Why is There Evil in the World? A Theory

Why do diseases like cancer, AIDS, hemophilia, malaria, etc. still exist?  Why haven't we found a cure?  Doesn't God care?

Why do we still have such brutal wars, killing one another over (in the grand scheme) nothing?  Why hasn't God stepped in to stop it?

Why do so many bad things happen in this world?  Doesn't God love us? 

I'll posit a theory.  We killed the man who would have discovered the cure for cancer.  That was back in 1982.  We killed the woman who would have cured AIDS just a few years after that in '89.  And back in the early 70s, we killed the person who would have been the diplomat who ushered in peace to this world, ending war as we've known it. 

We killed them ... all of them ... before they could do what they were "born" to do. 

It was murder, plain and simple.

We have killed almost 60 million people because we think/feel that we had the right.  And that "right" was all that mattered.  Nothing concrete to back this up ... we just "think" we had the right.  And we continue to kill the very people who will solve other problems we face, hundreds maybe thousands per day ... each and every day.   Why?  Why do we do this?   And why hasn't God stopped this?

One answer:  Free Will.

A relationship can not exist without allowing for the choice to either love someone or reject them. God knows this, so He created us that way to meet this beautiful purpose.  God loves every one of us, but we have the choice - the free will - to love Him back, say we hate Him, or even go so far as to say He doesn't even exist.  It's up to us. 

Although necessary, free will is dangerous.  It gives us the latitude to do some horrible things.  To physically harm people for enjoyment.  To steal.  To cheat.  To lie.  To kill.

Here's the theory.  God DID help us, but we stopped Him.  God blessed one individual back in the early 70s with the ability to stop war, but we killed Him.  God sent another few in '82 and '89, but we killed those people, too.  They had the answers.

What if ...

What if all the people who could have saved us were slaughtered long before they could act ... killed before they were ever born because we believed it wasn't really a life until 25 weeks?  That our Right to Choose was more important than the new life's right to live? 

What a horrible thought.

What is Rational?

Which of these two sentences is more rational?

1. The universe was created by an eternal, supernatural being.
2. The universe popped into being from literally nothing.

Hopefully you see that #1 is the rational statement.  If you need more, I'll clarify.  The Law of Causality states that if something came into being (was created), it had a cause.  Now the first "cause" couldn't have been created, though, could it have?  Something had to start it all, and it couldn't have started without that first cause.  Imagine a train of dominoes that stretches over the horizon, out of sight.  If those dominoes were falling, one after another, as they passed us then off over the opposite horizon, and I told you that the first domino just fell without any cause, you'd call me crazy.  That would be completely irrational to even think that.  "Of course something caused it to fall.  Someone pushed the first one over, or the wind knocked it over, or the ground shook, or something."  So, we can agree that all things that have happened or have come into being had a cause, with exception to some "first cause", correct?

Okay, now reread the two sentences above.  Which is more rational?

Next two questions:

1. All the variety of life on Earth, from plants to animals to the human being, was created by an eternal, supernatural being.  Something or someone outside of the natural world we know created the complex and varied life we see today.
2. Life started accidentally as a simple-cell organism, then evolved through millions (maybe billions) of years to become a plant, an octopus, an ostrich, a tsetse fly, and a human.

Again, something or someone from outside of nature had to have created life.  If you are a Naturalist (one who says that only the things we see in nature are real - that precludes supernatural forces or beings of any kind before we even start searching for answers), you are stuck.  Life from lifeless matter ... in any combination?  Those two dots do not and cannot connect.  To say otherwise is, again, irrational.  To say that something or someone outside of nature, with some pretty incredible intelligence beyond anything we can comprehend, created life?  Now that is rational.

Note:  A scientist is supposed to preclude nothing, make hypotheses, test them, then go where the evidence leads.  Many, unfortunately, preclude anything supernatural before even starting.  This is the equivalent of saying, "I haven't ever seen a combustion engine, even though you have a book that says that's exactly what is under the hood, and explains how it works, etc.  Instead, I'm going to preclude combustion engines before I even start and begin my scientific search for why the car goes.  I think it's a very quiet bear under there.  Ooh, or a very fast dung beetle.  NO!  For the last time, stop trying to explain this 'combustion engine' nonsense to me!  Don't press your beliefs on me, you religious freak!"  Okay, tongue removed from cheek.  I digress.

