Proper Emphasis

I like to change.

Oh, not myself, certainly not. That would require too much effort.

No, what I do is glance around and tell myself how great the world would be if . . . someone . . .  changed.

You know who I mean. 

That guy at work who does everything except pull his weight. He brews the best coffee, and makes sure the water doesn't stagnate at the water fountain or cooler, bless him, but actually moving the paperwork and following up on the clients? Not so much. 

That girl who talks a little too loudly and thinks she knows everything. Some might confuse her with an intelligent, informed person, but we all know she really just wants to presume. 

The person who wants everything his way.

Yes. Those people need to change. Then the world - by which I mean MY world - would be the paradise I have always longed for it to be.

I read comforting verses from the Bible, too, making sure that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! In someone else's heart. Because it says right there in Jeremiah 17.9, "The(ir) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it? Besides me, I mean, because it is totally obvious."

I also go to Psalm 139 to let people know that examination needs to take place. 

SEARCH me, O God, and KNOW my HEART, 

TRY me, and KNOW my THOUGHTS,

SEE if there is ANY WICKED WAY in me,

And LEAD me in the WAY EVERLASTING.

Amen, and amen. 

Get busy, you people.

Wait a second. What if we changed to emphasis to the personal pronouns? 

What would that sound like?

Search  M E , O God, and know  M Y  heart,

Try  M E , and know  M Y  thoughts,

See if there is any wicked way in  M E,

And lead  M E  in the way everlasting.

Hmmm . . . the verse seems to lose its allure that way.

However . . . seeing it that way, and living it, makes all the difference in the only person I can change directly. 

Curiously, seeing it that way, and living it, also increases exponentially my influence on the people who might need to make a few adjustments in their own characters.

Always start with the person in the mirror. 

Ayn, Atlas and Adonai

Many people have tried to hang the "hypocrite" label on those who claim to be a Christian AND a fan of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged at the same time.  They point out that Ayn was an atheist, and her books leave no room for religion at all.  While this is undeniable, what is debatable is whether or not liking Atlas has to be an "all or nothing" prospect.

What attracts Christians to Atlas is its reflection of our beliefs about human nature in general.  It shows how people WILL act in certain situations.  Whether or not this is how they SHOULD act is another matter entirely.  This aspect cannot be overlooked or glossed over. The Bible tells us, whether by direct fiat or by implication, how we should respond in various situations, but people in general, even Christians, frequently do not follow the Biblical model.

My usual response to the critics uses the "Baby and Bathwater" argument, that there are aspects of Ayn's philosophy, Objectivism, that have value.  The other parts can be thrown out along with any other ideas that do not conform to the Biblical standard.

First, let us consider the faulty parts of her philosophy, i.e. the "bathwater."

1)  Extramarital sex.  A key component of Objectivism, "pursue whatever makes you happy," sounds eerily similar to the mantra of the 60s, "If it feels good, do it."  Rand paints Hank Reardon's affair with Dagny Taggart as a beautiful thing, contrasting it with the pathetic relationship he has with his wife.  Rather than encourage the reader to pursue and maintain fidelity, Rand instead offers the possibility of looking for love elsewhere.  Furthermore, Dagny, the protagonist, has no fewer than 3 affairs, and never marries any of the men. Ludicrously, her first lover is of Latin descent, but once their relationship ends, he has no feelings of jealousy toward either of the following lovers.  This strains credulity.

2)  Rejection of Religion.  To treat this subject thoroughly, I would have to bore you and me both with talk of "metaphysics" and "epistemology."  Suffice it to say that Rand considered religion as a crutch for the weak.  Also, since Objectivism holds that we can know reality only through the senses, the existence of God cannot proved, and therefore is not a valid option.  My response to this is that there are many things that we do not understand about our world and the universe, and therefore we should follow the only guidebook that makes sense of it all, the Bible.  It tells us where we came from (Creation), how things came to be the way they are (History), why we are here (Purpose), how we should live (Wisdom) and what is going to happen in the future (Prophecy).  To ignore all of this is to be foolish.

