(RePost)

1. Get baptized by the craziest guy in town.
2. Say and do things that are guaranteed to make religious people want to kill you. Repeat again, and again, and again, and again, and again - don't stop unless forced.
3. Do amazing things for people and ask them to not tell anyone.
4. Hang out with the most despised, marginalized, looked down upon, and shunned people you can find.
5. When possible, forgive and restore people, even if they betrayed you.
6. Live in a way that provokes gossip.
7. Win the most grace competition.
8. Keep the party going.
9. Serve people (note: nose plugs may be required).
10. If you're sad cry.
11. Empower people to do the extraordinary.
12. Act like a rock star in a hotel temple.
13. Radically simplify theology.
14. Break human-made religious laws. Repeat consistently.
15. Prioritize the most important over the important.
16. Let women with "questionable" backgrounds pay your bills.

Is Jesus peripheral to your life or does He permeate your life? I am using these words advisedly, because I want to be precise in what I think is an important truth.

What is your goal in life? Think about it for a bit. Is your goal to get a good job, finish school, or simply have fun? Or do you seek to do God’s will in every aspect of your life? Do you only go to Church once or twice a year? What about your prayer life? Do you pray for others or yourself? Is Christ relevant in your life? In other words, does the fact that you have a relationship with Christ affect your life in any way? Think about what you spend your time on each day. How much time do you spend on a hobby, on sports, on TV, on video games, or on Facebook? Now compare that with the amount of time that you spend with God. Does it turn out that the amount of time you spend with God is relatively minor compared to other things in your life?

Dictonary.com defines peripheral as “concerned with relatively minor, irrelevant, or superficial aspects of the subject in question.”

If someone was to look at your life, would they say that Jesus is a relatively minor aspect of your life? Would they say that Jesus is irrelevant to your conduct and decisions?

Have you ever seen a diehard NASCAR fan? They will have stickers all over their cars like a NASCAR; they will watch all the races; they will have a Dale Earhart flag on their house, and they wear a Jeff Gordon jacket. What about a Raiders fan? They will paint their face, go to all the home games, and watch all the away games. They will buy silver and black cars and plaster a Raiders logo on the back windshield. How about a true Star Wars or Star Trek fan? They will dress up as that character, wait all night in line to see the next movie, buy all the collectable toys and trinkets, and maybe even speak Klingon.

You know the people I am talking about. Their fandom pervades and saturates every aspect of their lives. If there was a toilet seat cover with their favorite thing on it, they would buy it.

Dictonary.com defines permeate as “through every part of… to penetrate through… pervade; saturate.”

Is Jesus in every part of your life, or is Jesus more of just a Sunday thing?

Sidebar
One objection to my post might be that you do volunteer time or give money here or there. Those are for sure good things to do. However, ask yourself this, “Do I do these things for myself or to earn salvation or to get a pat on the back?” Or do you do them to bring glory to God?

I will admit that I don’t always volunteer to bring glory to God; often I want credit or praise for my deeds. I realize that I do that from time to time, and I also realize that I am wrong when I seek my own praise.

A Modern Retelling of John 8:1-11

This is simply a modern retelling of John 8:1-11 about the woman caught in adultery.  I think this speaks for itself.

A Man Caught in Homosexuality

Jesus returned to the City, but early the next morning he was back again at Church. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them.  As he was speaking, the religious teachers and leaders brought a man who had been caught in the act of sodomy. They put him in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this man was caught in the act of sodomy. The Bible says this sin is punishable by death. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the man. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the man, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” he said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Notes

Based on the New Living Translation

I should probably make a number of qualifying statements for this but I think it stands on its own.  Ten pages of footnotes would detract from the power of the simplicity.  You can bring up a number of objections to my retelling, but, I believe it is theologically sound.  I pick this particular issue out of many that I could have.  I could just as easily retell the story with any number of other sins.  The woman who had an abortion, the couple that got divorced etc…  This passage came to mind while I was reading a blog post entitled, “Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All?”

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu

“Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible,” by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, caught my eye after I had seen some interesting websites that made a connection between the Genesis flood account and Chines pictographic characters (logograms).

Thesis
The thesis of the book is, “we will show that there is sufficient light peeking through the windows of general revelation in Chinese history, records, literature, and practices to convince one to take the next step, into the sunlight of God’s special revelation.”(40)

What this book is not saying
This book is not making the claim that there is more than one way to God. The claim is that the ancient Chinese had a rudimentary knowledge of the one true God that would have come from the revelation up to the point of their migration to the steps of China.

Chapter 1
The book starts with an explanation of the differences between myths, legends, and history. The book transitions into an explanation of general and special revelation of God. These become key points and a foundation for moving forward with their thesis. The book then promises to review the “signposts” that point to their thesis.

Chapter 2
Chapter two gives us a brief overview of the pictographic and ideographic nature of the Chinese written language. Further, the authors show how some of these characters correlate to the Genesis record and the basic tenants of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. The authors rightfully acknowledge that this can be dismissed as circumstantial evidence, however, “these characters should, however, compel us to seek further evidence within the Chinese culture to see if, in fact, the ancient Chinese worshipped the One True God.”(71)

Chapter 3
Chapter three addresses the name and concept of God for the ancient Chinese. The name given to God in Chinese is 皇天上帝 (Huang Tian Shang Di) which translates to Supreme Lord of the Great Heaven. Often, He is referred to only as 上帝 (Shang Di). For the ancient Chinese, this is the Creator God who is above and distinct from all other lesser gods (shen or spirits). The chapter continues with parallels between Shang Di and the Creator God of the Hebrews and Christians.