With regard to evolution, let's begin by defining what we mean by "evolution".  If we're talking about micro-evolution (the beak of a finch in the Galapagos Islands changing over time to meet changing environmental conditions, for instance), sure - I can see that.  In fact, that's pretty rational.  Now, a plant becoming a dog?  Or a chicken becoming a whale?  That's called "macro evolution" and that's not feasible or rational.  I know apes look a bit like us, and chimps have 97% of the same DNA as we do, but you need to think through what that other 3% means.  That is an insurmountable chasm to cross.  We also have more than half of the same DNA as a chicken, but no one is looking for the missing link chicken-man (a.k.a. cluckus erectus). Also, look up the "Cambrian Explosion" where archeologists have found in the fossil record a single point-in-time emergence of thousands of life forms all completely formed.  Before this - nothing.  What does that sound like?  That crazy Christian theory that God created it all at once, maybe?

Also, there are no real examples in the fossil record for anything that looks like a giraffe, for instance, in an earlier evolutionary form, without the super-powerful heart, the sponge-like organ in its head that throttles blood flow to the brain, or the super-long neck.  We continue to search for any explanation - outside of "God created ..." - to explain the variety and complexity of life, but nothing rational emerges.  Even Darwin said as much.  And since his book was first published 150+ years ago, there has been no scientific evidence found to support his theories further.  Quite the contrary - each new scientific discovery seems to provide evidence for the opposite ... that an eternal, super-natural force created all forms of life.

Last two questions to check for rationality:

1. The data contained in DNA shows further proof that life was created by an eternal, intelligent, supernatural being.
2. The highly complex and ordered information contained in DNA came about accidentally.

Did you know that the data contained in DNA taking up an area the size of a pin head, if printed and put in book form (normal font, single space), would stretch from here to the moon 500 times?  The data contained in DNA is complex and vastly more intelligent than anything man has ever been able to create.  How did that come to be?  Did it pop into existence from nothing, accidentally?  Is that even close to rational thinking?  Of course not.  What is considerably more rational is that an intelligent creator - an architect - outside of nature brought that intelligence into existence and placed it in us - the life it (He) created. 

I'm not jumping at this point in the blog to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God is that eternal supernatural being that created the universe, life and the intelligence contained in DNA.  I'll cover that in a future blog entry.  Let's agree, though, that - if the above is rational (and thinking otherwise is irrational), that you must be at least a Diest, not an Agnostic and certainly not an Atheist. 

More to come ...  Intelligent and thought-through comments and rebuttals welcome. ;)

Life

Logical Sequence:

1. Conception is when DNA is combined between a man and a woman to begin a new human being.  
2. At no other point can you reasonably define a person as human or alive than at the creation of their DNA.
3. A person is therefore human and alive at conception.

Not all people believe this.  Usually, this is not because it does not make logical sense or that it does not ring true.  It's either that they choose not to believe it OR they believe the "rights" of the woman bearing that baby are more important than the "rights" (e.g. life) of the baby inside her.

I'd rather not use squishy diplomatic terms.  It's insulting and it masks the severity of what's been going on for 41 years now.  "Abortion"?  "Terminating the pregnancy"?  Let's be adults here.  It's the "killing of a human being".  

Here is the bottom line:  When the spermatozoa enters and fertilizes the egg, life has begun.  Nothing will stop the life now growing from fully forming in the womb unless it is killed or it dies on its own due to complications or by accident (just like any human).  Whether or not it looks like a baby (or a bean or a "mass" or whatever) from the first seconds of its life is irrelevant.  It is what it is ... a life ... with the same God-given rights any of us has.  

Let's be clear - what a woman does with her own body is up to her.  No arguments there.  Freedom to Choose certainly extends to a certain point, and if the woman chooses to cut off one of her ears, or her legs, that is her choice.  But the life inside of her is NOT her - nor is the life even a part of her.  She is a separate life - a separate human that is growing inside the mother.  She is completely dependent on the mother to grow to "term", but that still does not give the mother the right to kill the human inside her.  

Let's think this through:  That human will grow to a baby, then to a toddler, then to a teenager, then to an adult.  At each of these stages of life, a human being is dependent upon the mother to varying degrees.  So, if one believes they can kill the human inside the womb, what stops them from killing that human once outside the womb, 7 inches away, minutes after birth ... or when she is living in the bedroom down the hall, or living on the other side of town?  