3)  Lack of concern for fellow man.  As the plot progresses, various people disappear.  They make the decision to stop producing, since in the end the government will just take it all away anyway.  They end up in a place called Galt's Gulch, named after the founder, John Galt.  There they bide their time until society falls apart, waiting for the day when they can once again form a society that will allow them to produce without being punished for it.  Up to this point, I guess I don't have any problem. After all, though we are commanded to treat servants (read "employees") well once we have hired them, even the Bible does not REQUIRE us to open businesses to employ people.  However, the producers in Atlas are so calloused that they do not step in to help even AFTER society breaks down and chaos reigns.  They just don't care.  This does not jive with the injunction to "Look after orphans and widows in their distress . . . " (James 1.27). As Christians, we are to be concerned with those who cannot - not WILL not - take care of themselves, such as the handicapped.  

4)  Worshipping money.  Hank Reardon, on a couple of occasions, donates money to a cause.  However, his motive seems to be more of getting the solicitor out of his office than one of altruism.  Doesn't God love a cheerful giver?

On the other hand, it would be a mistake to infer that making money is the only thing that the protagonists are interested in. This leads us to the "Baby" section.  What does Rand advocate that a Christian can agree with?

1)  Keep your word.  More than once, Hank Reardon severed ties with one of his suppliers or customers because they promised to deliver a product on a certain date but failed to do so, or said they would deal exclusively with him and then did business with the competition.  Hank's response was along the lines of "You are free to do business with whomever you choose, but if you break your word, it will not be with me."  This brings to mind Ecclesiastes 5.5, "It is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it."  This, of course, is true in every aspect of life, not just business.

2)  Work hard.  A verse that frequently gets overlooked by the socially conscious is the one that says "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."  (II Thess. 3.10)  Apparently, laziness has been a problem for at least 2,000 years.  Giving people free handouts will not change human behaviour.  It will amplify it.  People who get freebies become dependent, not independent.

Throughout Atlas, Rand profiles people who are worthy of respect.  Contrary to popular belief, not all of them are wealthy. In fact, few of them are.  There are many unnamed characters who put their best effort into their work, no matter how lowly the job is.  This contrasts sharply with what Rand calls the "moochers."  These are the people who do not pull their weight. Even some of the wealthy protagonists fall into this category, getting their money through government largesse rather than through a superior product.  

In summary, what Atlas Shrugged does is reveal the contrasts between two worldviews.  On one side is the producers, the ones who have the great ideas and find the people who will work hard to make those ideas a reality.  On the other is one I will euphemtistically call the "socially conscious," those who want to help people, all people, whether or not those people have the slightest interest in contributing to the society in which they live.  

Perhaps the clearest example of the failure of this second worldview is found in one section of Atlas.  Dagny is travelling on a train and begins a conversation with a fellow passenger.  He is a common worker, not a mover and shaker.  The conversation turns to something that happened in the factory where he used to work.  The managers told the employees they were going to implement a new system of rewards, requiring everyone to do their best and giving to everybody whatever they needed to live. Yes, a thinly veiled version of Communism.  The man explained that the first few months went all right, and production increased slightly.  This was mainly due to a few people who eagerly accepted the new system and were determined to make it work.

However, once those initial months passed, these "producers" began criticizing their coworkers who were not putting in the same effort.  The slackers were still getting just as much money and goods as the producers.  Obviously, this put a huge damper on the ones who were working hard, so they slacked off, as did production.  As things got worse, the company was forced to start rationing health care.  The culmination came when one employee's mother fell ill with a serious disease.  She was going to require a lot of medical care, the doctors said.  Everyone, including the man on the train, secretly hoped that the woman would just die, so the money could be used for people who had lesser maladies. Coincidentally, the night after her illness was revealed, she mysteriously passed away. Things that make you go 'Hmmmm...' 

This is what Communism and its little brother, Socialism, does to people.  It makes them work less, produce less, and care less. You cannot change human nature on a grand scale using laws and regulations.  You cannot force them to take care of their neighbour.  Only God can do that, by changing hearts of individuals.  This message is preached thousands of times every week in churches around the world.  Ironically, Rand herself did not recognize this, and so wrote God out of her novels.

The Pushers

We love that guy.  Actually, sometimes it's a woman. You know the one I mean.

The teacher.

The sensei.

The football coach.

Cheater.  Go back and watch those, or at least the last one.  I'll wait . . .