“We saw an abundance of references that strikingly show how the attributes of Shang Di (Tian) match those of the One True God of the Bible, leading us to the conclusion that Shang Di (Tian) is the general revelation to the Chinese people of the same God worshipped by the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament.”(105) The author finally laments “It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Chinese have not worshipped this God alone; they have also worshipped a multitude of other beings. …many Chinese around the world have fallen under the power of a host of fearful superstitions and syncretistic religious beliefs.”(105)

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 compares the Great Border Sacrifice at the Temple of Heaven (which should actually be translated “Alter of Heaven”) with the Old Testament sacrifices to God. They conclude this chapter with this thought, “I found striking similarities in the ceremonies associated with sacrifices performed by the ancient Chinese and the ancient Hebrews. These very discoveries, though, raised further questions. Where did the concepts of substitutionary death – that is, an innocent dying for the guilty –and of atoning death – the requirement of death to pay for sin – originate?”(151)

Chapter 5
Chapter five covers the next “signpost” which is the blood covenant. The chapter explores the parallels in the covenants in the Bible and the rituals performed by the ancient Chinese. They conclude “The parallels between China’s practice of covenants and God’s perfect revelation of covenants in the Holy Scriptures are vivid and eloquent. God uses these dramatic ceremonies to teach eternal principles that were finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”(179)

Chapter 6
In chapter six, the authors explore the actions and discoveries of some of the first missionaries to China. In particular, they explore the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1550-1610) and his missional approach. Ricci’s approach was to demonstrate respect for the Chinese people and culture by such things as learning the native language. This was not common-place for most missionaries of the time. Ricci’s approach was not to convert the Chinese to a Western Culture Christianity but to a Chinese Christianity. (I have a past post on Christianity and the fact that it is culturally agnostic to a point). Ricci’s work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is in part, a basis for this book.

“Therefore, having leafed through a great number of ancient books, it is quite clear to me that the Sovereign on High and the Lord of Heaven are different only in name.” “He who is called Lord of Heaven in my humble country is He who is called Shang-Di in Chinese.” - Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Others such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), and James Legge (1815-1897) built on the goodwill built by Ricci. Particular for Legge, the key to understanding Chinese thought was by reading the classic works.

“I maintain that the Chinese do know the true God, and have a word in their language answering to our word God, to the Hebrew Elohim, and the Greek Theos.” - James Legge

Chapter 7
In this chapter the authors explore how the ancient Chinese understanding of God played a role in politics. In fact, I think this was one of my favorite chapters. The ancient Chinese had a concept they called the Mandate of Heaven 天命 (Tian Ming). This concept was that the ruler was given power by God to rule. This, however, did not mean that the emperor was free to do whatever he wanted. The concept included Tian Xia Wei Gong (Righteousness Rules), which meant that he was to be a righteous and virtuous ruler. If the emperor was not righteous in his rule, he was seen as having lost the Mandate of Heaven. This form of meritocracy is quite appealing to me. The person who was to be the next ruler was based upon that person’s merit, 禪讓 (Shan Rang), not their genealogy, wealth, or even popularity. The concept of 禪讓 (Shan Rang) is that the emperor was above all else, a servant, albeit the servant-leader.(241)

I have to admit, my biased libertarian bent, leads me to an affinity for the Mandate of Heaven.

Chapter 8
In this chapter, aptly entitled ‘Enter the Dragon,’ the authors show how the original worship of Shang Di was corrupted by the dragon cults. As you might bet, they show there are many parallels between the dragon in the Bible and those of ancient China. Much of China’s original heritage has been lost to the dragon and today, you see the principle of the dragon prominent in Chinese culture, government, and business. “Power, pleasure, and position are very enticing. But, they do not last. Like the dragon, they do not serve us; we end up serving them when we pursue them.”(291)

Chapter 9
The book finishes with a discussion of the parallel in the concepts of truth and some astronomy. The author relates a story of a doctoral student who made the statement, “The Chinese Shang Di cannot be the same as the God of the Bible because the latter is a Western deity.” The author, then, offers an illustration of two cups. If he made the claim that both cups are made up of the same material and you objected, how would you resolve the difference? The answer is, you break-down the composition of both cups and, if they prove to be similar or identical, then the two cups are the same. This is to say that you perform careful observation, critically examine the facts, and arrive at a logical conclusion.

“That is what we have sought to do in this chapter and indeed throughout this book. We have presented facts from China’s ancient historical records, records that secular scholars and experts agree are reliable and true, and we have arrived at our conclusions, which we have presented in this book. These facts are now before you, for you to draw your own conclusions.”(321)

My thoughts
I think this book is a primer for any apologetic, evangelistic or missionary work to people in the Chinese culture. The book is especially useful for contextualizing your message. I have to admit that I have a deeper appreciation for the richness of Chinese culture. I have to admit I find Chinese culture fascinating and I want to learn more about their culture.

Further, I find it absolutely fascinating how God works and leaves his fingerprints everywhere around the world. I think God is much like an artist; He loves the different cultures and expressions. It is amazing that, in each of the cultures around the world, God has “set them up” for the truth.

Other books have been written on this subject, however, this is the best treatment of the subject that I have found.

Point-Counterpoint: Gay Marriage

If you know me, you know I like to hear all sides of a debate. I think it is wise to gather as much data as possible and review all the evidence for and against any issue. That way you can then make an educated assessment and decision. Making decision based on your emotions is extremely dangerous. I like to take some time to think through a position and don’t rush to judgment. I don’t get fall for slick campaign rhetoric or user car salesmen tactics.

I found one of these videos very emotionally compelling and the other more logically compelling.

The first video is of Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives.

The second video is a response from Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason.

What do you think about each of these videos?

Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

John Smulo, a friend of mine, gave me a copy of a recently released book titled, “The Cross Is Not Enough: Living as Witnesses to the Resurrection” written by his friends Ross Clifford and Philip Johnson. I have to admit that the title caught my attention, and I started reading it that day. I am not finished with the book yet, but it is so jam-packed with information that I had to write down some of my thoughts before I forgot them.

Premise of the book

The book starts with the following quote:

“If the Church had contemplated the Empty Tomb as much as the Cross of its Lord, its life would have been more exhilarating and its contribution to the world more positive than has been the case.” – George Beasley-Murray

My critical-thinking mind quickly asked the question “Is this true and if so, what are the implications?”