• How about before they are 1?  Surely then, right?  Why not?  The baby is still entirely dependent on Mom or someone?  She should have that "right to choose" ..
• How about before 10?  Still ... dependent on Mom or someone.  I mean, what if the kid is a real hassle.  A total brat.  Then, right?
• Absolute insanity to think this way.  You get my point.  

This is where the arguments start to flow.  

Argument:  You're a man.  How dare you tell women what to do with THEIR bodies.  

Counter-Argument:  See everything I've said above.  One, I'm a human taking exception to the murder of another human.  Doesn't matter if this author is a male or female human.  Killing the baby is wrong.  Period.  Two, it's connected to the woman's body, getting nourishment, but it is NOT (as mentioned) a body part of the mother.

Argument:  I would rather not subject that baby to the life it would have to lead given the situation (whatever situation).

Counter-Argument:  So, what is the worst that will happen to the baby?  That she is killed in the horrible environment into which she has been born?  So, killing her now to avoid the risk of being killed later?  That's some wacky logic.  

Argument:  The mother is just a girl herself, too young to have a baby.  It will ruin her life because of a youthful mistake she made.

Counter-Argument:  The baby is younger, and I'm pretty sure murdering him will ruin his life even more.  Sorry no one warned the young woman (by default she is a woman if she became pregnant - girls can't get pregnant) that sex can result in pregnancy, but ignorance is not bliss on this one.  The baby should not have to die for her mistake.

Argument:  Until 25 weeks into the pregnancy, the baby can't feel anything.  

Counter-Argument:  It's still extinguishing life.  And besides, I know many grown people with nerve conditions where they can't feel anything.  Okay to kill them?  Of course not.

Argument:  How about in the case of rape and other horrible, unthinkable things that should happen to no woman.

Counter-Argument:  God does not want any of these things to happen.  He cries with, and has compassion for, all of these women.  But He has compassion for the life that has been created, too.  That life does not know how it was conceived, nor does it matter to that human.  He or she has a right to live.  

Argument:  How about incest?
Counter-Argument:  Imagine the kid is 2 years old, standing next to you.  He was the product of incest.  Kill him, then?  Of course not.  Same goes for the child in the womb.

Argument:  Well, what about in a situation where medical complications arise and you must decide between the life or health of the Mother and the life of the baby?

Counter-Argument:  There is certainly an "it depends" here, but not as strong as many think.  Bottom line, one option you're considering is the killing of one to save the other.  Which human life is more valuable?  A reasonable person would say that they are equal, no caveats.  So if it's a decision between the mother's health (not their immediate life) and the life of the child inside her, it would seem the decision is obvious.  Save the life of the child versus killing her.  If it will mean the mother's chances of death is increased, still obvious.  No matter how high the probability is that the Mom will die, killing the baby is still 100% chance of death for the baby.  If one will die if the other lives, that is now a true "right to choose" scenario I suppose.  Although, what an unfortunate decision to have to make.

Argument:  Well, I don't personally believe ...

Counter-Argument:  Unless you have some absolute and objective foundation for what you "believe", save it.  I can equally say, "I personally believe that [fill in something off the wall, ridiculous statement]" and you'd say, "What are you basing that belief on?"  If I answer with "I just feel that way" or "Nothing", you'd laugh.  Same here.  

Final Thoughts

So, of the more than 55 million "Right to Choose" killings since Roe v Wade in 1973 (more than the populations of Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Iowa combined) how many do you think were in response to rape, incest, or a decision between the life of the baby or the mother?  I don't need to state statistics for you to know the answer.  Most killings are the result of a woman deciding that she'd rather not have this one.  It's a convenience thing.  

"I mean, what's the biggie?  You can't see the baby ... he's all hidden inside, so ending his life isn't the same as when you can see the person, right?"  That is just crazy talk.  

This is simple logic.  Killing is wrong, no matter if the person is 127 years old or negative-9 months, inside the womb or outside the womb, fully-formed or a viable living cell made up of the DNA combination of a woman and a man.  

If an alien came down from space and asked about this, and you explained "Right to Choose" to him, he'd think we were the most savage animals he'd ever heard of.  

.......

If you've had an abortion, God forgives you.  Accept Jesus into your life and leave that behind. 

If you're considering abortion, please don't.  Think through the points I've made above.

If you still disagree with me, I will be praying for you.  I love you regardless of what you believe on this topic, as does God.