Who are those people?  The ones who get us to do more than we think we can do.

Yes, there are people who are self-starters, who have enough get up and go for themelves and you and I put together.  Those individuals generally become Olympic athletes, Nobel Prize-winning physicists, best-selling authors, and national leaders. The rest of us need a push.

It's not that we're lazy, exactly.  It's that no one ever pushed us beyond what we think our limits are.  We need someone who can see what we are capable of, and who will then help us accomplish it.

What do we think about those people who finally shove us out the door of our limits?  Ironically, we start off hating them. We want to play the sport, to be the one who scores the winning point, the one who goes the fastest, the highest, the strongest.  However, to do that, the coach makes us do crunchers, sprints, weights, in insufferable heat, and just when we're nearly out of gas, he makes us do it all over again.  But then, an amazing thing happens.  We discover we have the kick at the end of the race, the legs to make the run for the overtime goal, the steady hands that sink the freethrows - and we win the trophy.  THAT is the moment we grab the Gatorade and dump it all over the guy who made it happen.

Could I ask you, teenagers especially, to consider one of these people in your life, with whom you might be at odds?  Most of us have two kinds of parents - the "good" one, and the "bad" one.  The first one lets the child do more or less what he wants and tries to get along with the offspring.  The second is not nearly so accomodating.  He or she make strong demands and - shocking! - expects the child to carry them out.  They get angry, sometimes over insignificant matters.  If things are not done perfectly, they must be done all over again.

Sometimes this parent is the father, sometimes the mother.  It doesn't make any difference.  The point is why do they do this in the first place?  They do it because they want you to do your best, which is better than you think it is.  It is beyond your comfort level, outside your self-imposed "limits."  This parent - or whoever - also knows that doing your best brings immense personal satisfaction.

Maybe you don't need to pour ice cold sports drinks over them to show your appreciation for what they do for you.  But you could tone down your anger, your moodiness, your rebellion, and recognize their efforts for what they are - an attempt to make you the best you can be.

Material Christians

From time to time, it is important to evaluate the teaching that is given in our churches.  Many times, one pastor will quote another pastor, who got his idea from an author, who heard something from a philospher, and since it was connected to the Bible all the way through the process, it seems like it might be something the Bible teaches.  An idea that needs re-evalutating today is the Material Gospel, the idea that God blesses our righteousness through material blessing.

The following tirade comes from the pen of James:

     Listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.  Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.  Your gold and silver are corroded.  Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.  You have hoarded wealth in the last days.  Look!  The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.  The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.  You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.  You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.  You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

Can any correlations be made between Ancient Rome and the Modern West?

Gold and silver corroded?  Check.

Hoarded wealth in the last days?  Check.

Failed to pay wages?  Check.

Lived in luxury and self-indulgence?  Check.

Fattened selves?  Mega-check.

Please note: these observations do not come from Occupy.  They come from a card-carrying member of the Taxed Enough Already Party.  I have taken a look at what is bothering the Occupiers, and it is not a pretty picture.

Not many in the West would really consider themselves rich, because they do not have very much money in the bank. In fact, they owe money to the bank for their houses and businesses and cars and credit cards.  Why do they have all these bills?  Because they have laid up for themselves treasure where it doesn't belong. Meanwhile, actual poor people die of thirst in Africa, or submit to child labour in Asia, not out of direct oppression, but out of necessity, in order to earn a pittance so their familes can eat.

It is likely that James was referring to the rich individuals who were not paying their slaves a fair wage, if any at all.  There were almost certainly other abuses, which is beyond the scope of the current focus.  The point of this post is that Christians have fallen prey to the trap of materialism, in direct disobedience to the words James' older brother, who said, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth, where moths and vermin destroy and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where moths and vermin do NOT destoy, and where thieves do NOT break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Do you think a poor person would feel comfortable if he came into your church with dirty clothes - not filthy, just smudged on the sleeve, with one knee a bit muddy and a ketchup stain near the belly button - and sat next to a businessman with a suit and tie, reading the Bible off his iPad?  The poor person might infer an unwritten code of peer pressure that says "If you were the person you were supposed to be, God would bless you materially." 

