Please Don't Feed the Ducks

At a park in Spokane this weekend, there were cautionary signs for our interaction with wildlife that are very applicable to human nature as well. "Please do not feed the ducks." Although I didn't have a camera available to get actual footage, the sign had a similar warning as the one pictured.

If you feed the ducks they will forget how to find their own food. They will become dependent on humans to provide their sustenance. This is eventually detrimental to their survival.

Like the ducks, if our government "feeds" the people too much, they become dependent on government to provide their sustenance. This is eventually detrimental to their survival.

There is a dependency epidemic around the world... especially in America. When the people become more concerned about making their current life easier, they disregard what is best for them in the long run.

How can we observe this phenomenon in nature, but not recognize it in human nature? Maybe because we don't want to.

From Apathy to... Liberty

Although there is uncertainty whether Alexander Tytler (1747-1813) actually said these exact words, his concept of the cycle of democracy is very interesting...

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

The recent push for health care reform has aroused much heated debate lately. Some may wonder why conservatives fear government controlled health care. It seems so insensitive toward those who cannot afford it. Our fear is not really about health care. Our fear is from the growing dependence on our government to provide our needs and "dummy-proof" our decisions. The fear is that we are moving "from apathy to dependence" in this cycle of democracy.

That is why many are quoting Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." While the time for bloodshed may not be upon us yet, the time to return to liberty is now. If we don't take steps backward in this cycle of democracy toward liberty, we are doomed for bondage again.

Does this mean some may go without health care until we get back on track? Sadly, yes. Will some people die five years prematurely because they cannot afford health care? Probably. I know that sounds insensitive, but those who fought in the Revolutionary War knew the consequences they faced in the name of liberty. We have allowed ourselves to get further and further away from liberty. Though it will not be easy to get back to liberty, it will be easier now than when the phase of dependence or bondage is upon us.

Change is not the problem, the problem is the current movement toward more government control which is a step away from liberty.


I have to admit that this post was partially inspired by the blog post of a friend of a friend, Dionne.

"R" Principles.

Okay, so I haven't posted anything here for a long time... wow, three months. Hopefully I will be able to collect my thoughts enough to post something a little more frequently.

This has been gnawing on both the national and local government level (i.e. my employer). While most Republicans would say they believe the following principles, they sure don't act like it. The fifth paragraph is where I see most republicans failing today. While I may not like many of the Republican politicians, I find myself agreeing with most of these principles (although some are wishy-washy). The only statement here that I don't agree with is the last one... and that is mostly because the current Republican politicians do not act on these beliefs. I took this from the GOP website...


Republican Principles

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Purchasing Glory Postponement

While trying to live more "heavenly minded" lately, my mind wanders to odd questions such as...

How much am I willing to spend to keep myself out of God's presence?

Now, there isn't a right or wrong answer to this question, so I don't judge anyone for seeking medical treatment.

Living in such a science driven society there is a lot of effort put forth to develop cures for all types of terminal illnesses. These treatments are often very expensive. God created us with a survival instinct so that we typically don't want to die. However, he also revealed that being in his presence is much greater. We can all strive for the attitude of Paul that, "to live is Christ and to die is gain." Is spending large amounts of money to save our own lives effectively keeping us from the "gain."

The answer may be different depending on the earthly responsibility we have. For someone who is in a position to have a significant eternal effect on others, it may be worth spending the money. There are many factors that could be considered such as earthly responsibilities, dependent family members, or potential to make earthly contributions to the heavenly kingdom (i.e. extending Billy Graham's life would probably have been priceless). The answer is probably only known by God, and he knows the heart of every believer who has to make this decision.

Since I am not faced with the decision today it's difficult for me to be sure of my answer. If I had a million dollars available to postpone my own heavenly journey, I would have a very difficult time spending the cash when it could go to help other people simply find the entrance to the Kingdom.

OT Laws

I have often wondered why God's laws in the Old Testament were applicable to the Israelites, but not to Christians. I have heard people say that the laws were for a specific nation, or that God was showing his people they could not rely on themselves to be perfect. That reasoning sounded okay to me, but it didn't completely satisfy my questions. I know this may end up sounding preachy, but after reading through the middle of Deuteronomy, these thoughts have been circling around in my head. I found that most rules/commands God gave the Israelites can be classified into three groups...

1) Actions that are detestable to God.
I assume that any action determined to be "detestable" to God in the Old Testament would still be detestable to God today (worshipping other Gods, sexual immorality, etc.). There was an instance where God said certain types of animals should be detestable to the Israelites as far as diet went, but God did not say they were detestable to him.