Watch this short video, and join the fight to "End Abortion in Our Generation":

Christians and Homosexuality

Here's a polarizing subject, but one that needs to be addressed because it seems the popular media and the abnormally powerful LGBT machine have everyone's ear.  On any topic, you need data from both sides to make a truly educated decision.  There are some very strong opinions.  Unfortunately, most are based on "feelings" and they are usually misdirected and/or based on complete misinformation.

Generally speaking, we were all imprinted with a natural instinct that calibrates what rings to us as true.  I have reasonable knowledge to conclude that God Himself gave us this sense - more evidence for His existence, of course.  As we know, feelings can't be trusted, especially considering they are usually influenced by a slowly shifting society that thinks in ways no one would have believed 40-50 years earlier.  So don't confuse this logical "instinct" with feelings.

Let's test the instinct ...

Does this statement strike you as true?  "God hates homosexuals."  Doesn't jive, does it?  Of course not.  Okay, how about this?  "God loves homosexuals the same way He loves everyone of His children."  Yeah, that rings true, doesn't it?

So, let's take this to its logical conclusion:  If God loves homosexuals, and Christ loves homosexuals, then Christians (people trying to be as Christ-like as they can, more and more each day) love homosexuals.  Period.  There is no hate in there.

There must be some confusion.  We keep hearing statements about Christians hating homosexuals or being "anti-gay".  If Christians don't (or shouldn't) hate homosexuals, what then is the confusion?  Why all this talk about hatred and bigotry?  Two answers:

1. Some individuals calling themselves Christians have shown real hatred toward homosexuals.  Shame on them.  They are wrong.  But don't confuse flawed Christians with Christianity itself. 
2. Statements of objective Truth not understood or not in line with popular opinion (based on subjectivity) are being taken as hatred or bigotry.

Dan Cathy, President of Chic Fil A, was interviewed last year.  He stated his belief in the Biblical view of homosexuality and marriage.  Instead of taking exception with the Bible and God Himself, the liberal media went to the extreme of calling Mr. Cathy "anti-gay", accusing him of bigotry and hatred.  Wow.  First, God forbid someone state what they believe (Freedom of Speech) and it contradict what's become popular and polarizing over the past few decades.  God forbid he state Truth, objective Truth based on something solid and real versus opinion, feelings, and subjectivity.  Second, he never said anything about gay people themselves - this is because he is NOT anti-gay, and does NOT hate gay people.  Quite the contrary.  He was simply discussing the concept of homosexuality and marriage, and his basis of belief.

God hates no one ... but He does hate sin.  "Oh no he didn't!  Homosexuality is a sin?  Again with the hate!"  C'mon, get real.  I'm sorry that doesn't jive with everyone's personal opinion, but who gets to make the rules?  You?  Me?  Hitler?  Mother Theresa?  Could you imagine if everyone's personal opinion counted in what was right or wrong?  We must have a home base.  A single objective rule-maker that sets the rules.  How about the one who created us all?  Crazy idea, right?  No, not crazy ... it must be that way, or the whole house of cards will fall.  So what He says goes.  And He says:  love the sinner (and we all are), hate the sin.

So, here is some truth, in love:

We all have challenges based on inclinations that came about somehow - chemical imbalances, childhood abuse, etc..  Yes, homosexuality is an inclination and a challenge for some individuals (called homosexuals), not unlike those who are inclined to over-eat, steal, or have anger-issues or self-hatred.  We're asked by God to fight those inclinations because they are not good for us.  God only gives instructions for our good, not to hold us back.  He loves us, just like any good father loves His children.

How do you think a 3 year old "feels" when she joyfully runs toward a busy street to go touch the speeding cars, only to be snatched up by one of her parents and told, "No, you can't go out there in traffic!  That's wrong!  That's dangerous!"  To the 3 year old, that may translate to "You don't want me to be happy!"  We as adults get that this is not the case, but explain that to the 3 year old.  To her, it feels right to run out into the traffic.  "How dare you tell me it's wrong!" she thinks.  Well, the parent knows better.  And so does God, with regard to acting on homosexual or any other inclinations that are not good for us.

“Just because you are tempted to do something doesn’t mean that’s what is best for you.”

The boundaries for sex established by God in the Bible are there to protect us from painful consequences. Many, many legitimate studies have shown serious health risks associated with homosexual activity (e.g. 10-30 year decrease in life expectancy, 4000% greater chance of anal cancer, AIDS, etc.). 

