ alone. What other believers do does not matter as long as the world sees Christ when they see you. [col 1:25] "To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."


2. Christ will protect your reputation when you are obedient to His call. [James 4:10] "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up."


3. Don't be afraid to identify yourself as Christian because you are still dealing with sin in your life and would not be a good witness. It is not your effort that convicts a sinners heart and causes him or her to repent. It is the Spirit of God. You are simply a vessel which carries the Spirit and introduces the non-believer to Jesus. [1 John 5:9] "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son."

I love you, brother, for your heart of true discipleship.

May the Lord bless you and build you up to full maturity in Christ.

My favorite Christmas story

As I read some of the threads in one of the "Christian" Forums in MySpace I started to notice a trend. People were quoting single verses from the Bible without any regard for context. Most of the time the verse contains the main point of its context. However several were not only not the main point, they were taken totally out of context and missed the main point entirely. It reminded me of my favorite Christmas story.

When I was a little boy, my family lived in a small town in rural South Caroline named Orangeburg. One of the popular television show for children, in the area, was the Mr. Nosit (sp?) Show. Mr. Nosit (I don't remember his real name) was the weatherman at the station who performed double duty as the children show host.

On one of the shows right before Christmas, Mr. Nozit asked each of the kids on the show to draw a Christmas picture. Most of the kids drew manger scenes, shepherds in the field scenes, and wise men following the star scenes.

One little boy drew an airplane.

Mr. Nosit ran through most of the pictures fairly quickly but the picture of the airplane stopped him dead on his track.

He looked at it. Looked at the camera (probably at the producer behind the camera). Looked at the picture again and then ask the boy, "So, why did you draw an airplane? Is it because your mom and dad take you on a trip every Christmas?"

The boy shook his head, "No, it's Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus on their flight to Egypt."

Mr. Nosit couldn't hold back his laughter. He literally dropped the microphone while laughing.

When he regained his composure, he asked, "So who's the guy at the front of the plane?"

The boy replied, "Punch the Pilot."

Context is so important to understanding a Bible verse.

Selfish Cat and Burning Rats

My mom and dad came to live with me shortly after my dad's stroke left him an invalid. During this time my mom started to feed the stray cats that hang around the back of my row house. After my Dad died of a heart attack, my mom had a stroke of her own. It left her wheelchair bound. At this point, my mom insisted that I continue to feed the stray cats.

Of the five or six stray cats that come by for food, three are always there consistently. One of these three started to really irritate me. She's constantly chasing off the other cats even though I pour out enough cat food for the entire neighborhood. So I poured out the cat food in separate piles hoping that she would be satisfied with her own pile. Instead, she guarded all the piles, jealously.

Each time she starts to chase other cats away, I'd firmly said, "NO!"

She would respond by stopping to chase the other cats and starting to eat from her pile.

But as soon as I closed the door, she started to try to chase the other cats away again.

This went on for a while and I tolerated it; they are just stupid stray cats.

Then, I cracked! I yelled at the cat, "Why do you have to be so selfish!" (Like she'd understand what I was saying).

Amazingly, she stop doing it.

Then, the next day, early in the morning, I heard loud meowing.

When I opened the back door, there was the selfish cat and at her feet was a large pile of dead rats.

It was pretty disgusting but it must be her attempt at some sort of peace offering.

Since I didn't know if any of the dead rats had rabies, I ended up burning their carcasses.

It must have been a bizarre sight for my neighbors. I wanted to knock on each of their doors and tell them that there's a perfectly logical explanation for what I was doing.

But, when I thought about it... the whole situation was pretty absurd: a selfish cat offering up a pile of dead rats to appease me for her offense...

...then again, I kind of do the same thing with God; doing something selfish that I know is wrong until the consequences of my action catch up with me. At which point, I make some kind of ridiculous gesture to God that He finds relatively meaningless and probably offensive.

Does the Bible actually say that abortion is wrong?

There's been several threads in the forums concerning abortion. In all the cases, the issue comes down to "What does the Bible say about abortion?"

Half of the answers were based on the principle that life starts with the fertilization of the egg (I purposely didn't use the word conception because the posts really mean fertilization and not conception.) and the destruction of human life is murder. Murder, of course, was one of the instances of sin mentioned in the list of commandments given by the Lord Almighty to Moses on Mount Sinai, the so-called "Ten Commandment" (the Bible never enumerated them as ten items).

The other half cited the psychological and physiological problems that result from abortion.

There were a handful arguing that most Christians (some even say "all Christians") believe that abortion is wrong.