One rationalization we all use is that if we don't keep up appearances, people won't be attracted to the Gospel.  Isn't that feeding the idolatrous lifestyle?  Aren't we encouraging the laying up of moth-eaten treasures, instead of encouraging a relationship - how we love to use that word - with Christ?  James' older brother also said, "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."  Why are we weary and burdened, in need of rest?  Could it be because we have too much stuff, work overtime to pay the stuff we already have, and want just a little bit more stuff?  But why?  If stuff made us happy we should be ecstatic.  Are we?  Do I even need to ask?

Perhaps, just perhaps, God has tested us with stuff, and we have failed.  We have taken our freedom and made ourselves slaves to the idea that just a little more or the newest gadget will be enough.  The original purpose of governmnet was to control man when he couldn't do it himself. Recent efforts to control soft drink sizes in New York City have been pilloried by conservatives and Christians, who in part make the rule necessary, because they could not control their appetites.

Face it - we have a lot of stuff.  All of this stuff comes from somewhere.  A lot of it comes from poorer countries, who are having their resources taken from them.  Yes, I know, we pay them for it, we don't just up and haul it away.  But we pay them pennies for items that we sell for dollars at least, and sometimes hundreds or thousands of dollars.  It matters not that these resources are vast and nearly limitless.  It still requires time, money and manpower to harvest them.  Are we really doing the best we can by the people who do all the dirty work?  I have my doubts. It might be that what really sets the Lord off, more even than homosexuality, is Christians who do not recognize their materialism, which causes the poor to suffer. This problem is way more widespread than gay marriage is.

In I John 2.15,16 we read, "Do not love the world or anything in the world.  If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.  For everyting in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - comes not from the Father but from the world."  If Christians fall prey to the "I see it, I want it" line of thinking, can the world take us seriously when we say we profess to follow Christ?

What is the solution to all of this?  At the very least, maybe Christians in the West should take a good, hard look at what their philosophy is towards material possessions.  I will defend your every right to own every single, legal thing in your house.  The question is not whether or not we have the right to own stuff.  The question is whether the stuff has taken the place of our relationship with Jesus Christ.  Any remotely postitive answer reveals a level of idolatry that is harmful to the body of Christ.

1984 For a New Generation

Judging by the reaction of the books and the first film of the trilogy, The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, has been an unqualified success.  However, it has also caused a bit of debate, owing to its subject matter.  It is about our society in the distant future, at least 74 years hence.  What do the Games consist of?  Each of the twelve districts of North America is required to choose, by lottery, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18.  These are sent to the Capitol, where they are placed in a stadium that has been transformed to look like a forest.  Once inside, the “tributes” must fight to the death.  The last one standing wins food for life, in a world where food is lacking for the vast majority, except in the Capitol.

The theme is rather heavy for the intended audience, being written primarily for teenagers. However, the author does not describe the violence in graphic detail, and at the same time the reader never loses the sense of anguish that the protagonists feel in the “game” – a world class euphemism if there ever was one.

Why is it the new 1984?  Sixty-three years ago, George Orwell published a book in which he revealed his idea of how the world might be in the aforementioned year.  It is easy to see that he was largely correct, failing mostly in choosing the timeframe.  In the end, it is a criticism of the world in which Orwell lived.  

It is this book that gave us the poorly named “Big Brother.”  This program is nothing more than a human zoo, full of argumentative, bad tempered people.  By the way, why do they call it a “reality show” when it has nothing to do with reality?  The participants are not allowed to do anything – read, use a computer, watch television, play games, listen to music, go to work, e.g. anything that a normal person would do.  With no other options, they fall into a pattern of gossip, argument, and shouting among themselves, until at least one breaks down in tears in the confession room or a bed or wherever, all so the spectators can spend an enjoyable evening in front of the television. I doubt that I am the only one who wonders:  How long it will be before someone is killed in the Big Brother house?

Maybe it is this question that gave birth to the Hunger Games.  I am not sure of the motives of the author, but we can speculate about them.  Instead of children, she could have put adults in the arena, as we see in a lot of action movies.  She could have made it so that the participants had to be knocked out instead of killed. However, I believe that she wanted to create a highly charged situation, to warn that this could be the future of mankind if we do not do something about it.  Maybe it will not be exactly like the book, nor with children, but is it so difficult to imagine a deadly reality show within the next 25 or 50 years, if that long?