Trust me, as a man I have many inclinations that you would flip out about if I acted upon them.  But the longer I've fought those inclinations and the more I've kept myself away from situations where I might become tempted and weak, the easier it's become to avoid the temptations.  It's like getting in moral shape.  And I continue to take measures to avoid temptation (e.g. accountability partners, etc.).  I trust God and know that His instructions for me are not only True and objective, but that they are for my good.

I've discussed this enough for now.  Bottom line, if you are a homosexual, you're either getting my point, you're hating me, or I've got you thinking.  I'm hoping it's at least the latter.



But I am simply conveying Truth as I've learned it from a good amount of study.  Also, if you're honest, this likely "rings true" to you, whether you're prepared to admit that or not at this point.  You must make that decision, and it's not for me or anyone to condemn you, hate you or to look down upon you.

We are all God's children.  Even those who deny Him.  He gives us all free will because love cannot exist without the ability to choose to love back.  He offers us a free gift that we may accept or reject.  That gift is Jesus and the grace, love and hope that comes with accepting Him.

If you are Gay or Lesbian, God loves you and so do I.  Ask Christ into your life.  You don't need to be perfect or even all that great to do so.  He accepts us where we are and as we are, then helps us become what He created us to be.

You are welcome to my Church.  I look forward to getting to know you as an individual and - hopefully - as a brother or sister in Christ.

Much love.  God bless.

An Open Letter to Muslims

Muslims of America, of the Middle East, of the world:

I have something I want you to know.  I'm asking that you take to heart what this Christian is about to say to you.  Please read on ...

Very simply - I love you.  

Not "I love you, however ...".  Just "I love you".  We were created and put on this Earth by the same Creator - the Creator of the universe and all things seen and unseen.  We are brothers and sisters - children of that Creator.  We may disagree on whether that Creator's name is "Allah" or "YHWH, Jehovah, Adonai, God".  We may disagree about the deity of Jesus or the truth behind Muhammad's and Paul's prophecies.  Truth will bear out one way or the other.  What we think, believe or disbelieve while on this planet has no bearing on absolute objective Truth.  That's not to say that it does not matter, just that our opinions count for nothing when it comes to absolute truth.  Truth is Truth, regardless of those opinions.

• Muslim's have faith in the divine origins of the Qur'an.
• Christians have faith in the divine origins of the Holy Bible. 

One is true.  They can't both be true, of course.  That we can agree on, for certain, regardless what people outside of our two faiths think.  They are simply ignorant and are discussing things of which they have little to no knowledge.  

Here's the main point of contention (amongst many):

• According to the Qur'an, Jesus never died.  In fact that may not have been Him on the cross.  Allah likely made someone else to look like Jesus, or He never really died, or something else.  Regardless, He never died and was certainly not the son of God, let alone God or Allah himself.  
• According to Christianity, Jesus most definitely died on the cross on the day before the Jewish Passover, was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and on the third day rose from the dead and was seen by hundreds of individuals, then ascended into heaven.

Again, one of these is true, regardless of opinion or what an individual chooses to believe.  I don't believe it is the Muslim's job to convince the Christian that Allah is the one and true God and Muhammad is his prophet, nor is it the Christian's job to convince the Muslim that Jehovah is the one and true God and Jesus is his only begotten son sent to save us from our sin.  I believe it is each INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility (Muslim or Christian or neither) to:

1. Study the history (not just assume or take someone's word for it), 
2. Study the facts of the case (what can be reasonably known),
3. Think it through to a full and logical conclusion,
4. Then determine what to do with what's been discovered.  I hope that anyone who comes to an educated conclusion chooses to act on that conclusion.  The worst decision would be to do nothing.

... and so do I and so do all real true Christians.

As a Christian of only four years now, I spent 38 years of my life believing it was ALL a fairy tale ... that those of either or any faith were simply delusional.  However, after years of deep and sincere study, after ensuring I fully understood the data (i.e. the history, foundation, facts) behind not just Christianity, but many world faiths including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the new age spirituality, as well as some personal experiences I can not put in words nor prove, I made my ultimate educated decision.  

But I can not tell someone else what to believe.  I can not seek and study and learn for anyone else, nor can someone do the same for me.  That would defeat the purpose our Creator set out.  That purpose being a use of the mind and the heart to seek out Truth and to let the facts speak, regardless where they lead.  

