Promises, Promises
They exist in many forms
But only few are fulfilled
The important ones don't matter
and the insignificant ones do
They are an awkward contract
that seemingly are overlooked
Hardly heald to
Scarcely taken seriously
They take shape in numerous ways
With words they are written
With reputation they are bound
But it is a rare thing
for one to hold to his word.
Promises, Promises
They mean nothing these days
Merely words that vanish into the air
They hold no true value
and the one who makes them
this is the one who will not make good on their word
they are expected to fulfill it
yet it is understood that they will not
Promises, Promises
they are vain
they are pointless
lame, empty, worthless
These are promises
Nothing more
Nothing less
It's no wonder that they are broken
so easily broken
shattered and ignored
tossed to the side
garbage are these
nasty, useless, waste
They bring sorrow to the one promised
for he will never receive fulfillment
They bring nothing to the one who promises
for he will not make good on his oath
Promises, Promises
Matthew 5:33-37 (NRSV)
“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one."
James 5:12 (NRSV)
"Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation."
Promises are like hot air, they exist for the moment that they come out of the mouth of the person, but then they quickly vanish and are no more, so don't put your trust in them or the person who makes them.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Sunday, May 7, 2006
Video Games as Good Clean Fun
This generation has been marked with the ability to create overweight children, primarily males, with really strong thumbs, with the learned capacity to kill without hesitation or remorse by use of video games. I have repeatedly heard that the video games played today by the youngsters (children, teenagers, young adults, and some middle-aged though kid-at-heart) teach them to kill and desensitize them to violence. I have heard this from many Christians and a few non. I know some people consider video games to be evil and the cause of many evils. I know others who love them yet think nothing of them. So, amidst all this diversity in opinion and practice of video games, what can be said?
Halo is probably my favorite video game of all time. It is a shooting game that can either be played against the computer or other players. Halo rests in a military science-fiction setting in the future (around 2550 CE). This game is also rated "M" for "Mature."
I would like to look at video games by narrowing the scope to just Halo, and to consider the positives and negatives of playing this game. First, let's begin by exploring the negatives of the game.
When it all comes down to it, games like Halo are no different than boardgames, sports, cards, movies or television, or leisure reading--they are something to do in your spare time, something of a challenge, something to win, and something to associate with others. Certainly, those negative aspects of the game are harmful for those not bearing "M" capable minds. However, for those that do, the positive side becomes a huge plus worth while. But is that all?
I have also heard that violent video games cause more aggression in the players than simple puzzle-solving games. I am first-hand proof that this is false. Puzzle-solving games that I cannot solve generally provoke me to anger far beyond violent video games like Halo. For example, Tetris at times really makes me mad--pen-throwing-at-the-wall mad--simply because I can't get my lines down fast enough to win. However, when I play Halo, which I constantly lose because I am not all that great at it, I don't throw my pen at the wall and I don't get mad. Not only that, but I have heard that playing violent video games brings out the violent side of the player in real life situations. I have played many a violent video game, from Halo to Street Fighter, and I have never been in a fight, never punched or kicked anyone, and am actually very passive in real life. But, it must be noted that I did not start to play these games until I was well into middle and high school, age 14 and 15. By that time I had developed an awareness of fiction from reality. By that time I already had values concretely set in my heart. By that time I did not mold myself to the game but simply played them for what they are: a challenge to win a fictitious scenario.
Therefore, I must conclude that there is nothing wrong with this game or any other video game in that of itself. If you cannot, however, determine right from wrong or reality from fiction, then maybe you ought not to be playing video games in the first place. If you think that these games are evil, then you must also hold, in order to be consistent, that the following are as well: CSI, the television program reported to teach criminals how to not get caught with murder; Jackie Chan or Jet Lie movies; Saving Private Ryan and similar war movies; murder-mystery novels; and even the Bible, which contains many murders of people, kings, and even Jesus.
I would suggest that up through near high school age children and teenagers have their video games moderated by their parents and also to limit the amount of time that they play. Remember, like anything else, moderation is the key. We don't need couch potatoes and video game zombies. Yet, it is important to realize that these games are not inherently evil. Stick to the age levels on the boxes through these ages and moderate the use and the children should be fine. As for adults go, all systems are go, but remember to play in moderation as well, just like you should exercise, eat, and watch tv with moderation. Video games can be good, clean fun when the maturity level is parallel to the video game, and when done in moderation, and when done in this manner it results in teaching and reinforcing the player's, no matter what age, values of accomplishment, self-worth, comaraderie, team work, perseverance, and thinking skills, such as problem-solving, strategy, and hand-eye coordination.