Obviously it would not be the first time that a society enjoyed such a spectacle.  Ask any Christian during the Roman Empire, for example.  We would like to think that we have evolved beyond that as a society, but I am not sure that we have.

I am not one to burn or prohibit books.  For this reason I have not prevented anyone in my family to read it.  What I do want, once it has been read, is that the reader think about the repercussions, especially for a Christian.  Therefore, the question is:

What would a Christian do, once chosen to participate in the Hunger Games?  

1984 Para Una Nueva Generación

El libro Los Juegos del Hambre, de Suzanne Collins, ha sido un éxito total entre los libros y la primera película, pero también ha abierto cierta polémica entre los cristianos por su tema.  Se trata de una sociedad en un futuro lejano, por lo menos a 74 años del presente.  ¿En qué consisten los "juegos"?  Cada distrito de América del norte tiene que elegir un niño y una niña de entre 12 y 18 años y enviarles al capitolio donde les meten en un estadio convertido en bosque, con el propósito de matarse entre sí hasta que queda solo uno.  Este ganará comida de por vida para su familia en un mundo donde le falta a la vasta mayoría, excepto en el Capitolio.

El tema es algo fuerte para su audiencia, siendo dirigido a adolescentes.  Sin embargo, la autora evita describir la violencia en detalles gráficos, y a la vez no dejas de sentir la angustia que viven los participantes en el "juego" - un eufemismo de primera clase.

¿Por qué es el nuevo 1984?  Hace 63 años, George Orwell publicó un libro en el cual  reveló su idea de cómo sería el mundo en ese año.  Se nota que tenía mucha razón, y más y más cada día, solo falló en escoger el año.  En fin, fue una crítica del mundo en que vivía.  

Es este libro el que nos dio el título del mal nombrado "Gran Hermano".  Este programa, por lo menos en España, no es nada más que un zoo humano, lleno de fríkis y gente de mal humor.  Una pregunta:  ¿por qué se llama un "reality show" si no tiene nada que ver con la vida real?   Las participantes no pueden hacer nada - leer, usar ordenador, ver la tele, jugar, escuchar música, salir a trabajar, en fin, todo lo que hace una persona normal.  Entonces,  caen en la trampa de discutir y chillar entre sí, hasta que una se pone a llorar en la sala de confesiones o en su cama o donde se encuentre, todo para que los espectadores pasen una buena tarde delante de la tele.  Dudo mucho si soy el único que hace la pregunta, ¿cuánto tiempo pasará hasta que alguien mate a otra persona dentro de la casa?

Quizás es esta pregunta que dio luz a los Juegos.  No sé exactamente los motivos de la autora, pero podemos opinar sobre ellos.  En lugar de niños, podría haber puesto adultos en la arena, como vemos en muchas peliculas de kung fu. Podría haber hecho que tuvieran que dejar a los otros KO en lugar de matarlos.  Sin embargo, creo que quería poner una situación sumamente chocante, para avisar que este es el destino del hombre si no cambia su rumbo.  Vale, quizás no exactamente así, ni con niños, pero ¿es difícil imaginar un "reality" a muerte dentro de, si no 10 años, quizás 25?  50?

Claro, no sería la primera vez que una sociedad disfrutara de un espectáculo de este tipo.  Pregunta a cualquier cristiano durante la época de los romanos, por ejemplo.  Nos gustaría pensar que hemos evolucionado más allá de eso como sociedad.  Pero, no sé si es verdad.

No soy quien para quemar ni prohibir libros.  Por eso no he prohibido que nadie de mi familia lo lea.  Lo que sí quiero, una vez leído tal libro, es que se pongan a pensar en lo que significa, o que repercusiones tendría, sobre todo para un cristiano.  Así que la pregunta para los que han leído y/o visto la película es: 

¿Que haría un cristiano una vez llamado a participar en los Juegos del Hambre?

The Life Jesus Called Us To

As one who claims to follow Jesus, I have begun to rethink my position and attitude towards various aspects of my worldview. Many are aware of my opinions regarding Occupy Wall Street and the TEA Party, in which I may have unwittingly given the impression that I am all in favour of everything the rich do. Perhaps even subconsciously, I WAS in favour. I know all the arguments, for example, of why we can't pay sweat-shop employees - to use a generous term - the same wages we pay American or European workers. Have I become a shill for the rich? Regrettably, I think I have.