Regardless of what you do with this "challenge" (and I hope you accept it), we are all here together as brothers and sisters, and we are all created - and will always remain - equal.  The God I know and His Son Jesus (with whom I have a personal relationship) instruct me to love everyone without caveat.  Part of that love is to serve others, help those in need without hesitation, AND to share the good news we have to tell (because if it is true, you have to admit that it is the best news in all of history).  Keeping it to ourselves would be the opposite of love.  It would be apathetic and uncaring of where you spend eternity not to share.  It would be cruel.

So, again, I love you.  And that is an unconditional love - meaning, you don't need to return that love.  Regardless if you hate an "infidel" like me, or simply could not care less about any Christian, we are called to love you.  That said, your experience with Christians may not have been loving.  For that, I am sorry - I apologize on our behalf.  We are all flawed.  We are all sinners.  So, it's possible that some Christians you have met may not have shown that love very well ... but that is just an example of the "flawed" state even Christians suffer from, and it is why we need to admit we can not do it alone, that we must surrender ourselves to God, and ask for His unending grace (a.k.a. forgiveness, though we don't deserve it, through Jesus).

Again, don't take my word for it.  In fact, don't take your Imam's word for it either.  Do your OWN research and - as mentioned - follow the Truth regardless where it leads.

May the love of our mutual Creator be upon you.

Much Love,

Me

Some sources of information:

• "Paul Meets Muhammad:  A Christian-Muslim Debate" by Michael R. Licona (this book is a very fair rendering of a mock conversation between the Apostle Paul and the Prophet Muhammad - read it and you'll agree)
• And here are few talks by a former devout Muslim who answered the challenge:

The Incredible Invaluable Dad

Yes, Mom is critical to the emotional, physical, and spiritual development of her children.  In short Moms ... stick around.  And stick with your children's father, even when it seems "hopeless".  You don't need to trust me on that - just check the latest research on the impact of divorce on the kids.  Not good.  Just remember - nothing is too big for God.

But we're not here to talk about Mom.  We're here to talk about Dad:  The parent many believe is only there to bring home the bacon, punish the kids, and make funny sounds.  While each of these is true (especially the last one - "hey, pull my finger"), there have been thousands of research studies on the subject and they all come to the same conclusions.  

Kids without a Dad have:

• 5 times the average suicide rate
• Increased rates of depression
• Increased incarceration rate
• Decreased education levels – increased drop-out rates
• Lower average income levels
• Lower job security
• Increased divorce rates
• Increased substance abuse rates
• And so on

Note:  Keep in mind, to varying degrees, this applies just as much to Dads who are hands-off, even if they are living in the same house or the same town.  

So it turns out that maybe Dads are important to development of a well-adjusted child.  Who knew?  

Okay, sarcasm aside, I'll get to my point.

Both Dad and Mom are critical to the proper development of a human psyche.  The combination of the two is the key.  When one is absent from the picture, expect issues.  In essence, Moms provide x, y and z factors a child needs as he/she develops.  And Dads provide a, b and c factors a child needs as he/she develops.  Mom can not effectively provide a, b and c, and Dad can not effectively provide x, y and z.  

God created the family - Dad+Mom+kids.  The whole thing is designed this way on purpose.  Men need women.  Women need men.  Kids need both a Mom and a Dad.  Period. 

Not just a Mom.
Not just a Dad.

If you're thinking about divorce ... don't.  No matter how bad it seems, it's nothing compared to the impact it will have on your children.

If you are a single Mom, try your best to find a father-figure for your kids, although nothing beats their biological Dad (if he isn't a deadbeat who ran out).  

I'll hold back my comments on the gay "marriage", and the two mom or two dad scenario.  Look for a post on that subject in the future.  I digress.

All of my thoughts are based on real and exhaustive research, God's plan as conveyed through his Word, my love for kids, and simple logic.  Kids need the best start in this life - it's challenging enough without starting them off behind the eight-ball.  

ASIDE:  My apologies if I've hurt anyone's feelings - that wasn't my intent.  

Final statement:  "Dad, you are critical.  Don't just be there ... BE there.  Teach them, love them, communicate with them, participate in their activities, drop your selfish activities and focus on them.  God gave those little munchkins to you.  They are a gift and a responsibility.  Take them seriously and be thankful."