2) Actions to show reverence for the holiness of God.
Actions to show reverence would probably be applied in principle when we worship. There were various rules about cleanliness when the people would go to worship God. After reading how reverently God expected the people to worship him makes me think we take our God far too lightly. Although we are free in Christ, we still have a responsibility to show reverence to our God.

3) Actions to mark the Israelites as God's people, separate from other nations.
Any action that was to mark the Israelites as God's people (dietary rules, clothing, etc.) would not apply to someone who was not part of the Jewish nation. God was getting the Jews ready to enter into a land with very evil men - so evil that destruction of the entire group was the only way to deal with them. God wanted to make sure his nation did not blend in. He wanted to keep them separate so they wouldn't be tempted to fall into the practices of their neighbors.

Stem Cells

I know what I am "supposed" to think about embryonic stems cells, but why?

This is the question I asked myself this morning with all the news over the President allowing embryonic stem cell research. So I quickly popped over to Wikipedia (I know, very scientific) and read the following excerpts...

Stem cells can now be grown and transformed into specialized cells with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves

The two broad types of mammalian stem cells are: embryonic stem cells... and adult stem cells

The use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not as controversial as embryonic stem cells, because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo.

After nearly ten years of research, there are no approved treatments or human trials using embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cell treatments have been successfully used for many years to treat leukemia and related bone/blood cancers through bone marrow transplants.

As previously posted, nobody knows when God chooses to breathe a soul into us... neither do scientists, neither does the President. If there is an alternative to destroying embryos (that has apparently been successful), why fight so hard to approve something that could possibly be unethical?

Some may argue that embryonic stem cells have more potential or are easier to produce than adult stem cells, but those reasons are not worth the possibility that we are disrespecting God's process of life. One thing that has been reiterated to me as I have read through the first few books of the Old Testament is that God does not like himself or his creation to be disrespected.

Other Dimensions

Heaven may exist right where we are standing. It may be in a different dimension, but right along side us on this physical earth. At least that is what Randy Alcorn suggests in his book about Heaven. My mom gave me this book for my birthday and, although I am only a quarter of the way through its 500 pages, I have started thinking about Heaven a little differently.

As the author mentions, even modern physicists researching string theory assume there are other physical dimensions that we cannot observe. Physicists generally recognize four dimensions - three spatial and one time - but they are starting to consider that there could be more dimensions we cannot observe. Main stream science is hoping to find out some answers to this very question when the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider resumes operation in a couple months.

Alcorn's ideas of Heaven being another earthly dimension come from the ways in which the Bible shows man and the heavenly realm interacting. The Garden of Eden was basically Heaven - God and man freely communicated and there was no sin or death. When the sin nature fell over the world, the gate to the Garden was closed. This gate that closed was the ability to observe this heavenly dimension that runs concurrent with our earthly dimension.

Sidenote: I noticed in reading Genesis and Exodus that the Garden of Eden was guarded by Cherubim. Also, the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle had Cherubim weaved into the entrance curtain. Interesting that the Most Holy Place, God's throne room, was also "guarded" by Cherubim.

Even though the observation of this heavenly dimension was closed with the fall, God and his angels were recorded in the Bible as apparently having come across from one dimension to another. It also helps explain passages like when Stephen, who was being stoned, said "Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Basically, Alcorn says that Heaven is on Earth, but the general ability to observe it was removed with the fall. Nonetheless, there have been instances where the dimensional veil has been removed and people have been able to see into Heaven or God communicated through it.

I was talking to my wife about this as we were driving back from Spokane a few weeks ago and it kind of creeped us out. If there is another dimension that is hidden from our eyes, yet right in front of, there could be angels and deceased believers moving around us... we just can't observe them from our realm unless God chooses to open the door between the realms.

Back to the 90's

I like graphs. One of the big stories in the news today is how the Dow Jones Industrial average is at its lowest point since 1997. I stole a graph from Google Finance, and looking at the history of this index, it appears we are almost where we should be. I added a red line to the chart to represent what I think should have taken place over the last 12 years (however, I may be a little optimistic). Most of the growth above the line has been financed with debt, which has artificially inflated our wealth. I won't restate my thoughts on what little effect government "stimulus" will have on artificial wealth, but the graph sure is interesting...