I have been reading and rereading James a lot lately. One thing that really stands out is the amount of text he uses to address rich people. To wit:

Chapter 1.10-11:
But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business.

Chapter 2.6:
. . . Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

And the pièce de résistance, Chapter 5.1-6:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

This is not a screed from a crazy, ranting Occupier. It was written a couple thousand years ago, by an apostle. Not your average, run-of-the-mill apostle, either. It was written by the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This same Jesus called us to a life of . . . what? Prosperity? Health? Good times? Problem-free living? Is that your experience? It might be more than we think. In the U.S., people who are considered "poor" have a tendency to be overweight, and have televisions, air conditioning, video games and mobile phones. Some have jacuzzis. Compare that with the average European, many of whom do not have dryers. Even the Europeans, however, are running circles around the citizens of Asia, Africa and South America.

So what did Jesus call us to? In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Deny oneself? Take up a cross? What does THAT mean? It certainly doesn't sound like the prosperity gospel that some preach. It also doesn't sound like an excuse to acquire every gizmo and luxury that we can afford, or put on the charge card.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we need to live in grass huts with no electricity. There is something to be said for the fact that many Christians have more funds at their disposal than others, because they don't blow it on alcohol, tobacco and drugs. On the other hand, maybe those funds could be used for a ministry where basic necessities are lacking. All it would take is for us to pause before grabbing the thing that is appealing to us, and remember the admonition in I John 2.16, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."  Then, if we decide that the item in question is not what we might call "imperative," we could make a mental note as to the price of the item, and send that amount to a needy ministry instead.


Wouldn't that make a magnificent change, if amplified about a million times a year?  

No Soy Materialista

No lo soy. Yo no lo soy. No puede ser. Es que no soy lo suficientemente rico.

Esto es lo que me dijo justo antes de tratar de averiguar qué ropa ponerme hoy. Echaba un vistazo a las 40 perchas de la ropa que tengo, con la esperanza de encontrar algo decente. Al final, escogí cosas casi al azar, y fui al sofá en la sala de estar. Encendí uno de nuestros 3 televisores, y arranque uno de los 5 ordenadores. ¡Ojo!  Dos de ellos están en la tienda, ya que no están funcionando correctamente. La vida es una lata cuando los aparatos no funcionan bien. ¿Aparatos? Hmm. ¿Me pregunto cuántos tengo? Déjame ver. En mi casa, he encontrado:

2 planchas
2 cortadoras de cabello
1 máquina de afeitar eléctrica
1 maquinilla de afeitar piernas
3 planchas para alisar el pelo. Soy un hombre. No sé cuál es su nombre oficial.
1 piano eléctrico, a tamaño completo
3 cámaras de video
3 cámaras de película – es decir, el estilo viejo.
2 cámaras digitales, los que he podido encontrar. Seguro que hay más.
1 impresora
1 reproductor de vídeo. Sí, todavía tenemos una.

1 concola Wii, con 4 mandos, y 3 o 4 nunchuks

1 reproductor de DVD. Pero está bien - no es un BluRay.
1 PS2. Una vez más, ya que no es una PS3, no hay problema.
1 PSP. Esto podría ser problemático.
3 teléfonos inalámbricos, sólo 1 de los cuales trabaja.
3 routers Wifi, una vez más, con sólo 1.
1 laminador
2 secadores de pelo
1 aspirador
2 GPS. Contar el por qué tenemos 2 para un solo coche seria una historia demasiado larga y penosa.
1 frigo
1 máquina de café
1 lavadora de platos
1 lavadora de ropa
1 secador de ropa
1 tostador
1 estufa
1 horno
1 microondas
2 batidoras de mano
1 batidora de mesa
1 plancha de sándwich
1 máquina de hacer pan
2 tostadas francesas responsables
1 olla de cocción lenta
1 parrilla

que llega a un total de. . . ¿¡CINCUENTA Y TRES CHISMES?!

Ah, y la pièce de résistance - no menos de (y probablemente más de) TRECE teléfonos móviles. Esto, para una familia de seis personas, dos de los cuales no tienen la edad suficiente para tener los móviles todavía. ¿Cómo ocurrió eso?