Halo is probably my favorite video game of all time. It is a shooting game that can either be played against the computer or other players. Halo rests in a military science-fiction setting in the future (around 2550 CE). This game is also rated "M" for "Mature."
I would like to look at video games by narrowing the scope to just Halo, and to consider the positives and negatives of playing this game. First, let's begin by exploring the negatives of the game.
- Playing Halo has no redeeming value
- It is senseless killing
- It requires no physical strain
- It is time consuming
- Playing Halo desensitizes players to violence
- Through rampant killing
- Through encouraging violence
- Through advocating aggressive behavior
- Playing Halo teaches
- Negative values
- Aggressiveness
- Violence
- Killing
- How to kill
- Head shots vs. body shots
- Assassination techniques
- Combat tactics
- Playing Halo teaches positive values
- Accomplishment
- Self-worth
- Comaraderie
- Team work
- Determination/Perseverance
- Playing Halo developes thinking skills
- Problem-solving
- Hand-eye coordination
- Strategy
When it all comes down to it, games like Halo are no different than boardgames, sports, cards, movies or television, or leisure reading--they are something to do in your spare time, something of a challenge, something to win, and something to associate with others. Certainly, those negative aspects of the game are harmful for those not bearing "M" capable minds. However, for those that do, the positive side becomes a huge plus worth while. But is that all?
I have also heard that violent video games cause more aggression in the players than simple puzzle-solving games. I am first-hand proof that this is false. Puzzle-solving games that I cannot solve generally provoke me to anger far beyond violent video games like Halo. For example, Tetris at times really makes me mad--pen-throwing-at-the-wall mad--simply because I can't get my lines down fast enough to win. However, when I play Halo, which I constantly lose because I am not all that great at it, I don't throw my pen at the wall and I don't get mad. Not only that, but I have heard that playing violent video games brings out the violent side of the player in real life situations. I have played many a violent video game, from Halo to Street Fighter, and I have never been in a fight, never punched or kicked anyone, and am actually very passive in real life. But, it must be noted that I did not start to play these games until I was well into middle and high school, age 14 and 15. By that time I had developed an awareness of fiction from reality. By that time I already had values concretely set in my heart. By that time I did not mold myself to the game but simply played them for what they are: a challenge to win a fictitious scenario.
Therefore, I must conclude that there is nothing wrong with this game or any other video game in that of itself. If you cannot, however, determine right from wrong or reality from fiction, then maybe you ought not to be playing video games in the first place. If you think that these games are evil, then you must also hold, in order to be consistent, that the following are as well: CSI, the television program reported to teach criminals how to not get caught with murder; Jackie Chan or Jet Lie movies; Saving Private Ryan and similar war movies; murder-mystery novels; and even the Bible, which contains many murders of people, kings, and even Jesus.
I would suggest that up through near high school age children and teenagers have their video games moderated by their parents and also to limit the amount of time that they play. Remember, like anything else, moderation is the key. We don't need couch potatoes and video game zombies. Yet, it is important to realize that these games are not inherently evil. Stick to the age levels on the boxes through these ages and moderate the use and the children should be fine. As for adults go, all systems are go, but remember to play in moderation as well, just like you should exercise, eat, and watch tv with moderation. Video games can be good, clean fun when the maturity level is parallel to the video game, and when done in moderation, and when done in this manner it results in teaching and reinforcing the player's, no matter what age, values of accomplishment, self-worth, comaraderie, team work, perseverance, and thinking skills, such as problem-solving, strategy, and hand-eye coordination.
Thursday, May 4, 2006
Christians and Creationism
As I grew up, I was taught that because God created the earth and the Bible is strictly chronological and traces all of humanity's existence the world has only been around for a short period of time of about five to six thousand years. In retrospect I find this to be an ignorant undermining of evolutionary theories. It seems to me that these claims ignore scientific evidence for the sake of preserving a false biblical concept. The idea that the world is young is not really identifiable in the bible; it appears that young-earth Christians look this concept into the bible however possible. I have several issues with this practice and methodology for making important claims such as how old the earth is. Here is why.
First, it places your interpretations ahead of the Scriptures. By Scripture twisting to support your own views you are making the Word of God bend to your mind's thoughts and ideas rather than your mind bending to the Word. Scripture contains the authority of God alone, and all men's interpretations must be subject to it. This methodology takes away meaning and value from Scripture.