Lessons from an Egyptian Bailout

While reading the end of Genesis, I came across an interesting story (chapter 47) about how Joseph handled governing in Egypt while there was a severe famine. When the citizens could no longer grow their own food, they bought grain from Joseph with their money. When the citizens ran out of money, they begged for a government hand out. Instead, Joseph traded the grain for the citizens' livestock. After the citizens traded all their livestock, they traded their land and even gave themselves to Egypt in servitude - all to just survive.

So the news says we are in a recession. Many look to the government to save them and their way of life. Are we to a point where we are willing to sell everything we have and commit ourselves to servitude of our government?

During the recent presidential inaugural address I noticed a quote that reminded me of another inaugural quote. However, there were stark differences even though both presidents were of the same political party persuasion...

John F. Kennedy: "And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

Barack Obama: "The question we ask today is... whether it (the government) helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

The 35th president expected the people to bring change to the nation... not the government.

The current politicians are talking about the wrong kind of bailout. We need to bail ourselves out before we expect the government to do it for us. Joseph did not give free handouts to the citizens - even when starvation was knocking on their door. He did bailout the citizens, but only after they were willing to give up everything.

Genesis (Finally)

I finally finished reading through Genesis... and just under 2 months. I have been reading it more carefully than I have before and also taking notes. I noticed many things I haven't noticed before... maybe these were just things that were not taught in Sunday School...

Creation:

1) Apparently it was God's intent for us to be vegetarian (1:29-30). At least death due to the fall was good for something!

Noah and the Ark:

2) Noah gathered seven of every clean animal, seven of every bird, and two of all other animals (7:2-3). Why are we always simply taught two of every animal?

3) The book of Genesis does not mention how Noah's neighbors reacted to him building an ark. Why do all the movies and cartoons show Noah's neighbors mocking him, and then begging to board the ark? Is that mentioned elsewhere or do we just read that into the story?

4) After the waters receded and God created the rainbow, God said the rainbow was a reminder for him, not necessarily for us (9:15-16).

Jacob, Leah, and Rachel:

5) After Jacob worked for Laban 7 years, he was tricked into marrying Leah instead of Rachel. I always thought he had to work another 7 years before he got to marry Rachel, but he actually took Rachel as his wife a week later and THEN had to work another 7 years (29:26-29).


Overall:

After reading the life stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I noticed that they were all considered faithful and were richly blessed by God. However, most of the stories point out their failures and not their successes. Although each man faltered many times by doubting God's promises, taking multiple wives, or lying to protect themselves, they were ultimately considered faithful. These men had a faith in the true God, of which other pagan nations took notice. This gives me hope that although we may have serious problems in our lives, we can still be considered faithful if we keep our focus on the one true God.

Playing the Odds

According to science theory, there have been 13 billion years of universal evolution and 4 billion years of earthly evolution (NASA). There are estimated to be 70 sextillion stars, 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is more stars than grains of sand on earth (CNN)... that's a lot of other possible solar systems!

If it is no surprise to scientists that evolution occurred on earth, then with such a vast universe, it should be safe to assume it has occurred other places. If we assume that there are several, if not millions of other life forms, then it should be safe to assume we are probably not the most advanced life forms. What is the probability that we are the best of the best? If we assume there are more advanced life forms out there, isn't it probable they would have figured out a way to make themselves known to other worlds? That's what we are doing, so what if life on another planet had an extra few million years to advance their science?

The universe is vast beyond our imagination. Without a supernatural designer, it makes no sense that we would be the only life forms in this universe. The main problem is that if we are not alone, we would probably know by now. If another evolutionary system was just a million years more advanced then we are, they would almost certainly have figured out a way to communicate with other solar systems, including us.

Odds that a random, vast universe would produce life in only one place: Slim.

Odds that humans are the most advanced of multiple life forms: Slim.

Odds that more advanced life forms have not communicated across solar systems: Slim.

Odds that this universe is random: Slim.

I am betting on the odds that God is behind this universe... not a universal randomness.

Non-Evolving Rat-Squirrel

As I discussed in a previous post, I might argue both sides of divine creation (literal or theistic evolution). I read a CNN article yesterday about new animal species that were discovered in the Vietnam area. What caught my attention was the discovery of, "a rat believed to be extinct for 11 million years."

Apparently there was enough scientific evidence to conclude there were very few rat-squirrels alive after 11 million years ago. Therefore, over the past 11 million years, a small group of rat-squirrels have survived. Is it reasonable to think that such a small population survived extinction or evolution over 11 million years?

It is inconsistencies like these that make me doubt the absolute truth of scientific evolution. While I might not agree that the 7 day creation story technically fits into the "science" category at school, I do believe that evolution should be given less credit as truth and stressed as a theory.