Esta lista, por supuesto, probablemente no es exhaustiva. Hay rincones y grietas donde más artilugios podrían estar escondidos. Decidí no incluir lámparas, aunque no estoy seguro exactamente por qué. La lista tampoco incluye cualquier cosa que pueda ser encontrado en trastero, que es un pensamiento aterrador.

He mencionado que tengo 40 perchas de ropa. Me refiero a mí, personalmente, el hombre de la casa. Las 40 perchas no incluyen el almacén de ropa que tiene mi mujer, ni ninguna de los 4 armarios de los niños. Tampoco incluye ninguna ropa doblada, de los cuales hay montones, ni, de nuevo, lo que pueda estar en el trastero.

¿Por qué digo todo esto? ¿Por qué expongo mi debilidad por los bienes materiales a todo el mundo? Bueno, primero, porque un poco de confesión es buena para el alma. Segundo, porque no se puede solucionar un problema hasta que reconozca que lo tengo.  ¿Te atreves dejar un comentario de cuantas perchas o chismes tienes?

I Am Not a Materialist

I am not.  I'm not.  I can't be.  I'm not wealthy enough.

This is what I told myself just before trying to figure out what to wear today.  I scanned through the 20 hangars of clothes that I have, hoping to find something decent.  Finally I just threw something together, grabbed one of my 30 pairs of socks - all black - and settled into the living room.  I turned on one of our 3 televisions, and booted up one of our 5 computers.  N.B.  Two of them are in the shop, as they are not working properly.  Life is such a drag when your appliances don't work right.  Appliances?  Hmm.  I wonder how many I have?  Let me see.  In my house, I found:

2 irons
2 hair clippers
1 electric razor
1 leg shaving razor
3 hair straightening irons. I'm a man.  I don't know what their official name is.
1 electric piano, full size
3 video cameras
3 film cameras.
2 digital cameras, that I could find.  It seems like there are more around here.
1 printer
1 VCR.  Yes, we still have one.
1 DVD player.  But it's ok - it's not a BluRay.
1 Wii, with 4 remotes, and 3 or 4 nunchucks
1 PS2.  Again, since it's not a PS3, we get a pass.
1 PSP.  That could be problematic.
3 cordless phones, only 1 of which works.
3 Wifi routers, again, using only 1.
1 laminator
2 hair dryers
1 vacuum cleaner
2 GPS.  Why we have 2 for only one car is too long and painful a story to tell.
1 fridge
1 coffee maker
1 dishwasher
1 clothes washer
1 dryer
1 toaster
1 stove
1 oven
1 microwave
2 handheld mixers
1 blender
1 sandwich griller
1 breadmaker
2 french toast makers
1 slow cooker
1 electric skillet/grill thingy

which comes to a total of . . . (carry the one . . . . )  FIFTY THREE GIZMOS!?!

Oh, and the pièce de résistance - no fewer than (and probably more than) THIRTEEN mobile phones.  This, for a family of six, two of whom are not old enough to have mobiles yet.  How did THAT happen?

This list, of course, is probably not exhaustive.  There are nooks and crannies where more gizmos could be hiding.  I decided not to include lamps, though I'm not sure exactly why.  The list also does not include whatever might be found in the storeroom downstairs, which is a scary thought.

I mentioned that I have 20 hangars of clothes.  I mean me, personally, the man of the house.  The 20 hangars doesn't include my wife's warehouse of clothing, or any of the 4 children's closets. It does not include any folded clothes, of which there are legion as well, or whatever might, again, be lurking in the storeroom.

Why do I bring all this up?  Why expose my weakness for material goods to the whole world?  Well, for one, because a little confession is good for the soul.  Two, because you can't fix a problem until you recognize that you have one.  I guess now is the time to start Materialists Anonymous, and develop, or plagiarize, a 12-step program.  Would you dare put in the comments section how many hangars or appliances you have?

Changing My Mind

A little confession is good for the soul.  So here goes - I am hard-headed. I am thick-headed.  I am so dense, light bends around me.  What brought this on, you ask?  Let me tell you.