The posts arguing that life starts with fertilization usually reference Jeremiah 1:5

• "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

(See what I mean about conception? God conceived Jeremiah and his role before God formed him. i.e., conception before egg fertilized)

Anyway, these posts' argument implies that this pre-fertilization conception of person and role applies to everyone.

While I may agree that abortion is wrong. It would be hard for me to validate the logic used to reach this conclusion.

Here are my problems with these lines of reasoning:

1. Just because God knew Jeremiah before God formed him in the womb, logically speaking, it may not necessarily be true of every person that God formed. God often do things with variations. (While I do believe that the assumption is true, it's inappropriate to use unproven facts as the basis of one's argument.)


2. Even if every person and his/her role were conceived by God before the fertilization of the egg, it may not necessarily mean that every fertilization is the result of God conceiving a person and his/her role. Natural abortions of pregnancies occur all the time. Are these natural abortions also the termination of a conceived person and his/her role?


3. Does the fact that abortions result in psychological and physiological problems justify it being labeled as wrong (biblically speaking)? Don't a lot of things, that God ask us to do, result in problems for us? I'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who has never anguish over something that God is calling him/her to do. Christian discipleship requires us to go outside the boundaries of our comfort zone. If you want to cite physical problems as a reason something should be wrong to do, let me ask, "How many Christians were called to be martyrs?"


4. One may argue that if most of the Christians believes something to be true, it probably is true since Christians are supposed to be living lives led by Christ. However, I can just as easily point out that (according to Christianity Today) the average worshiper (Catholics and Protestant and Orthodox) gives less than three percent of his/her income to the Church; that is so wrong, considering that it is nowhere near the ten percent required by the Old Testament, much less the sacrificial offering that's reflective of our appreciation of what Jesus did on the cross for us. No, even if all the Christians agree that abortion is wrong, one can not equate the unified opinion of all Christians with something to which we can attribute to as "Thus saith the Lord"

Is there a Bible verse that says that abortion is wrong?

Although the medical procedures may not have been available during the time that the Bible (Old and New Testament) was written, I believe there is a Bible verse to which we can reference.

• Exodus 21:22-24
  If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

(Yes, that's where the term "an eye for an eye" comes from.)

These are the penalties for harming an unborn child. Noticed the first offense and penalty: "life for life".

In fact, God is so protective of the unborn child that even if no harm comes to the unborn child, the husband of the pregnant woman may demand a fine.

Thus we can argue that if an unintentional injury or death, of an unborn child, requires the "life for life...eye for eye..." penalties, surely, an intentional injury or death would be just as wrong if not more.

Who is saved and who is not?

Most Christians today can recite John 3:16

• For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
  that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
  

but do we truly understand what it means? Is it simply confessing the belief and then we get a "Get Out of Hell" card?

• James 2:18-19
  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder.
  

What is implied, of course, is that the demons' belief would not save them.

• Luke 13:23
  Someone asked him, Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?
  
  He said to them, Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, Sir, open the door for us.
  
  But he will answer, I dont know you or where you come from.
  
  Then you will say, We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.
  
  But he will reply, I dont know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!
  

Jesus was talking about people who ate and drank with Christ (The Church is the Body of Christ - Corpus Christi), people who come to church and partake of the last supper.

So what belief is saving belief?

• Matthew 6:31-33
  So do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
  

Charles Blondin (real name: Jean François Gravelet) was a tight-rope walker who performed around the previous turn of the century (late 1800s). He would walk on a rope strung between two skyscrapers, on a rope hung over Niagara Falls, ....

At the beginning of his act he would always ask his audience if they believe he can do it.

Usually, there is silence.

He would walk across and back.

Then he would attempt doing it again but with a more complicated task like walking the rope while rolling a wheel barrow. And before he does, he would ask the audience if they believe he can do it.

He would walk across and back with the wheel barrow.

Then he would attempt doing it again but with a even more complicated task like having a 200 pound sack of potato in the wheel barrow.

Just as before, he would ask the audience if they believe he can do it.

By this time, the audience was sure he can do it and expressed themselves appropriately.

He would walk across and back with a wheel barrow containing the sack of potatoes.

Finally, he would attempt doing it again but carrying a person (200 lb or less) across.

Just as before, he would ask the audience if they believe he can do it.

By now, I can imagine the audience screaming, "We believe! We believe! We believe!"

Then, Blondin would turn to one member of the audience and say, "Get on!"


How many of us trust Jesus to provide for all our needs? to be willing to get on and let Jesus take us across on the tight rope? To give to Jesus until we don't know from where our next meal is coming and assuming that Jesus would provide?