Here are a few quick quotes to sum up their thesis:

“This book will argue, however, that the church needs to step away from the smaller pieces of the puzzle and take time to recognize and focus upon Christianity’s lynchpin.”[20]

“We intend to demonstrate in this book how the micro-pictures – morality, repentance, discipleship, apologetics, mission – although valid, only have full meaning when they have the resurrection as their fountainhead.”[21]

“We are not calling just for a refocus on the resurrection; we are calling for an understanding of the resurrection as the lynchpin of Christianity.”[35]

After reading the first chapter, I quickly realized my bias toward their view. My walk with God took a dramatic change in 1992 when I, too, realized that Christianity is more than the forgiveness of the Cross. I realized that He came to give us a new life; just as He was raised, we too shall be raised. However, it is more than a future hope. He also comes to fill our lives now. Some call this the neglected half of the Gospel. I think this book would pair nicely with books by Ian Thomas, Bob George and Steve McVey.

Symbols and focus

One of the interesting points they bring up is how to tell if people focus more on the cross or the resurrection by the symbols used in church, music and other things. I then wondered, if the resurrection was central to my faith, wouldn’t I lean more toward music and symbols that reflect the resurrection? A quick impromptu experiment might shed some light on this. If the resurrection was central to my belief, the songs I listen to should focus more on the resurrection.

I listen to my music on my iPod, I rate my favorite music, and iTunes counts the number of times I listen to a song. So, I opened up iTunes to see what my most-listened-to favorite songs were. Based on the authors’ premise, I found some interesting and predictable results. According to my non-scientific, impromptu experiment, my music listening habits are in line with a resurrection central mindset.

My number-one-listened-to song was Blessed Redeemer by Casting Crowns. With lyrics like “Seems now I see Him on Calvary's tree” it definitely seems like the focus is on the cross. However, looking at my other top listened-to songs with lyrics like:

“Jesus has overcome and the grave is overwhelmed, the victory is won He is risen from the dead, and I will rise when, He calls my name, no more sorrow, no more pain, I will rise on eagles' wings, before my God fall on my knees, and rise I will rise.” - I Will Rise by Chris Tomlin

“You called and you shouted, broke through my deafness, now I’m breathing in, and breathing out, I’m alive again!” - Alive Again by Matt Meher

“He rose & conquered the grave, Jesus conquered the grave” “We're singing for the glory of the risen King” - Mighty to Save

And the most obvious song:

“Christ is risen from the dead, trampling over death by death, come awake come awake, come and rise up from the grave, Christ is risen from the dead, we are one with Him again, come awake come awake, come and rise up from the grave” - Christ Is Risen by Matt Maher

Apologetics

The book does cover the resurrection from an apologetic approach as well. Given their premise, it is obvious that their apologetic approach is to focus on the resurrection. They do have some innovative ways of engaging with culture and non-believers and this flows into their apologetic approach.

As for a defense of the resurrection, they summarize Gary Habermas’ ‘’commonly agreed facts” approach and N. T. Wright’s “six essential detail” approach. In addition, they address four of the top questions raised about the resurrection.

Also, their contextualizing approach to apologetics is also covered but not to a great degree.

Recommendation

I highly recommend this book for its fresh view on the resurrection. I think for many people it will be a fresh approach with deep insights.

I remember a few years back when a friend at work would passionately support the idea that there was a conspiracy behind the events of September 11. Even though I thought he was off-his-rocker, we had a number of impassioned conversations about the subject. The flaw I saw in his logic was the number of people needed to pull off such a stunt. It seemed to me at the time, and still does, that given the number of people needed to ‘cover-up’ this event, it is highly unlikely. I mean there was talk that workers came into the building and weakened the structure before the event and that the true planes were diverted to another airport and that the people are alive and living in secrecy.

I wish someone would come up with a formula or theorem for calculating the probability of a given conspiracy theory that takes into account the number of people required to keep a ‘conspiracy’ secret and the probability that someone would leak the information.

One of the allures of a conspiracy is that the lack of evidence becomes evidence for a cover-up. The problem is the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything, let alone a cover-up. The issue here is a good example of a prior bias. In other words, conspiracy supporters come in predisposed to believing there is a conspiracy and they see the lack of evidence as evidence for a cover-up. Those who tend to be more skeptical will, of course, come in with a bias of disbelief.

Some people will seemingly hold to the conspiracy no matter what evidence is presented to them. It may make sense to hold a position when there is no supporting evidence however, there is no logical reason to hold a position when there is evidence to the contrary, or the evidence to the contrary outweighs the evidence for.

In the same way, the skeptic needs only have one piece of evidence that there is no good answer to in order to reject the conspiracy. As Greg Kokul once said, “Just because it is possible to be mistaken about something that seems obvious doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think we are. This is the skeptic’s error.”

If a conspiracy is true; and I believe there must be some that are; then what evidence will help us determine the validity of such claims. I think one way is to look at the probability. One thing to consider is the number of people involved in the cover-up. As the number involved in the cover-up grows, the likelihood that they will be able to keep it under wraps decreases. Another thing to consider is the resources need to pull off the conspiracy. This is why you often hear that some group of ultra-rich people is calling the shots. In order for some of these conspiracies to be true, you would have to have considerable resources. Who else but an ultra-rich and elite group would have such resources?

Assuming we have someone or some organization with the required resources, we still need to have a motive. Why did they want Kennedy dead? Why do they want to cover-up the UFO crash in Roswell? Why did they take down the World Trade Center? Even if someone had a motive, that does not mean they did it. Assuming they had a motive and opportunity (resources), it does not follow that they did whatever the conspiracy theory states. We still need some other type of evidence tying them to the act.

Assuming we can demonstrate the means, motive, and opportunity of a group of conspirators, can we show any other evidence of said conspiracy? We have to look at the conspiracy as a whole and try to determine the probability of such an event. At least, at this point, our belief, while not necessarily true, will at least be rational.