Second, it allows for the Scriptures to be widely misunderstood and misapplied in ways that it was never intended. Anyone can read the Scriptures and come up with their own understanding of it and then apply it to their lives, but this can be very dangerous, for when literary, cultural, and historical contexts are not taken into consideration, the point of the passage will be missed and in turn wrongly applied. This methodology does not do the Scriptures justice.
Finally, it is simply an ignorant and irresponsible practice. It does more harm than good and it gives Christianity a bad wrap. This methodology best shows the tendency of many Christians sticking their heads in the sand in the face of theological-scientific adversity. It causes many people to lose respect for the intellect of Christians, thinking that we check our brains at the door when we become faith-based believers, and are unable to think in a coherent manner. This methodology gives Scripture a false identity.
Therefore, I would like to briefly explore the understanding of the old earth interpretation of the creation of this world by God, the creator of the universe, after having shown the lack of biblical -historical, cultural, and literary--support of a young earth.
Young Earth Creationism
Biblical historical evidence leads us all the way back to Adam, the first man. However, Genesis, the book of the Old Testament that contains the creation account, does not give any time stamps to the different days of creation. The hebrew word for day is quite ambiguous, and it does not necessarily have to mean a literal 24-hour period of time. It could mean any of the following: age; year; or day. So, although it could mean a day--a 24-hour period--it could very well also mean age or year, and the literary context allows for any of them to be used. There is no concrete historical or literary evidence to support a young earth. In fact, more support can be found for a certain timelessness to the creation account, which would imply that the creation account was not intended to yield any sort of time construct, but rather that it was intended to make a point by use of a skillful literary device called parallelism. This parallelism exists in the six days of creation of the world.
The first day, the day that God made light, is parallel to the fourth day, when God made the sun, the moon, and the stars, all of which are sources of light and rule over darkness. The second day, when God created the sky, parallels the fifth day, the day that God created flying animals--those creatures that rule the sky. The oceans and dry land were created on the third day, along with vegetation for the land, which parallels next to the sixth day when God created all animals to rule the land, as well as Adam--humans--to rule over all of creation. We know that humans are not only the highest creation of God, but also the ruler over all of God's creation, being subject only to God (Gen. 1:26).
The whole purpose of this literary masterpiece is to show that man is God's entire focus in creation. All things were created for humans who were created for God by God. This masterpiece, however, despite what many have taught and preached, is not concerned with any sort of chronology. You might be saying, "Then why does it have it in the text as day one, day two, day three, etc.?" Well, I am glad you asked! Let me tell you!
Note that, for example, on the third day vegetation was created. However, it was on the fourth day that the sun was created. How could plant-life survive without sunlight to create the photosynthesis process of feeding the vegetation? This is not possible; this would break the laws of science--laws that God designed and instituted, not man. This example shows that the creation account is not worried about scientific rules, nor is it concerned with correct chronology. The events or the days that are contained in the text serve a function to point the reader to a most difficult question: why are we here? The events are obviously not in correct sequence, and therefore there must be a reason for why the sequential order is wrong. The reason must be to use literary devices to make a point. The creation account poignantly describes man's purpose--to rule the creation of the Creator who made them in order to relate with them--not to give a sequential, chronological account of the world's beginnings.
This idea is greatly supported by the Bible's cultural context of the Ancient Near East or the Fertile Crescent. Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts regarding the creation of the world are all concerned with answering why humans are here and not how they got here. In other words, they all answer why we are here and denote the whole purpose of man, in different ways of course, and they have nothing to do with sequential, chronological accounts of the beginning of the world. Since Genesis is a nAncient Near Eastern (Fertile Crescent) book, it is culturally placed in the same mind-set as the Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts. Therefore, in the same way that these Ancient Near Eastern texts were concerned with purpose rather than sequential history, the creation account of Genesis follows the same intentions--to highlight the purpose of humans, God's highest creation--not the chronological history of man from the dawn of time.
The historical evidence for a young earth in the Genesis creation account is very weak. The literary evidence stands against any possible interpretation of young or old considering the text on its own. The cultural context completely takes the Genesis account out of age interpretations altogether. It is not possible to determine from the creation account as found in Genesis whether this earth is young or old because it was not written for that purpose. As a result, we cannot make claims that the Bible argues for a young earth or an old one for that matter. So where do we go from here? Science or astronomy, to be more specific.