Never, in Blondin's tight rope walking career, did any member of the audience get on. But Blondin always carried a person across. He always carried his agent across.

A believer is redeemed to be God's agents here on earth. How well would our job performance appraisal go?

Truisms that I use all the time

• The Truth
  
  
  • The truth is the truth whether you know about it or not.
  
  
  • The truth is the truth whether you understand it or not.
    
  
  
  • The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not.
  
  
  • The truth is the truth whether you like it or not.
  
  
  • The truth is the truth.


• When your idea contradicts mine...
  
  
  • either you are right and I am wrong
  
  
  • or you are wrong and I am right
  
  
  • or we may both be wrong.
  
  
  • but we can not both be right


• If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
  

  The Chinese Version:
  

  If you put a flower on a pile of manure, its still a pile of manure
  
  

• Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it. [Isn't this version more fun than the "casting of perl before swines" version? :-)]
• You can pay now or pay later; but you always pay more when you pay later.

Wives submit to your husband

The topic of women submitting to male leadership in the Church and in the Husband/Wife relationship seems to continue to come up everywhere. And it came up again in one of the Forums.

Here's my post:


Christian leadership is not the same as secular leadership, so let's not equate control with leadership.

Christian leadership is illustrated in the Husband/Wife relationship as described in Ephesians 5.

In Ephesians 5:21, Paul wrote "Submit to one another", first. Then he delineate how that's accomplished.

In Ephesians 5:22: "Wives submit to your husband as to the Lord"

In Ephesian 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loves the Church and gave himself up to her"

Too often we forget what love means, equating it with that warm fuzzy feeling that we get when we are "in love".

Love is a verb, an action word. In fact, it is a transitive verb. When we say, "I love you", it means I do something to you.

This transitive verb, "love", means the subject, "I", puts whats best for the object, "you", ahead of what's best for the subject, "I".

So the Christian leader's role is trying to accomplish what is best for his follower(s) and putting it ahead of what's best for him, willing to even give up his life for her (them).

Since God's plan for us is what is best, it would mean that the leader is there to help his follower(s) pursue God's plan for them.

It is because of the leader's motive that his followers submit to his leadership.


So, why did God imposed such a seemingly unfair relegation of roles on the Church (men lead, women follow)?

Let me give you my take on this issue:

We'll need to look at a broader context by first examining several fundamental Biblical principles:

1. God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent and does not need our help to accomplish His goals.
   


2. The reason he gave us the privilege of participating in his work is to accomplish His goal of bringing us to full spiritual maturity.
   


3. Death entered the world through Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21)
   

The first two, I don't think I need to explain. If you truly need me to supply you with Biblical references, let me know and I would do so.

So what does number 3 have anything to do with anything?

Why did death come through Adam and not through Eve? After all, it was Eve that took the first bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, Eve sinned; but, there was another sin before Eve's.

Adam failed to demonstrate spiritual leadership!

• Adam was given the leadership role. Adam was created first and was directly instructed by God. Eve was created to be his helper.
  


• Adam was not away somewhere else when the serpent was having his conversation with Eve. Adam was standing there and he failed to refute the serpent's lies.
  


• Then Adam continued to forsake spiritual leadership by eating the fruit that Eve gave to him.
  

Fast forward to Abraham. God promised Abraham that he would be a father of many. When Sarah wasn't able to conceive, she presented Abraham with her maid. Abraham, instead of saying, "God never said anything about having extra-marital sexual relationship!", he said, "OK! Let me take her to bed."

Failure in spiritual leadership!


Fast forward to Exodus

Moses was up in the mountain. The people down at the foot of the mountain were getting restless and demanded Aaron (who is the high priest [Exodus 29:44]) to make idols for them to worship. Aaron said, "Give me your golden earrings to make the idol".

Failure of spiritual leadership!



Fast forward to Judges.

The men of Israel were so spineless that God had to raise up Deborah to send the Army of Israel to defend the people.



Fast forward to today.

Look around the Church today and count the number of husbands who are exercising spiritual leadership and count how many are not. Which is the greater number?

Go to the missions field, today and ask the missionaries how hard it is to raise up male leaders from within the new believers in the field.

In ministries with which I have been involved, I can not remember a time in which recruiting women leaders was a problem. With male leadership, how often did we have to plead to men to even pray about it!


It seems that, inherent to the male gender, there exists a problem with spiritual leadership.

Although the Bible does not spell it out, I think we can infer that God reserved the leadership position in the Church for men because men need it.

Perhaps we can say that God gave all the souls, which need to perfect their ability to exercise spiritual leadership, lives with male gender and reserved the leadership role for the male gender.