Bayesian Cognitive Science research is looking into questions like how much evidence to the contrary is needed for someone to move from their initial position to an opposing position. I think this research might have some promise on this front. Research has suggested that the brain may employ Bayesian inference, in other words the greater the number of evidences and the strength of those evidences leads to greater degrees of certainty. It seems it makes sense to go overboard on the evidence in order to convince the greatest number of people.

Of course, there is human emotion that brings in the irrational aspect that might just throw the potential conspiracy probability theorem out the door.

Post scriptum

As a side note, after I finished writing this post, I received the latest issue of Philosophia Christi (Vol. 13 Num. 2) and one of the articles caught my eye. Right away, I had to read John W. Montgomery’s article, “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion? Some Thoughts on Burden and Standard of Proof vis-a-vis Christian Commitment.” Although my post is about the requirement commitment to believe in a conspiracy, John Montgomery’s comments on burden and standard of proof are insightful and appropriate to my point. I have taken a number of his points and consolidated them into my topic of belief in conspiracies.

1. Dr. Montgomery points out then the burden of proof is on the believer to show that their belief is true and not on the unbeliever that the belief is not true. In the same way, I think the burden is on the conspiracy theorist to show the conspiracy is true and not on the skeptic to show the conspiracy is not true.

2. “Proof depends on probability – not on absolute certainty or on mere possibility.”[1] There is a spectrum for the standard of proof from possible to absolute certainty. For a court of law, the standard of proof does not use absolute certainty or mere possibility because absolute proof is impossible to obtain and anything is possible in our Universe. Just because something is possible it does not mean that it is also compelling.

Probability, in a United States court of law, has three levels; beyond reasonable doubt; clear, strong and cogent; and preponderance of evidence.

For the preponderance of evidence, you need only show the evidence for is more compelling than the evidence against. For moral certainty, we need to have no other reasonable explanation.

For conspiracies, it is unwise to ask for absolute proof or to give credence to mere possibilities. Instead, we must determine if we are comfortable with evidence beyond reasonable doubt or simply the preponderance of evidence.

[1] Montgomery, John W. “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion?” Philosophia Christi Vol. 13 No. 2 (2011): 449-460

I have recently noticed that some people, myself included, often have contradictory aspects to their worldviews. That is to say that when you look at their worldview as a whole, you will notice what may not be obvious close up, that aspects of their worldview contradict other aspects of their worldview. I guess some people have not taken the time to reflect on their worldview and how they apply it to various aspects of their life.

If they are aware of the contradictions, perhaps they balance these contradictory aspects in some sort of creative tension. Or, perhaps, they balance them by compartmentalizing different aspects of their life by creating artificial boundaries of reality. They may have one way of viewing the world at work, another at home, and still another with friends.

They have to do something or else suffer psychological discomfort form the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

For example, you will find some Christians who speak of hating the sin and loving the sinner. In practice, they shun people they feel are living in sin. I fail to see the love. Other times, you will find Liberal Christians complaining that the Conservative Christians are being intolerant. Not realizing they are being intolerant of the Conservative Christians.

By no means, is this limited to the halls of the cathedral. Secular humanists want their morality to be relative and their science to be objective. Often, they cling to untenable scientism. For the true relativist, scientific theories are neither true nor false. They see scientific theories as useful – agreed upon – stories or, at best, a description that helps. For the true naturalist, morals are objective. They are defined by genetic code and there is nothing relative about them.

It seems to me that people don’t think about how what they believe in one area of their life flows into all the other areas of their life. Instead, they go through the smorgasbord buffet of competing ideas, selecting what looks appetizing to them at the time. They assume their life is like a divided Chinet plate and that they can separate different aspects of their lives. They use this artificial compartmentalization to avoid the obvious and painful realization that they are living a contradiction. The reality is the gravy is going to get on your vegetables. In that case, pick the gravy that works with everything on the plate.

I have found that the Internet does give us unprecedented access to information. However, not all information on the Internet is worth having. Now that we have an election coming up, I am having a difficult time finding accurate, fair, and balanced information about candidates. What I find is a bunch of other people’s opinions about the candidates. Should I really base my vote on someone else’s opinion?

We have a participative form of government here in the United States. If you think about it, we have the power. Who we elect will shape not only our future but the future of the entire world. I think we have a responsibility to vote wisely.

As we learn from Spiderman “With great power come great responsibility.” I actually believe, and for good reason, that I have a responsibility to vote and to be informed on the issues I am voting on.

I was just reading a piece today about a candidate and the article was nothing more that twisting the candidates statements out of context, misrepresentations, fear mongering and mudslinging. What followed were comments that followed that same vein.

I actually want to be educated about the issues and I can’t do it. It is as if there is an invisible force that makes getting educated on the issues nearly impossible. Do I really have to dig up my own source documents and research each point? When was the last time you heard from an accountant about the state or federal budgets? We always hear it from people who can’t balance their own checkbook, let alone the government’s budget.

Why is it when we ask for reasons why we should pass a law people attack you? They call you names because you don’t accept what they say and just believe that they have it right. Since when is it wrong to ask for reasons? This just happened to me last month on the gay marriage debate. I was asking a supporter of gay marriage about the role of government in marriage, asking for reasons why they think it is a civil right issue, etc…

I am not trying to be divisive; I am trying to be informed on the issues. I think, with any issue, we should know the pros and the cons and be able to ask questions without being attacked. Instead, you get empty rhetoric and unqualified, biased opinions.

After much thought, I have decided to pursue a Master’s Degree in Apologetics.  This decision was not made in a vacuum.  Seventeen years ago I was looking to go to seminary but it did not work out at that time.  Since then, I have grown in maturity and feel called to pursue that course now.

I am not giving up my career; I will continue along that path.  However, I have a desire to teach and feel that teaching is one of my gifts.  The funny thing about teaching is in high school, I said there were two things I would not want to do, one of which was teaching.  I now teach computer classes, but as I get older, staying on top of the technology industry is not going to be easy.  In addition, I want to teach something that will change lives.