Astronomical Evidence of an Old Earth
Since the Bible does not make any claims in the creation account as to the age of the earth, we can only turn to science to determine how old this earth is. These results stand apart from the Bible and should be considered outside of the Bible's authority. It is entirely possible to believe in the Bible and still hold to the old-earth theory because the Bible never identifies that the earth is actually young. So what evidence does science have? Plenty. Here is one bit of evidence from the field of astronomy: the speed of light.
We know that this universe is large and vast. The stars that we look at in the night sky are very far away. In fact, using light's speed as a measurement of distance, we can calculate that some of the nearest stars are about 25 million light-years away. This means that if a star is 25 million light-years away, then it would take 25 million years for light to travel from that star to reach your eye when you gaze at it at night. In other words, if you are looking at a star right now, and that star happened to be 25 million light-years away, then that star had to send out that light 25 million years ago in order for it to reach you right at this instant. Since light has been constantly shed upon this earth by the stars of the night sky for centuries upon centuries, scientists conclude that these stars had to have been around several million years ago in order to produce the light that reaches us today.
Another example is the fact that this universe is constantly expanding in all directions. Scientists can actually note the trajectories of stars and galaxies by use of high-powered telescopes orbiting the earth and figure out the path that they took. In other words, they can trace the stars and galaxies to a common point in time--a point of origin--that would have existed approsimately 15 billion years ago. Talk about retracing steps!
Conclusion
The creation account of the Bible serves a literary purpose to show the high order of mankind in relation to the Creator of the universe. It does not concern itself with the age of the earth or with the chronology of the worlds beginnings. Therefore, scientific evidence do not necessarily need to be denied in order to hold to one's faith. Besides, can you really blame scientists for what they find? They are only making observations of this world and all that is in it. If this world is young and God created it already in a mature state, then it would still appear that creation is very old in the same way that God could have created this world so that it would "grow up" and get old with time. The result, then, would be the appearance of an old universe no matter which way you go. So can you really blame scientists? Not only that, but the book of Job is quite clear: since we were not there when God created the world, we have no right to claim exactly how he did it. This means that we cannot claim specifically that God created the world within a period of seven days. This means that we cannot deny the possibility that God created the world and set it in motion by use of evolution. This means that we simply do not know how this world was created and anyone's guess is as good as another's.
Therefore, Christians can hold to scientific evidence and still be a Christian. Christians shouldn't just stick their heads in the sand or check their brains at the door. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and still hold to the old earth evidence. No matter how you take it, faith is still required--faith in the Creator of the universe. But know that the Bible is not concerned with time in regards to creation as much as it is in purpose, for it functions to show that the One who created the stars in the sky not only created you and I but also wants to know us intimately, that we might serve him and honor him by ruling over the earth that he created. Now that is true creationism.
First, it places your interpretations ahead of the Scriptures. By Scripture twisting to support your own views you are making the Word of God bend to your mind's thoughts and ideas rather than your mind bending to the Word. Scripture contains the authority of God alone, and all men's interpretations must be subject to it. This methodology takes away meaning and value from Scripture.
Second, it allows for the Scriptures to be widely misunderstood and misapplied in ways that it was never intended. Anyone can read the Scriptures and come up with their own understanding of it and then apply it to their lives, but this can be very dangerous, for when literary, cultural, and historical contexts are not taken into consideration, the point of the passage will be missed and in turn wrongly applied. This methodology does not do the Scriptures justice.
Finally, it is simply an ignorant and irresponsible practice. It does more harm than good and it gives Christianity a bad wrap. This methodology best shows the tendency of many Christians sticking their heads in the sand in the face of theological-scientific adversity. It causes many people to lose respect for the intellect of Christians, thinking that we check our brains at the door when we become faith-based believers, and are unable to think in a coherent manner. This methodology gives Scripture a false identity.
Therefore, I would like to briefly explore the understanding of the old earth interpretation of the creation of this world by God, the creator of the universe, after having shown the lack of biblical -historical, cultural, and literary--support of a young earth.
Young Earth Creationism
Biblical historical evidence leads us all the way back to Adam, the first man. However, Genesis, the book of the Old Testament that contains the creation account, does not give any time stamps to the different days of creation. The hebrew word for day is quite ambiguous, and it does not necessarily have to mean a literal 24-hour period of time. It could mean any of the following: age; year; or day. So, although it could mean a day--a 24-hour period--it could very well also mean age or year, and the literary context allows for any of them to be used. There is no concrete historical or literary evidence to support a young earth. In fact, more support can be found for a certain timelessness to the creation account, which would imply that the creation account was not intended to yield any sort of time construct, but rather that it was intended to make a point by use of a skillful literary device called parallelism. This parallelism exists in the six days of creation of the world.