God calls us to our own special role, not because he needs us accomplish his goal. These roles are uniquely crafted to mold our spiritual character. He does it so that we can become complete and mature and not lacking anything.

On the other side of eternity, there will not be husbands and wives (i.e., gender distinction in the roles) for we would have been made perfect by the "practice roles" that God gives us on this side of eternity.

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

---

p.s., The biggest problem with the whole scenario is not that there are leaders and there are followers. The biggest problem is the misconception that one position is better than the other. That was never the intent.

The Christian leader is a servant leader. e.g., Jesus [the leader] served the disciples by washing their feet.

When God made a helper for Adam, the word for helper used, in Genesis 2:18, is the Hebrew word "ezer". It is the same word as the one in Psalm 33:20 when it referred to the Lord.

We wait in hope for the LORD; he is our help [ezer] and our shield.

The word ebenezer comes from the word eben [stone] and ezer [help]. It is a stone used to commemorate God's help.

Do we say that God holds a lesser position when he helps [ezer] us? Of course not!

When God created a helper for Adam, it just means that Adam needed help.

How can you believe in a God that expects parents to kill their disobedient children?

I had several personal topics lined up to post on my blog (web log) today, but once again, a forum discussion forced me in that direction.

The initial post that started the discussion is:

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Whatdya reckon?



Most of the replies were along the line of "We are now under grace and that the Old Testament laws no longer apply."

Harry, a self-professed atheist (he didn't use the word, he simply said that he didn't believe in God), then disputes the assertion that the Old Testament laws no longer apply and accused the participants of picking and choosing what they like from the Bible.

Then there were some bizarre replies, including one which stated that "The Law" that still applies consists only of the 10 Commandments.

Near the end of the discussion, Harry stated that he didn't believe in God because there is no proof. In reply, Brad, another participant in the discussion, stated that, "My Bible is evidence."

Harry pointed out to Brad that he is using circular logic:

I'm afraid it really isn't. All it does is trap you in circular reasoning.

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

And around and around and around we go.


To which Brad replied:

Blah, Blah , Blah

That's all I gathered from those's statements.


Oh, Boy! Or as my Jewish friends would say... "Oyvey!"

Here's my post:



I just read through this thread of discussion. Wow, just when I thought it couldn't get uglier, it did.

I hope I can bring this discussion back to the point were we are all seeking the truth.


I do agree with Harry on several points:

1. "The Law" is not just the 10 Commandments (actually, the Bible never enumerated them as 10). "The Law" is translated from the Hebrew word "Torah" (spelled using Hebrew characters) which refers to the first 5 books. The entire Old Testament is know as the TNAK (a word formed using the first letter of the name of each section of the Hebrew Scripture).
   


2. "The Law" is not to be discarded with the coming of the Messiah.
   


3. The Bible supplies insufficient evidence to prove that God exists.
   

However, to understand Christian Theology, one must take a broader perspective then simply picking out verses here and there.

For starter, the Torah encompasses more than just the regulations specified in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. It starts with Genesis which says, God created man in his own image. The Biblical God intended man to be like Him. In Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The word sin was translated from the original Greek word hamartano (spelled using Greek characters). This word is a secular word, an archery term for missing the mark. When we fail to meet the criteria (carrying His image), we missed the mark; we sinned. The regulations, like those in the 10 commandments are just example of missing the mark.

Nobody has ever hit the mark. So all this talk about killing disobedient children is a bit moot. Even if you kill your disobedient children, you are still failing to hit the mark in so many other areas.

And as Brad has pointed out in Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death".

So "The Law" condemns us all to death, anyway.

Basically, the Biblical God demands perfection in our ability to be like him. He created us for that purpose and when we are not up to par, there's no point in keeping around something that doesn't work.

e.g., If an engineer designs a circuit board to convert AC power to DC power and it fails to do so, does he keep the board in the system?

Harry, I can understand why you may feel that this is a bit harsh and close your opinion of the Biblical God but I beg that you keep your mind open for a little bit longer.

Continuing with the engineer analogy, the engineer now has two options: discard the non-working part or fix the non-working part. In modern day production, it's usually cheaper to discard the non-working part.

The Biblical God, however, chose to keep the non-working part.

Now we encounter the dilemma.

He made the rule that sin must be paid with death (THE LAW) and He can not violate it.

But He loves us too much to allow us to pay that price.

So, He took the form of a man and paid the price on the cross.


The question of the day, of course, is: Is this true?

I know that it is true.

The obvious response to that statement is: prove it.

Brad's response was: My Bible is evidence.