I applied and was accepted at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  I chose their seminary because it was cheap and online.  However, after talking to my best friend and others, I decided I would look for the best school in the field I am most interested in, Apologetics.   Biola University is known for its apologetics program, and I just found out they have a distance learning option.  They are slightly more expensive per unit, but I think the quality is head and shoulders above the rest.  Liberty was going to be $12,000 total for a Master’s of Theology whereas Biola will be $17,000 for a Master’s in Apologetics.  Right now I don’t know how I will pay for it.  Your prayers and support are appreciated.

I have just started the application process for Biola, and I have until December 1st to get it in for the spring 2012 semester.  I will let you know when I get accepted.

Pastor Rick Moe from Golden Hills Community Church has agreed to mentor me as I progress though school.  My best friend, John, has given me over 1000 books that he used while he was in seminary.  His topic of study was apologetics, so the books are very appropriate.   John has taught at Morling Theological College and believes that I have the gift of teaching and should pursue further education.  I thank them for their support.

I have to thank my wife for her support as well.  She puts up with me having my head in a book all the time and the library of books that fills our home.

That’s all for now.  I will periodically send you updates on my progress and post them to my blog.

While reading this article, I noticed that it was nothing more than rhetoric and contained nothing scientific about global warming or climate change. I am undecided on the debate of global warming and do like to keep abreast of the latest developments in this field of study. While this article did not increase my knowledge in the area of climate change, the benefit I found in this article was a chance to exercise my critical reading and practice finding fallacious reasoning.

The thing I love about scientism is the appeal, the authority that is often claimed by “overwhelming scientific consensus”; we all agree, therefore, it is true. Which, in my opinion, does not count for much given the “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that nothing can travel faster than light. Given the speed of light theory might have recently been shattered. We await confirmation that the speed of light can be broken so let me use a different example. 60 years ago the “overwhelming scientific consensus” was that the sound barrier could not be broken. So much for the overwhelming scientific consensus, as it turns out, they were all wrong. The number of scientific claims that have been destroyed over the years is countless. Is global warming immune to such mistakes? Are we still so arrogant to think that we have all the answers in spite of constant new discoveries and paradigm shifts?

I also wonder how a consensus is a scientific methodology; it sounds more like a philosophy to me. Truth is truth no matter what the “consensus” came up with. I do grant that if the consensus is made up of qualified people, the likelihood that they are correct is greater, however, it is not a guarantee they are correct. In addition, knowing that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” may have been built on some facts which are now known to have been misrepresented at best and outright fraudulent at worst, statistically lowers the probability their premise is correct. If CO₂ emissions is really the cause of climate change, they have done the greatest disservice to us all by their skullduggery.

If you deny the “overwhelming scientific consensus,” then you are a victim of the “well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.” Seriously, a conspiracy? The conspiracy card can be played for or against climate change and each side could produce enough damning evidence. Poison the well and fling mud, don’t worry about the facts. The facts should be able to stand by themselves. Mudslinging is the recourse for a weak argument.

Notice this article does not address any claims or counter-claims that are relevant to the scientific discussion. It is nothing more than intellectual bullying and vitriolic attacks. Notice that most comments are nothing more than emotionally loaded rhetoric. Even if I was on the side of climate change, I would want well-reasoned arguments and not rhetoric.

Where has reason and logic gone that we must now accept rhetoric as golden truth?

Related Reading Update:

• Climategate (Phil Jones and Climate Research Unit scandal)
  
• Charles Monnett scandal
  
• Solar activity the real cause of climate change (Jan 2012)
  
• Pro Global Warming report (Oct 2011)
  

Tribal Leadership

This is a good book. I recommend it to anyone with a job or a career. The book covers 5 levels of corporate culture along with suggestions on how you can help move your organization up a level or two. The funny thing is once you read this book you will see people in your organization at different levels. In addition, you will see that those people who are more influential in an organization will have a greater impact on the corporate culture than others within the organization.
(I use the term corporate not to mean a business per se; I mean a group of people with a common goal.)

• Level 1: The mood is ‘life sucks’ and the atmosphere is that of despairing hostility.
• Level 2: The mood is ‘my life sucks’ and the atmosphere is that of an apathetic victim.
• Level 3: The mood is ‘I am great and you are not’ and the atmosphere is that of a lone warrior.
• Level 4: The mood is ‘We are great and they are not’ and the atmosphere is of tribal (corporate) pride.
• Level 5: The mood is ‘Life is great’ and the atmosphere is about having a higher noble purpose.

The book gives examples of people and organizations at each of the levels. I can see in my career that I have worked for places at almost all of the levels except level 5. I also noticed that in my own life, on a personal level, I have progressed through many of these levels. Personally, I feel like I am between 4 and 5 but often find that my actions may at times dip down to level 3. I wish they made an app that could track my current level in real time. Wouldn’t that be nifty? It would change how we react and push us toward level 5.

I think one area the book should have touched on is non-profits. I can see that these pinciples are applicable for Churches, Veterans Organizations, and even government entities. The concepts of the book should be easy to extrapolate to non-profit organizations, but would have been nice to have the book cover them. I would be interested more in examples of those types of organizations and how they apply these ideas. I volunteer much of my time to Veterans’ organizations and, I have to admit, I see Veterans’ service organizations at all different levels.

This book will also make you rethink how you look for a new place of employment. Instead of looking at the money aspect (not that it is not important) you would look for employment at an organization that is at or beyond your level. For example, I would not want to work for a level 1 or 2 organization. Been there done that. I would be ok at a level 3 but I would really like to be with an organization that has a level 5 corporate culture. I say I would be ok with a level 3 only because the job market is competitive and I have living expenses to consider. The level 5 is, of course, where we would all want to be, even if we don’t know it. Everyone wants their work to have meaning and purpose. We all want our lives to have meaning and purpose. This is where we find true happiness.