The first day, the day that God made light, is parallel to the fourth day, when God made the sun, the moon, and the stars, all of which are sources of light and rule over darkness. The second day, when God created the sky, parallels the fifth day, the day that God created flying animals--those creatures that rule the sky. The oceans and dry land were created on the third day, along with vegetation for the land, which parallels next to the sixth day when God created all animals to rule the land, as well as Adam--humans--to rule over all of creation. We know that humans are not only the highest creation of God, but also the ruler over all of God's creation, being subject only to God (Gen. 1:26).
The whole purpose of this literary masterpiece is to show that man is God's entire focus in creation. All things were created for humans who were created for God by God. This masterpiece, however, despite what many have taught and preached, is not concerned with any sort of chronology. You might be saying, "Then why does it have it in the text as day one, day two, day three, etc.?" Well, I am glad you asked! Let me tell you!
Note that, for example, on the third day vegetation was created. However, it was on the fourth day that the sun was created. How could plant-life survive without sunlight to create the photosynthesis process of feeding the vegetation? This is not possible; this would break the laws of science--laws that God designed and instituted, not man. This example shows that the creation account is not worried about scientific rules, nor is it concerned with correct chronology. The events or the days that are contained in the text serve a function to point the reader to a most difficult question: why are we here? The events are obviously not in correct sequence, and therefore there must be a reason for why the sequential order is wrong. The reason must be to use literary devices to make a point. The creation account poignantly describes man's purpose--to rule the creation of the Creator who made them in order to relate with them--not to give a sequential, chronological account of the world's beginnings.
This idea is greatly supported by the Bible's cultural context of the Ancient Near East or the Fertile Crescent. Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts regarding the creation of the world are all concerned with answering why humans are here and not how they got here. In other words, they all answer why we are here and denote the whole purpose of man, in different ways of course, and they have nothing to do with sequential, chronological accounts of the beginning of the world. Since Genesis is a nAncient Near Eastern (Fertile Crescent) book, it is culturally placed in the same mind-set as the Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts. Therefore, in the same way that these Ancient Near Eastern texts were concerned with purpose rather than sequential history, the creation account of Genesis follows the same intentions--to highlight the purpose of humans, God's highest creation--not the chronological history of man from the dawn of time.
The historical evidence for a young earth in the Genesis creation account is very weak. The literary evidence stands against any possible interpretation of young or old considering the text on its own. The cultural context completely takes the Genesis account out of age interpretations altogether. It is not possible to determine from the creation account as found in Genesis whether this earth is young or old because it was not written for that purpose. As a result, we cannot make claims that the Bible argues for a young earth or an old one for that matter. So where do we go from here? Science or astronomy, to be more specific.
Astronomical Evidence of an Old Earth
Since the Bible does not make any claims in the creation account as to the age of the earth, we can only turn to science to determine how old this earth is. These results stand apart from the Bible and should be considered outside of the Bible's authority. It is entirely possible to believe in the Bible and still hold to the old-earth theory because the Bible never identifies that the earth is actually young. So what evidence does science have? Plenty. Here is one bit of evidence from the field of astronomy: the speed of light.
We know that this universe is large and vast. The stars that we look at in the night sky are very far away. In fact, using light's speed as a measurement of distance, we can calculate that some of the nearest stars are about 25 million light-years away. This means that if a star is 25 million light-years away, then it would take 25 million years for light to travel from that star to reach your eye when you gaze at it at night. In other words, if you are looking at a star right now, and that star happened to be 25 million light-years away, then that star had to send out that light 25 million years ago in order for it to reach you right at this instant. Since light has been constantly shed upon this earth by the stars of the night sky for centuries upon centuries, scientists conclude that these stars had to have been around several million years ago in order to produce the light that reaches us today.
Another example is the fact that this universe is constantly expanding in all directions. Scientists can actually note the trajectories of stars and galaxies by use of high-powered telescopes orbiting the earth and figure out the path that they took. In other words, they can trace the stars and galaxies to a common point in time--a point of origin--that would have existed approsimately 15 billion years ago. Talk about retracing steps!