God bless the family unit and God bless the next generation.  May they grow up with a first-hand understanding of fatherly and Fatherly love.  

Feminization

Brendan Fraser in the movie "Bedazzled"

I've heard more and more statements in the recent past about the importance of Dad in the lives and rearing of their kids.  This may not be news to you, but the impression I've got in my lifespan (since 1971) was that "manliness" and the Biblical view of the Husband/Father role was primitive thinking - passé.  So, why would you want that around impressionable children?  Shouldn't we all become more feminine?  Nurturing?  

Thanks National Organization for Women.  You've done more to hurt society in the past 30 years than you have helped women.  Not saying NOW didn't affect some positive change, but the feminist regime swung the pendulum WAY too far the other way.  By forcing some subjective truisms that they wanted to be true for some odd reason - namely, that men and women were exactly the same - you made a bunch of men feel ashamed to be men.  It got to a point where - like with the gay agenda - it became a crime to even think of questioning this new age and ridiculous thinking.  Terms like "bigot" and "hate" and "chauvinist" came at anyone who tried to bring up any valid and reasonable arguments that contradicted this new viewpoint.  Quite impressive to see a group gain and wield that much power, however quite destructive to society and - ironically - to women.

Oy - don't be that guy.  Suck it up.

Here's the deal - God created men to be men and women to be women.  Because one does not understand the other, does not mean the other is doing it wrong or is flawed.  We are both needed, and are meant to be the way we are ... as designed.  They were created to be equal but different, with different roles.  

• Women:  You are like aliens to us.  Frequently, you come across as crazy, overly-sensitive, naggy, and disrespectful to us, even though that is not your intent.
• Men:  Keep in mind that we seem alien to them.  Frequently, we come across as insensitive, overly aggressive jerks to women, even though that is not our intent. 

I wanted to bring this to the surface to set the stage for my next blog about "The Importance of Dad".  To be the best Dad and the best Husband possible, we must first be men ... Godly men, as defined by the Bible (the one and only book of truly objective Truth).   

A few book recommendations to wrap this up:

• The Art of Manliness by Brett McKay (see, the word "Manliness" made you chuckle.  That's the impact NOW has had on us) - The author also has an awesome website:  www.artofmanliness.com/
• ManUp! by Dennis Daniel
• The Man Code by Dennis Swanberg

Check them out and let's regroup in a bit to discuss just how important you are, Dad.

Living the American Christian Life

Woof - this is going to be a tough one.  Mostly because the finger is pointed at me as much as anyone.  But I'd like to jump in head first ...

Question #1:  What does God ask us to do with our blessings?  Blessings He's given us?  More specifically, how are we to spend our money and our time?

As it says in Proverbs, "Give me enough to live on, neither too much nor too little.  If I'm too full, I might get independent, saying, 'God? Who needs him?'  If I'm poor, I might steal and dishonor the name of my God." (Proverbs 30:8-9, The Message paraphrase)

This is going to sting, but here goes:  So, what is to be said for American Christians?  Driving around a $70,000 Mercedes with an Ichthus symbol decal on the bumper?

Question #2:  Is disparity like this pleasing to God?

We say we believe in God and that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.  We say that the Bible is true - and it is - but remember that the Bible has truth in it such as, "Those who hear and don't act are like those who glance in the mirror, walk away, and two minutes later have no idea who they are, what they look like." (James 1:23-24, The Message paraphrase).  We believe that we are given blessings in order to be the hands and feet of God in this world ... to help the least of these.  Then we spend it on ourselves in opulent ways.

I can hear it now:  "I give to my Church!  I give money to WorldVision!  I am sponsoring 2 kids in Uganda through Compassion International!  I worked in the Soup Kitchen last year.  I think that's enough!  Don't judge me!  God wants me to enjoy some of these blessings!"  Okay, Mr. Offended, here are a few thoughts:

1. I'm not judging you.  I don't even know you're reading this.  I'm talking to me here.  Judgement isn't my job ... I'm not qualified.
2. God DOES want us to have joy, and enjoy our time in his creation.
3. No one is asking you to give everything away.  Although God may and - if He does - I think you need to strongly consider it.  Just saying.
4. With great blessings comes great responsibilities.  I think that's from Spiderman.
5. Final Jeopardy Question ...  Are you (am I) giving until it hurts at least a little?  Are you (am I) sacrificing in any real way?  Be honest with yourself.  Or is it more like the Pharisees in the Temple giving some of their "extras" - which looks like a lot - versus the old woman given her last two shekels?