In order to achieve high levels, the book talks about values and cultivating values for your corporate culture. In fact, they even discuss hiring people not only for their skills but also for their values. How many HR people evaluate a candidate’s values when they are screening applicants? One example given in the book is the team takes the candidate out for lunch and they all talk to the candidate to see if they will be a good ‘fit’.

What is interesting for me is this book has me reevaluating how I think one should look for employment and how an organization should look for candidates. It even challenges me to implement these ideas in the context of non-profits. Over all this book is good for anyone.

Take a look at Zappos Values as an example: http://about.zappos.com/our-unique-culture/zappos-core-values

The audio version of the book is available free and they have setup a companion website with additional information and supporting materials. www.triballeadership.net

This picture is from the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA.

Integrity

You are playing a ball game and you touch the ball before it is called out-of-bounds by the referee. The referee did not see you touch the ball and called the ball out-of-bounds against the other team. What do you do?

The Marine Corps Leadership Traits defines integrity as:

“Uprightness of character and soundness of moral principles; includes the qualities of truthfulness and honesty.”

The Knights Code of Honor defines integrity as:

"A Knight must be a man of his word with his actions seen and unseen governed by an inner code of honesty."

People often define integrity as always telling the truth. I think that is part of the definition. I define integrity as constancy of character. Your character is the sum total of all your values and actions. Honesty is one aspect of your character. When you consistently follow those values and your acts match those values all the time, you have integrity. To tell the truth some of the time is not integrity.

When you have integrity, people can rely upon you. They know that you will live up to your values even when no one is watching. Do you want to have friends that always tell you the truth or do you want them to tell you the truth some times? Would you rely on fiends who tell you the truth all the time, or are there for you all the time? Or would you rather rely on friends who flake on you all the time?

When I think of integrity, I think of steel. When we rate steel, we rate it based upon how well the steel maintains its’ form under stress. In other words, the steel does not bend because of the weight or stress on it. It maintains its shape and stays straight. When you build a bridge, you want it made of steel that does not bend under pressure. You would not want to cross a bridge that did not have integrity; you would not trust it to keep you safe.

“The one who lives with integrity will be helped, but the one who distorts right and wrong will suddenly fall.” Proverbs 28:18

"Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for You." Psalm 25:21

How well do you keep true to your values when you are under stress, especially the stress of peer pressure? Do you say no when others are smoking pot or doing drugs? What if it is your friends and they are pressuring you? Can you maintain your values when your friends are pressing you to compromise? Do you do what is right no matter the cost?

Some people fold like blankets under pressure. You know, I have never tried building a bridge out of blankets. I really don’t think it would work well. I think I will stay with tried and true steel.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said:

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

One of the best quotes I have heard about integrity comes from the Garth Brooks song titled ‘The Change’.

“I hear them saying, you'll never change things and no matter what you do it remains the same thing. But it is not the world I am changing. I do this so this world will know that it will not change me.”

Some videos on integrity that I found on YouTube:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-CHyWDky1Y
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYYOXTuUeQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioht4sSgibY

Why is it so difficult to admit when we are wrong? I mean when we have wronged a friend or loved one. It is easy to admit when you cut someone off in traffic. All you do is shrug your shoulders and give the “oops” face. You don’t know the person, it’s a minor offense and you are not likely to see the person again. So, it is easy to admit fault in that type of situation.

Now, when you hurt a good friend, it is often difficult to admit guilt. In fact, most people rationalize why it is ok to do whatever it was that was done. Let’s say a good friend asks you to help him move this weekend. You say ok, I will be there to help. Then you have another friend ask you to play golf the same day. You come up with some rational reason to golf rather than help your friend in need.

So what do you do? Call your first friend and tell them you would rather golf? I mean that is the truth. Of course, that is not the easy thing to do, nor is it what you want to do but it would be the right thing to do. Many people come up with an excuse, like “I threw my back out”. An easy way to solve problems like this is not to commit to something you don’t really want to. If you make a commitment, fulfill it. If you don’t, admit you are wrong.

When I was in middle school, I was picked on almost relentlessly. I was a dorky, awkward kid. It was a private school so must of my classmate families had money. My mother had to work two jobs to pay the tuition. So, I never had the right clothes. Kids are really mean at that point in their life, and I was the brunt of their attacks. You start to believe what they say about you. What can I say? I hated my life at that point.

To feel better about myself I did some stupid stuff. A new student came to class and the other kids had a new target and the verbal abuse was now directed at someone else. The stupid thing I did was joining in with the other kids. Yes, I became what I hated. What an ass I was. I should have stood up and helped her.

I regret to this day that I joined in on being a bully and not a defender. It is difficult to stand up for what is right. It is more difficult to publicly admit that you were wrong. It is not easy to do and I wish I would not have to admit my mistakes.

Lavey, I am sorry I joined in with the other kids who picked on you. I am sorry I did not do what was right and stand up for you when they verbally picked on you. I was wrong.

See related blog posts:
Emotions Can’t Tell Time
Reflections on My Redeemer

This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

Book Review:

The Water That Divides (Mentor Imprint), by Donald Bridge and David Phypers

I have to say, this is an excellent book. It gives you the history of baptism and chronologically follows the changes of views on baptism throughout Christian history. Not only that, it gives you the context of the situations that played a role in the changes throughout the centuries.

For example, I did not know that the controversy between infant baptism and adult-only baptism goes back to the very earliest church fathers. The controversy is, by no means, a recent issue of contention.

I was also surprised to learn that the controversy between submersion and sprinkling is also not a recent debate; it goes back to the early church fathers as well. It is documented that they did both. For some early churches, baptism would often include exorcism as well as anointing with oil. You get the impression that baptism may have been unique to each group, maybe, based on their culture. You could make the case it is that way today.