Conclusion
The creation account of the Bible serves a literary purpose to show the high order of mankind in relation to the Creator of the universe. It does not concern itself with the age of the earth or with the chronology of the worlds beginnings. Therefore, scientific evidence do not necessarily need to be denied in order to hold to one's faith. Besides, can you really blame scientists for what they find? They are only making observations of this world and all that is in it. If this world is young and God created it already in a mature state, then it would still appear that creation is very old in the same way that God could have created this world so that it would "grow up" and get old with time. The result, then, would be the appearance of an old universe no matter which way you go. So can you really blame scientists? Not only that, but the book of Job is quite clear: since we were not there when God created the world, we have no right to claim exactly how he did it. This means that we cannot claim specifically that God created the world within a period of seven days. This means that we cannot deny the possibility that God created the world and set it in motion by use of evolution. This means that we simply do not know how this world was created and anyone's guess is as good as another's.
Therefore, Christians can hold to scientific evidence and still be a Christian. Christians shouldn't just stick their heads in the sand or check their brains at the door. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and still hold to the old earth evidence. No matter how you take it, faith is still required--faith in the Creator of the universe. But know that the Bible is not concerned with time in regards to creation as much as it is in purpose, for it functions to show that the One who created the stars in the sky not only created you and I but also wants to know us intimately, that we might serve him and honor him by ruling over the earth that he created. Now that is true creationism.
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Catholicism as Christianity
I have to admit that growing up I thought catholicism was not a Christian religion and it was purely evil. I find that many evangelical and protestant Christians think this way about catholicism today. I have heard much parley from protestants on catholics, and the argument is always the same: catholics are not Christians; it is impossible to be a catholic and still be a Christian. I am an evangelical Christian who would like to rebut that argument by saying this: there are some catholics that are Christians and there are some evangelicals that are not.
To be a Christian does not mean you belong to a particular sect of the Christian religion. To make such a claim turns that faith-practice into a cult by definition. No, to be a Christian one must believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to have faith in Jesus, and to act out that faith. There are many catholics who think that because they are catholic they will go to heaven, yet they do not believe. Such catholics are not believers and are not saved. Likewise, there are also evangelicals who think that because they go to church they will go to heaven, yet they do not believe. Such evangelicals are in the same boat as the non-believing catholics. Neither believing nor living like they have faith, these evangelicals are not Christians. A catholic that believes in Jesus Christ, lives to worship him and serve him with all of his heart, mind, and soul, he is truly a Christian. So also is it with the evangelical who places his faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and reflects that faith in how he lives through all that he does. And so, it is true, that catholics can be Christians in the same way that evangelicals can be Christians--through faith.
Let's get one thing straight: it is by grace that anyone is saved; no work or good deed, no faith or belief, and no religion or ritual can save anyone. Being a protestant cannot save you any more than being a catholic, a reformist, a presbyterian, or a charismatic can. It is by grace through faith. If a catholic believes, then he or she is a Christian--a catholic Christian. And if a protestant believes, then he or she is a protestant Christian. But note, however, that both are Christians and not one over the other simply because he chose a particular method for acting out his faith. Catholicism is a method for acting out faith in the same way that presbyterian, lutheran, and pentecostalism are.
To be sure, catholicism is far more ritualized than many sects of evangelicalism. However, this doesn't make it less "Christian." All methods of Christianity have different emphases and different rituals and ways of doing rituals. Don't get caught up claiming one method over the other, rather join others in the method that best suites you, stick with it, and enjoy it, knowing that the Lord your God cares about you and that you place your faith in him and that you act on it in some way or another.
Catholicism is a Christian religion in the same way that baptist is. Don't discount the faith of catholics just because they are catholic and belong to a different faith-practice than you do. Remember the words of Paul that we all belong to the same calling, the same body, the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same baptism, the same faith, and the same God and Father (Ephesians 4:4-6). Therefore, do not be guilty of negating someone else's faith based on their method, rather "lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1-3).
To be a Christian does not mean you belong to a particular sect of the Christian religion. To make such a claim turns that faith-practice into a cult by definition. No, to be a Christian one must believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to have faith in Jesus, and to act out that faith. There are many catholics who think that because they are catholic they will go to heaven, yet they do not believe. Such catholics are not believers and are not saved. Likewise, there are also evangelicals who think that because they go to church they will go to heaven, yet they do not believe. Such evangelicals are in the same boat as the non-believing catholics. Neither believing nor living like they have faith, these evangelicals are not Christians. A catholic that believes in Jesus Christ, lives to worship him and serve him with all of his heart, mind, and soul, he is truly a Christian. So also is it with the evangelical who places his faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and reflects that faith in how he lives through all that he does. And so, it is true, that catholics can be Christians in the same way that evangelicals can be Christians--through faith.