Lot Thought

When the Lord told Abraham that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God to spare the cities if only 10 righteous people were found, and God agreed. When it came time to destroy the cities, the angels led Lot and his family out of Sodom. I previously assumed this meant Lot was a righteous man, but I think I was wrong.

1) When Abraham and Lot arrived in Canaan, Abraham gave Lot first choice on what land he wanted. Lot chose the land that looked the best and he chose to settle close to Sodom and Gomorrah, even though the cities were wicked. (Genesis 13)

2) When Sodom was to be destroyed, his son-in-laws didn't believe him and they stayed. Lot basically had to be pulled out Sodom by the angels because he was hesitant to leave. Lot's wife wanted to go back to Sodom and was turned into a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19)

3) The angels told Lot to settle in the mountains, but Lot wanted to live in a different wicked city. He finally did settle in the mountains but ended up getting so drunk that he unknowingly impregnated his two daughters. (Genesis 19)

The one thing I could find that Lot did right was that he welcomed the angels into his house and didn't give them over to the perverts (although he did offer his daughters to the perverts).

So why did the Lord decide to save Lot? My best guess is that Lot was Abraham's nephew. It seems that God respected Abraham so much that he wanted to please him by saving his family. Maybe I will stumble across later verses that say Lot was righteous apart from Abraham, but I am not there yet.

This says much about the way God views us. Abraham didn't just please God, he gained God's respect. Abraham was not perfect by any means, but his devotion to God commanded respect. I strive to please God and I feel that I fall short. How great would it be to have God's respect?


*** ADDED INFO - now I am little confused because 2 Peter 2:7-8 describes Lot as a righteous man. Maybe he was considered righteous when contrasted with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis - Literal or Figurative

Is Genesis literal or figurative?

This can be the heart of much Biblical debate. As I read through Genesis, I can't help but wonder if many of the accounts are simply figurative stories the ancient Jews used to explain where they came from and how God relayed their moral code to them. Is this my culture influencing the way I interpret the Bible? Maybe.

At the same time, I read Genesis knowing that if God had the power to raise Christ from the dead, there is no reason the events in Genesis couldn't have played out literally.

When it comes down to it, I don't think it really matters. Either way, God relayed his existence, authority, and moral code through the Bible. Whether it was through a literal account or a figurative story, we can know God's character and what he had in store for his nation and all of his creation.

On the topic of creation vs. theistic evolution, I could argue either way. I wouldn't say that I have a position on which one is correct. However, I do find myself leaning toward the possibility that God actively guided the evolutionary process to form the human species. If we were formed out of ground (Genesis 2:19 and 3:19), there must have been some sort of God-guided transformation from dirt to human form. Whether that transformation was in one day or millions of years, it doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that God orchestrated it.

One observation from Genesis 1 that I found interesting is the order in which life was created. Plants > trees > water animals > birds > land animals > humans. God started by creating simple organisms before he moved to the more complex. Still the fact remains that God had a hand in it.

It may be a fun topic to debate, but whether or not the stories in Genesis were literal or figurative, my belief remains that they were inspired by the one true God.

New Goal - Personal Biblical Database

I've been so busy the last few weeks that I haven't had much time for my mind to wander.

It has been about 10 years (freshman college year) since I read through the Bible from start to finish. I have started from the beginning several times in the past few years, but within a few weeks my life gets busy and I soon forget to find the time.

I have also had a desire to make my own observations and notes while I read through the Bible from start to finish... like a personal Biblical database where I can store thoughts and ideas when I hear them in a sermon or come across them in a Bible study.

Now, I hope that by posting some of my thoughts on this blog it will force self-discipline so I don't get distracted from my goal... even if it takes me 5 years to get through it.

Election Day

It's time to cast my ballot, and from my previous posts, it's probably pretty simple to figure out who I will be voting for president. As stated before, I would like to see a nation that values basic morality... not morality like loving your neighbor (that's not government's role)... but morality as in basic moral laws (abortion, ssm).

One of the main roles of government is to make laws that decree basic morality. In this capacity, America is failing. While I am far from confident that the republican candidate will fulfill this hope, I am assured that the democratic candidate will not.

If I have to choose between a morally stagnant nation or one that is moving in the wrong direction... I will choose stagnancy.