Harry, as I had stated before, I agree with you. The Bible does not supply sufficient evidence.

In fact, I don't think that the statement, "My Bible is evidence", is theologically sound.

Our faith is based on experiential evidence resulting from an encounter with the living creator being. And that encounter causes us to see and acknowledge that we need help in fulfilling our essence as the bearer of God's image. At which point, the Spirit of God comes and dwells in us and calls us to take steps of faith. And when we do, we see that God is trustworthy, re-enforcing our faith and perfecting our ability to emulate God.

Unfortunately, this proof is only good for the person experiencing it.

I can tell you about all the amazing things that had happened to me due to the presence of the Spirit of God in my life. In fact, you may even be traveling around the world with me and seeing the amazing things that I'm experiencing. However, a skeptic can always find reasons to account for the unusual events.

Why? A large and important component of the proof will never be available to the listener: experiencing God's presence.

It's like Carl Sagan's book Contact. The main character, Ellie Arroway, rode in the "Machine" through a worm-hole to another world to experience an encounter with another life-form, but came back to earth without any instrumentation to prove that it actually happened. Is the lack of instrumentation the proof that it didn't happened even if she experienced it?

Harry, I can not give you the proof that you require. The only way you can get your proof is if you were to experience it.

To that end, I will pray that the living creator being, reveals Himself to you.

May the Lord Almighty bless you.

Ex-Virgins Not Fit for Monogamy?

I've been browsing the posts in one of the "Christian" Forums in MySpace when I found another post to which I find hard not to respond.

The discussion topic was titled "Ex-Virgins Not Fit for Monogamy". i.e., Christians should not marry non-virgins and of course, Christians should remain chaste before marriage. The original post referenced statistics which indicate that marriages in which one or both partners did not remain chaste before marriage have a higher probability of divorce. Other posts cited the problem of STDs and unwed pregnancies.

Here's my response:

Boy, I've never seen a Christian conversation go so way off course (from Christian Theology)!

For starter, the marriage relationship is the image, that God gives us, to allow us to visualize His relationship to the us: God being the Bridegroom and us, his unfaithful betroth.

The example that He sets for us is that the Bridegroom forgives his bride for her prostitution with false gods and gives His life to get His bride back.

This image is not only the opposite of the proposition, that "Ex-Virgins [are] Not Fit for Monogamy"; it goes beyond the opposite. In the proposition, the bridegroom would not even ask her to marry him if she is not a virgin. In the Biblical image, the bridegroom did whatever it takes (including being incarnated so that He can be crucified on the cross to atone for the sin of the bride) to get his bride back after she had been unfaithful.

Secondly, the proposition, that "Ex-Virgins [are] Not Fit for Monogamy", discounts the redemptive power of Christ to transform a person. It would be like saying, "A drug addict will always be a drug addict" even with Christ. Or "A murderer will always be a murder" even with Christ. Or "Any one who denies Christ three times is not fit to lead the church". [John 21:15-17]

Thirdly, are we not all sinners [Romans 3:23]? What if there's a survey that says, statistically, liars make bad spouses? Or people who have bad relationships with their parents will have a bad relationships with their spouses? Or... (you fill in whatever sin with which you are currently dealing) Are you then unfit for marriage?

As for STDs and unwed pregnancies (or any other selfish reasons) being the reasons for keeping chaste before marriage, do we not keep chaste before marriage if STDs and unwed pregnancies (or any other selfish reasons) is not a problem? Of course not! The Biblical response is: we keep chaste to please God. God wants us to be holy (set apart) from the sinful culture in which we live. [Ephesians 1:4]

The Millionaire Among Us Drives A Ford Pinto

Dave is one of the older engineer at my workplace. He looks like your typical suburban middle-class average Joe.

A couple of years ago, I discovered a secret. Dave is a multi-millionaire! Dave, who brings a bag lunch to work; Dave, who wears a pocket protector in the left shirt pocket of his short sleeve shirt; Dave, who looks like he stepped out of one of those 50's science class movies.... is a multi-millionaire!

Evidently, he inherited oodles of cash from some dead relative a long time ago. But he enjoys his job so much that he keeps coming to work.

Today, I discovered the most shocking of his secrets. Dave drives a Ford Pinto! Who drives a Ford Pinto, these days? How many people out there know what a Ford Pinto looks like?

Most amazingly, this baby actually runs.

Dave just smiled, waved good bye, and drove off.

Contentment in life has nothing to do with money.

(p.s., Please, DO NOT tailgate Dave! The gas tanks of Ford Pintos had a notorious reputation of blowing up when rear-ended.)