Which is God in our lives?

We live in a bubble.  And living in this microcosm of Georgetown where even the poor aren't really that poor compared to the truly poverty stricken of the world, I am no where near poor.  In fact, I'm comfortable.  I do NOT believe that is why God created me.  I am not here to be comfortable, stand still, never risk anything and trust that He will provide, then die.  I know this because the Bible tells me so (that and Jesus loves me, this I know ...).

So, what to do now that I've slammed it on the table for consideration?  I wrote this and you've read it.  Now we're in a corner.  No plausible deniability.  What do we do?  

I think we both know.  Time for some hard decisions.  Time to start living the Christian life, not just saying the right words and "believing without acting".

Baby steps.  The bigger the better, though.

Here I go.

Footnote:  Check out the following books for more on this call to action.
>> "Not a Fan" by Kyle Idleman
>> "Radical" by David Platt
>> "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan
Be ready to be shaken up.

Coexist?

You've seen the bumper sticker.  The word "coexist" written - cleverly - in the symbols of worldviews and/or belief systems.  The intent, as I understand it, is one of "live and let live" and "can't we all just get along?"  And who can argue with that?  I mean, imagine all the people, living life in peace (John Lennon).

If the intent is to say, "Let's love one another without fighting ... without war", I believe Jesus would be 100% on board.  So would I and so would any and every true Christian everywhere.

But there is another message I think the bumper sticker maker and the bumper sticker owners intend:  Leave everyone alone and let them go on believing whatever they believe ... I mean, who are you to press your beliefs on others?  What gives you the right ... right?  Let Hindus be Hindus, let Buddhists be Buddhists, let Muslims be Muslims, let Athiests be Athiests, and so on.

ASIDE:  Interestingly, though, this bumper sticker is usually donned on cars inhabited by folks that don't necessarily subscribe to any of these world views.

Okay - let's get this out fo the way:  To press or push your beliefs upon another is no ones' right.  However, sharing knowledge that you have in a loving and respectful way with someone else that likely does not know said news, is not pressing or pushing.  It's sharing with loving intent, not with ill intent.

Here is why a Christian can not - in good conscience - hold back from sharing his or her knowledge of the Truth:  One word - love.  Notice I did not use the term "faith" because that is one of those words - like "good" - of which most people have a very flawed definition.  They see that word and immediately think, "A silly trust in something or someone, despite logic and the facts."  That's not faith.  That's BLIND faith.  I will swap out "knowledge of the Truth" in the above sentence for "faith" if you promise to read it the way I mean it ... trust in something or someone in whom I have full and reasonable knowledge.

So why MUST a Christian share this knowledge and not just "Coexist" as the bumper sticker posits?  Simple - it's unloving NOT to share this Truth ... not unlike letting someone play with a clear liquid that looks harmless but is actually a highly dangerous chemical, or a seemingly empty beeker that is filled with a deadly pathogen, or an animal that looks cute and cuddly, but will actually kill if provoked.  Sitting there and watching them fall victim because they simply aren't in the know is cruel.  And while the examples I've just used are serious, they pale in comparison with the threat of eternity without God.

So - coexist?  You bet.  But it needs to be a loving, sharing coexistence.  It can not be a "let live", hands off approach to life and relationships.  That is irresponsible.  But the approach to the delivery of the knowledge is key.  It can not be blunt or harsh or condescending.  It must come in a loving, caring form ... over time and with loving intentions.

Steps:
1. Introduce yourself and get to know them.  Invest in them.
2. Make sure they understand you truly care about them (and be sure that is true).  Serve them and love them.
3. Share what you know and how you know it.  Not just "sound bites", but facts and history to back it up.  No need to "convince", just get them thinking - God will do the rest.
4. Invite them to learn more of what you know is reasonable objective truth.

This is not a 1, 2 or 3 conversation endeavor, but a long-term thing.  Can you handle one step in this process while others handle the other steps?  Yep.  But be patient, be kind and be loving.

Avoidance of Church Lady talk early on might be good, too ;)

Much love and - despite how much I dislike those bumper stickers for what they really mean - let's coexist.  God calls us to love Him with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Put more simply:  Love God, Love People.  No caveats.

Can I get an Amen?