Let's get one thing straight: it is by grace that anyone is saved; no work or good deed, no faith or belief, and no religion or ritual can save anyone. Being a protestant cannot save you any more than being a catholic, a reformist, a presbyterian, or a charismatic can. It is by grace through faith. If a catholic believes, then he or she is a Christian--a catholic Christian. And if a protestant believes, then he or she is a protestant Christian. But note, however, that both are Christians and not one over the other simply because he chose a particular method for acting out his faith. Catholicism is a method for acting out faith in the same way that presbyterian, lutheran, and pentecostalism are.
To be sure, catholicism is far more ritualized than many sects of evangelicalism. However, this doesn't make it less "Christian." All methods of Christianity have different emphases and different rituals and ways of doing rituals. Don't get caught up claiming one method over the other, rather join others in the method that best suites you, stick with it, and enjoy it, knowing that the Lord your God cares about you and that you place your faith in him and that you act on it in some way or another.
Catholicism is a Christian religion in the same way that baptist is. Don't discount the faith of catholics just because they are catholic and belong to a different faith-practice than you do. Remember the words of Paul that we all belong to the same calling, the same body, the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same baptism, the same faith, and the same God and Father (Ephesians 4:4-6). Therefore, do not be guilty of negating someone else's faith based on their method, rather "lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1-3).
Monday, May 1, 2006
Eternal Satisfaction & Possessions, Partners, and Pelf
Many of us have often wondered about life after death. Is there such a life? Some of us say, yes, there is. Others say, no, there is not. But all of us have at least thought about it at least once, and, unfortunately for those who deny any sort of afterlife, the overwhelming majority of the world's population believes that there is. But what would cause every person to even think about or consider the possibility that there is an afterlife of some sort to begin with?
The Bible says that God has given us a knowledge of eternity in our hearts: "He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end" (Eccl. 3:11, NRSV). The Hebrew does not say
"a sense of past and future into their minds," although this is a perfectly good translation, but rather, "He (God) set eternity on their hearts." Therefore, from a biblical perspective (and a perfectly acceptable anthropological concept from my point of view), the reason why all of us have at least some point in time thought about or considered the existance of heaven or an afterlife of some sort is because our hearts have eternity written in our hearts. But here inlies the problem: because our hearts are set on eternity, nothing on this earth can satisfy our thirst.
Bishop Sherwood Carthan, chaplain for the Sacramento Kings and pastor of B.O.S.S. (Bayside of South Sacramento) notes it this way: "Once God has dipped your heart in etenity, nothing else can satisfy." In other words, "We will never be completely satisfied with earthly pleasures and pursuits" (Carthan). This is because this life is like chasing the wind--it's meaningless and in vain. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, said it this way: "I devoted myself to search for understanding and explore by wisdom everything being done under the heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless--like chasing the wind" (Eccl. 1:13-14, NLT).
The truth is we all desire something bigger and better. We buy a Mustang GT, but soon we want a Ford GT. We buy a Mac PowerBook, but soon we want a Mac MacBook. We buy a sweet 27" television, but soon we want a 52" instead. We are seemingly never satisfied with material possessions. We make $10/hr, but soon we want a raise. We make $90,000/yr, but soon we want $100,000. We have a million dollars in our savings account, but soon we want to win the 14 million dollar lottery. We are seemingly never satisfied with money. Unfortunately, for many of us one partner is good, but soon a new one is necessary. Let's face it: no quality of possessions, no dollar amount and no person will ever satisfy us completely. This is because every single thing on earth--possessions, partners, and pelf--pail in comparison to eternity. The fact is God is the only one who can fill our eternal desire, for God is timeless and eternal.
Do you find yourself dissatisfied with all the pleasures of this world? Are you finding that you are incapable of being satisfied by holding onto money? Is it true that you fall into greed and the lust for more when it comes to possessions or money? Do you realize that people will only fail you and no partner will ever truly satisfy completely? As Solomon said, pursuing possessions, people and pelf is like chasing the wind, it's meaningless. What good will it do you to acquire all those things? They are all perishable, and they cannot join you in eternity. The only thing that is fully satisfying and can actually join you in eternity is God, and this is only made possible through Jesus Christ.