(hopefully as this election ends, my political commentary will wane)

Truth or Love

A few weeks ago, our pastor was preaching on Acts 15:36-41, where Paul and Barnabas part ways over a disagreement. Paul did not want to bring John Mark with them on a missionary journey, possibly because he wasn't sure John Mark had let go of the Jewish law and truly believed the truth about salvation by grace. Barnabas wanted to bring John Mark with them because he wanted to lovingly give him the benefit of the doubt and a second chance.

Two of the points our pastor made were these:
1) Like Barnabas, we must never lose sight of God's love.
2) Like Paul, we must never lose sight of God's truth.

As I was taking notes, I was elbowed by my wife when I penciled in a "(D)" after the first point and an "(R)" after the second point (my mind has been on politics lately).

If Paul and Barnabas couldn't always show the best of both sides, it must be a pretty rare quality that Christ had. He was able to hold to the truth as well as show love.

There are Christians who put so much focus on the truth they fail to show love (I am probably closer to this camp). On the other hand, there are some Christians who focus on love so much, they fail to see God's truth.

Admittedly, I think that... without truth, what good is love? I probably sound like a grumpy old conservative, but while I am seeking the truth first, I am trying to seek love as a close second... I still have a long way to go on both. 

Gettin' Slapped

Is America getting slapped for its greed? Either way, we probably need it. As a nation, we have been greedy. We have condoned immorality of all sorts. Even though we are still looked at as a Christian nation, we have been a very bad example. Our country typically doesn't look to God... except to mock him or use his name in vain.

Maybe God isn't punishing America for its follies, but he is certainly trying to get our attention.

The history of the Jewish nation shows a clear cycle (over and over)...

Trust God - Get Blessed - Trust Self - Get Slapped - Trust God

America started out trusting God, we have been richly blessed, and it sure seems like we are now on the edge of the trusting self and getting slapped phases. One may say that slavery and the end of the Civil War wrapped up a full circle already.

Hopefully America's "trust God" phase will come full circle in our lifetime.

PI#6 - SSM

The Bible is pretty straight-forward that God's design for marriage is between one man and one woman. People argue that homosexuality may be genetic. Don't people also argue that alcoholic tendencies can be genetic? Rage can be genetic. There are many sin issues that people can be more susceptible to than others. Nonetheless, we have to learn how to deal with them. Some people are dealt more difficult situations than others. Their reward will be greater if they can overcome.

When God addresses the world through the Bible, he speaks on three different levels: individual, church, and government. There are different operating standards at each level because they are meant to serve different purposes. Same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle is one issue that requires slightly different treatment on different levels.

Individual (Jesus's teachings): We are to show Christ's love to each other. Looking at Jesus's life, he would have fellowshipped with the homosexuals and shown them God's love. However, he would not have condoned the lifestyle. Like the adulteress who was about to be stoned by the pharisees in John 8, Christ showed her love and forgiveness. He did not condemn her like the pharisees but said, "go, and sin no more." We assume that she was so overcome with his love that she changed her lifestyle. Imagine Christ's reaction if she would have said, "thanks, but no thanks. I enjoy sinning." I highly doubt he would have replied, "oh okay, whatever makes you happy."

Church (the rest of the New Testament): The Church's role is to build up the body of believers and teach God's Word. As seen in the New Testament, the church leaders did rebuke the body of believers if they were condoning immoral lifestyles (Corinthians). The church leadership has the right to clarify that its members should be living holy lives. There is a problem how the current church is coming across. It appears as if the church is displaying condemnation before loving. There may be fault on both sides of the foyer, but the church should be showing love and reaching out to everyone.

Government (portions of the Old Testament): Our government should base its moral laws on God's morals. If the government is going to reward people for being married though taxes, health care, legal status, etc., marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. The question may be asked why should we deny rights to two consenting adults? Why don't we allow marriage between one man and three women? Why don't we allow marriage between five men and three women? Because it is outside God's moral code.

As individuals we are called to show God's love - regardless of a person's sins. As a church we are to help build other believers up - sometimes involving correction. As voters in a government, we should work to uphold laws that God would find just and moral.

Above all, Christ showed love, but he was not hesitant to call someone out on their sins. As Christians, we shouldn't say we are okay with everyone's sinful choices, but we still have to be loving.


Whew! I am done with my political issue posts. Time to get back to something interesting.

Bail on the Bailout

I missed the news story that 166 academic economists sent a letter to congress asking them NOT to sign the bailout.

Here is an interesting article from one of them.

It seems like most economists agree that the bailout is a bad move. I am glad it failed today. Too bad it will probably end up passing... in the name of politics.

The bailout plan is a pacifier the politicians are wanting us suckle as the elections near.