This information has changed my point of view. Not that I have changed my view on baptism, but it has made me less dogmatic about my position. Many theologians, such as C S Lewis, G K Chesterton & James Packer, feel the different views should be held on creative tension and not destructive competition. I think that might be the answer. I mean, what about letting other explore the issue for themselves? Maybe a person’s baptism is part of their story, part of their relationship with God, and part of their unique journey and revelation.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas." "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." - Attributed to St. Augustine.

One of the important points brought out in the book was the use of the word sacrament in conjunction with baptism with the early church fathers. Because the term has very specific and legal connotations in ancient Latin, it may help us understand how the early church fathers viewed baptism.

The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentumj which in ancient times, it was a deposit of money for a legal case held in escrow at a temple or it was also an oath of allegiance for soldiers. In either case, the word sacramentum involved a religious ceremony in a sacred place. Augustine defined sacramentum as 'a sign of a sacred reality'. By the second century, baptism was called a sacramentum. This is an import fact in understanding the early Churches view and understanding of Baptism.

This early understanding of the word flows through even to today. In the sacrament of Baptism in the Church of England, the ceremony follows like a Roman soldier's oath of allegiance. The person performing the Baptism will say:

"Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified."

In reply the person being baptized will say:

"Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil, and continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of your lives."

This understanding of the word sacramentum supports the case that baptism is a response to faith in Christ and is a way people can signify their belief or pledge allegiance to Christ.

Does baptism have anything to do with a person’s salvation? If faith is most important why baptize?

To answer why we baptize is easy, because Jesus said too. (see Matthew 28:19) End of case on that question. However, it leaves behind an issue that many people feel strongly about. Mainly, that baptism, in some way, plays an important role in a person’s salvation. If the original meaning for baptism was that it was a sign or pledge, where did the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation come from?

Think of it this way, if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and savior and He says to go and make disciples by baptizing them, why wouldn't you? Baptism, then, is the obedience of faith so closely linked that you almost can't have one without the other. (Almost) Not that baptism bestows salvation, but that it is an evidence for salvation.

This intimacy between baptism and faith leads to some confusion. In the 12th century, sacraments, because they were so closely linked with faith, began to be described as a means of grace. This is often described as 'ex opere operato' or 'by the work being worked' or 'baptism saves you,’ which means that baptism automatically saves you. People often say that this is what Catholics believe. However, from the Middle Ages on, the Catholic Church has not held to this view. For Catholics today, belief in the doctrine 'non ponentibus obicem' (in case of those who place no impediment). This basically means that baptism brings God's grace so long as there is nothing to stop it, such as a lack of faith.

Thus, calling baptism a sacrament, gives us some insight into the intended meaning of those who used the word so long ago.

X-Men First Class, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) is one of those movies that is penetrating with deeper meaning. For example did you notice the interaction and philosophical differences between Professor Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) regarding the situation and rising tensions between humans and mutants? Erik, a victim of the Nazi holocaust, believes that mutants should force humans to accept them and further sees the mutants as a superior race. I find this ironic in light of the fact that he was a victim of intolerance and hatred by people claiming to be a superior race. Erik takes the approach that the ends justify the means and might makes right. Charles, on the other hand, focuses on the peaceful solution. Not joining humans necessarily, but protecting them and treating them as equals. He takes the high road, or what we might call high ethical standards.

I see parallels in this tension between Magneto and Professor X’s worldviews and the civil rights movement here in America. If you parallel Martin Luther King Jr. with Professor X and Malcolm X with Magneto, you may begin to see what I mean. I am reminded of a great play I saw in college. I forget the name of it, but the play was a mythical meeting between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and the discussion that followed. Each one of them arguing (or better debating) passionately for their solution to the problem.

One oddity of this parallel is the "X" in their names is in opposition. Professor “X” taking the pacifist approach and Malcolm “X” the by all means necessary approach.

X-Men the First Class movie explores these same tensions and debates. With this story, it starts with them working together for a greater good. Later, they see that their philosophies are not compatible and they part ways. Knowing the rest of the story and what follows, we see they become enemies. This is because they realize their two approaches are incompatible.

Check out the movie and let me know what you think. If you have seen the movie, do you see where I am coming from?

On my recent trip to Atlanta, Georgia, a friend and I were walking around exploring the city. Our walk took an unexpected turn when a Good Samaritan requesting spare change asked us if we were going to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. We had not planned to because, for some reason, I thought the memorial was in Alabama. I am not really even sure why I thought it was in Alabama. At any rate, we found out it was there and we decided it was a must-see. It seems that divine providence guided our path.

As I passed through what appeared to be a rundown part of town, we happened upon a pan handler whose only request was food. I always feel hesitant to help out aggressive pan handlers, especially when they open with the line, “Don’t worry, I ain’t going to mug you.” We know he would not be buying booze if we bought him the food rather than give him cash. We obliged his request and went to a little chicken restaurant and bought him food. He led us to the restaurant and, for that reason I did sense danger and was wary. I am in security and I was calculating my risk, continuously. However, with a little prayer and thinking thoughts like Matthew West's song "The Motions" or Josh Wilson's song "I Refuse," we proceeded to serve our fellow man, my neighbor.

After we completed the purchase, we left the restaurant and reentered the rundown neighborhood. In less than a block, the neighborhood changed dramatically. As I entered into the National Park and Preservation area I felt as if I was moving from hostility to a place of peace. The pot-holed, dirty streets and rundown buildings were replaced with well-trimmed lawns, maintained buildings and clean streets. The symbolism of that place and my soul were in sync.

We were exploring the grounds when I saw a very recognizable blue and white sign with the words Ebenezer Baptist Church. I couldn’t wait any longer; I eagerly made my way to the church. I was taken aback when I entered the church. It was such a humble place, simple and small. It had decorations such as stained glass however, the overriding aspect was functionality. It was a humble building that you might otherwise take as run-of-the-mill, yet this church was the epicenter for the civil-rights movement.

I walked into the church and took a seat on one of the pews. I sat there in quiet reflection. Yes, it is a simple building. Then, I realized it is not the building that made a difference, it was a man with a dream that made all the difference in the world. I sat that and wondered what it would have been like one Sunday morning listening to a man with a dream some said was too big.

“Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve… You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve… You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I realized this place and, more importantly, a poor preacher from Atlanta are significant to African American history, United States history and Church history. How many people can you say that about? I know Protestants don't have saints, but if they ever do, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. needs to be on the top of the list. I have to admit that I am happy to see that our government recognizes the significance of Martin Luther King Jr.

For me, I won’t forget the day I sat where he once preached the true Christian principles of love and peace instead of hate and revenge. When I see him in heaven someday, I will thank him for his service. He has inspired me, I hope he inspires you.

By nature, I tend to think very logically. I don't mean like Spock from the original Star Trek. Emotion can sway me. I mean, I am a person who has difficulty if things don't fit or they contradict other known facts. I work in Information Technology so I understand causation. Add to that, I am an IT auditor so like to analyze things. I have been accused of being obsessive and a little anal about certain things. For example, I have a library and I will go though and make sure all the bindings are aligned on the shelf and the books are properly cataloged and categorized. Yes, I have a data base of all my books, too.

I really can't watch a movie without analyzing it. I don't accept the face value of claims of the paranormal. I always look for alternate explanations. I try to see things as systems; like how things connect and their interrelationships. I am even willing to change my opinion or beliefs if I have new insights, information or understandings. In fact, I have done so many times in my life. I guess, in a way, that makes me a bit of a philosopher.

On the other hand, I also realize that logic isn't the end all, be all, for truth. I am a very logical person, but, sometimes I have to suspend my analytical tendencies. That is not to say that I follow illogical paths of thinking; it simply means I recognize our human limitations. It would be the height of arrogance to presuppose my logic is perfect, that I have all the facts, that I have considered every potential, or that bias does not influence my thought patterns, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I see more and more, as I get older, that it is important to recognize our limitations. I grant the human race has accomplished many great things like putting a man on the moon and harnessing the power of the atom. I even think we will do things we cannot even imagine. Granting that, we will never cross the chasm to an all-knowing state. There will always be something we do not know.

What a downer. How can we know anything at all then? How do we operate with less than 100% certainty? What level of certainty can we obtain and still operate effectively? How much skepticism should we have?

In light of this, I think it is logical, prudent and perfectly appropriate to proceed with caution, charity and with as little dogmatism as possible. I do this, typically by viewing things as a probability of being correct or true and not black or white. For example, for all I know we can all be in the Matrix, however, I do find that while it is possible, it is not probable. If I had to give it a number, I would give it less than one percent, maybe like 0.01%.

I am not holding two contradictory beliefs, I am recognizing my limitations. After all, isn't that the most logical thing to do?

Update: Facebook Comments

DT: You write very, very Don! I enjoyed this piece on logic. Yes, you are logical, which I find to be a great quality, as well as organized and highly articulate. You are also a systems thinker like I am, seeing patterns, commonalities, and the whole as well its parts. You ask good, thoughtful questions. I like what you say about probability and caution and that is important to realize our limitations and not be dogmatic. Very, very well said, Don! Thanks for sharing!

RR: Lately, I've been reading about confirmation bias; that phenomenon where rational people subconsciously filter out data that does not fit with their bias. Or, rather, give higher priority to data that does.

RR: I've also been reading about cognitive dissonance where people, step by step, rationalize their way past the discomfort of having two conflicting opinions in their minds. This, it is opined, is one way people work their way into cults and what we call wingnut beliefs like the notion that judgement day will arrive on May 21, 2011. Or that Christ will return at any day, for that matter. We work our way around the tough, chewy bits, one rationalization at a time. We are logical, reasonable and rational and yet lacking. At the end of the day, life is full of scary shit. We need to believe there's a plan, even if we don't like the plan (see Joker with Harvey Dent, Dark Knight); we need to put order to what is, essentially, an often senseless and meaningless experience. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But, at some point, it makes sense to give in to the senselessness. Sometimes the effort to make sense out of the chaos only produces a different form of chaos.

DT: @RR, in response to your first posting: that's easy to do! We all see things through our own paradigm. Anais Nin wrote that "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." So true! I think we seek out that which we agree with as a way of validating ourselves, which is much simper and easier than being open to new, opposing information which we may need to think through, analyze and come to terms with from a new paradigm.

DT: @RR, to your second posting: Buddhists call what you talk about as 'giving in to the senseless' as "non-attachment" and yes, it does make sense at some point to embrace things as they are, to un-attach, if you will, from giving some things meaning and our time, rather than cause ourselves suffering (from the Buddhist perspective, samsara), or what you cause 'chaos.' (See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/samsara.html)

Me: I didn't think I would have inspired such a stimulating discussion, great thoughts.

SC: Finally had time to read this. Thank you. For a long time I pursued conviction as a way of understanding the world/existence, meaning I sought intricate logical constructions that I would convince myself explained reality. As I got older though, I realized each time I achieved a mental equation that explained everything ... events the next day refuted my equation, however carefully constructed. This disillusion is somehow amplified by parenthood. With time I have come to understand that explaining everything is impossible and the burden of attempting logical explanation of everything is quixotic at best, and distracting at least. With time I began to understand that the world unfolds around me, largely as a mystery, whether I impose logic on it or not. And looking at it from that angle, I began to more and more appreciate the mystery rather than to ruthlessly impose logic on it. Certainly there are core convictions and truisms that we must live by, but those tend to be simple and deep, requiring little logic. Beyond that lies a world filled with mystery that in time I have become convinced that I can never fully understand. The mystery that surrounds me is the purview of God. And I am comforted by that. **Thanks for helping me think like this on a Thursday night a midnight ... really.

DT: I appreciate and enjoy the deep thinking that has happened in these postings! Thanks everyone!

Me: ‎DT, Me too. SC, Sorry for keeping you up at night. I hate trying to fall asleep and then get into some deep thinking because I never get sleep them.