If you want to be satisfied right now, then stop pursuing perishable pleasures and pursue Christ--the eternal God who dipped your heart in eternity. Then and only then will you receive an eternal satisfaction.
If you want to receive this eternal satisfaction, then do so by praying this prayer:
Lord, you are the only One who can fill the God-shaped whole in my heart. You have destined me for eternity and I long for it. But, I long to live in eternity with you, not apart from you. And so, Lord, I accept your free gift of grace--your Son, Jesus Christ. It is not by my power that I am saved, but by yours alone through the life, death, and resurrection of your Son. Please, Lord, save me. I am a sinner and I have tried in vain to fill my heart with temporal and perishable pleasures, but now I realize that I can be forgiven of all my sins--past, present, and future--and have my heart filled with your love. So, I ask that you come into my life and fill my eternal void and desire so that I may live for you while here on earth and live with you eternally in heaven. Thank you for saving me and coming into my life. I give my life to you. Amen.
The Bible says that God has given us a knowledge of eternity in our hearts: "He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end" (Eccl. 3:11, NRSV). The Hebrew does not say
"a sense of past and future into their minds," although this is a perfectly good translation, but rather, "He (God) set eternity on their hearts." Therefore, from a biblical perspective (and a perfectly acceptable anthropological concept from my point of view), the reason why all of us have at least some point in time thought about or considered the existance of heaven or an afterlife of some sort is because our hearts have eternity written in our hearts. But here inlies the problem: because our hearts are set on eternity, nothing on this earth can satisfy our thirst.
Bishop Sherwood Carthan, chaplain for the Sacramento Kings and pastor of B.O.S.S. (Bayside of South Sacramento) notes it this way: "Once God has dipped your heart in etenity, nothing else can satisfy." In other words, "We will never be completely satisfied with earthly pleasures and pursuits" (Carthan). This is because this life is like chasing the wind--it's meaningless and in vain. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, said it this way: "I devoted myself to search for understanding and explore by wisdom everything being done under the heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless--like chasing the wind" (Eccl. 1:13-14, NLT).
The truth is we all desire something bigger and better. We buy a Mustang GT, but soon we want a Ford GT. We buy a Mac PowerBook, but soon we want a Mac MacBook. We buy a sweet 27" television, but soon we want a 52" instead. We are seemingly never satisfied with material possessions. We make $10/hr, but soon we want a raise. We make $90,000/yr, but soon we want $100,000. We have a million dollars in our savings account, but soon we want to win the 14 million dollar lottery. We are seemingly never satisfied with money. Unfortunately, for many of us one partner is good, but soon a new one is necessary. Let's face it: no quality of possessions, no dollar amount and no person will ever satisfy us completely. This is because every single thing on earth--possessions, partners, and pelf--pail in comparison to eternity. The fact is God is the only one who can fill our eternal desire, for God is timeless and eternal.
Do you find yourself dissatisfied with all the pleasures of this world? Are you finding that you are incapable of being satisfied by holding onto money? Is it true that you fall into greed and the lust for more when it comes to possessions or money? Do you realize that people will only fail you and no partner will ever truly satisfy completely? As Solomon said, pursuing possessions, people and pelf is like chasing the wind, it's meaningless. What good will it do you to acquire all those things? They are all perishable, and they cannot join you in eternity. The only thing that is fully satisfying and can actually join you in eternity is God, and this is only made possible through Jesus Christ.
If you want to be satisfied right now, then stop pursuing perishable pleasures and pursue Christ--the eternal God who dipped your heart in eternity. Then and only then will you receive an eternal satisfaction.
If you want to receive this eternal satisfaction, then do so by praying this prayer:
Lord, you are the only One who can fill the God-shaped whole in my heart. You have destined me for eternity and I long for it. But, I long to live in eternity with you, not apart from you. And so, Lord, I accept your free gift of grace--your Son, Jesus Christ. It is not by my power that I am saved, but by yours alone through the life, death, and resurrection of your Son. Please, Lord, save me. I am a sinner and I have tried in vain to fill my heart with temporal and perishable pleasures, but now I realize that I can be forgiven of all my sins--past, present, and future--and have my heart filled with your love. So, I ask that you come into my life and fill my eternal void and desire so that I may live for you while here on earth and live with you eternally in heaven. Thank you for saving me and coming into my life. I give my life to you. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