I have an ongoing debate with a liberal.  Once, he made a comment about how "the rich" - referring to wealthy Americans - affect the lifestyles of people in the Sahara.  I said I didn't get the connection.  He sighed, and said that was part of the problem. We let it go at that.

Fast forward a year or so.  I recently watched 2 documentaries.  The first one was called "The Great Climate Change Swindle."  It showed interviews with several prominent scientists who made the unpopular claim that, although the climate was obviously changing and maybe even heating up, Climate Change (CC) was not due to man's activity. The upshot was that if you really wanted to halt the changing of the climate, you would have to turn down the Sun and dry out the oceans, neither of which is what we would call a "viable option."

Now, most of it was merely academic, showing charts and graphs and such, which can generate a "So what?" response.  The clincher came at the end.  They showed the repurcussions of the CC movement on Africa. They have no electricity in the villages.  The people have to burn wood or dried feces to cook their food or keep warm.  The fire pits are located inside their one room "houses" so they inhale the smoke, polluting the lungs of the indigenous people.  The CCers want them to invest in solar and wind energy, two sources that are not sufficiently developed to be any real help.  "I can't see solar power being strong enough to move trucks," says one native.  Nor are they cheap.  "The West wants us to use a very expensive source of energy that even they are not willing to use or cannot afford. How can we?" says another.

Well, my righteous indignation bubbled to the surface.  How dare they refuse poor Africans the right to develop, by saying they can't use the coal and oil that are buried in their lands?  Shameful.  Those CCers ought to be ashamed of themselves.

After I cooled off a bit, I watched the other documentary, something called "Buy, Throw Away, Buy."  Unfortunately, most of it is in foreign languages or English that is a bit hard to understand in places.  Here is a version that is mostly translated into English subtitles. This video is about the idea of Programmed Obsolescence.  It shows how the development of the light bulb was changed to make sure they did not last more than 1,000 hours, roughly the lifespan of a modern incandescent bulb.  This was AFTER they were already making bulbs that lasted up to 2,500 hours.  There is a bulb in a California fire station that has been burning for over 110 YEARS!  And now, in the 3d Millenium, we can't make one that will last more than 1,000 hours? When did the R&D money for light bulbs run out?  Even Edison's first commercial bulb lasted 1,500 hours.  This was in 1881.  The video claims that there was a patent for a light bulb that would last 100,000 hours - no, there is not an extra zero there.  Can you imagine a normal, incandescent light bulb lasting at least 11 years, and more like 20, if it was used "only" 12 hours a day?

The light bulb was the most developed example, but more were given about how our computers, furntiture, clothes and such were designed to fail, to wear out unnecessarily, in order to keep us buying and selling at an ever increasing rate.  The classic example for this is the inkjet printer. It is often cheaper to buy a new printer, than either to fix it, or even to buy new ink cartridges for it. 

This produced a bit of discomfort, but the real hammer came at the end. They finished the documentary by showing that our consuming, throwing away, and consuming was harming people - in AFRICA!!  In Ghana, there is what used to be beautiful riverbank, where children played, the men fished, probably animals came to drink. Today, it is a dump.  Used computer and electronic parts are left to bake in the sun, ostensibly "second-hand" items sent to "help developing countries."  The cast-off material is sent by the boatload, and the natives dig through it to find scrap metal that they can sell for a few pennies.  Some of the stuff they have to - wait for it - BURN, in order to get rid of the useless plastic. Toxic, plastic-burning bonfires litter the area, polluting the lungs of the indigenous people.

"Polluting the lungs of the indigenous people."  Where did I read that before?  Oh, yeah, it was in the documentary about global warming. For years, I have advocated free-market capitalism, believing that it was consumers' desires that drove the market.  What is obvious now, thanks to this video about Planned Obsolescence, is that it is the market that drives consumers' desires.  The market is the cause, not the effect, as I had believed earlier.

In a later post, I will further develop this idea of planned obsolescence, and what implications it has, at least from my Christian perspective.

Is Jesus Coming Soon? Really?

The latest failure to predict the date of the end of the world brings to mind a thought I have had for some time:    Is Jesus really coming soon?  It has been a main tenet of Christianity for decades and even centuries that Jesus is coming back.  Let me say at the outset that the certainty of His return is NOT under question here.  That He will return is patently obvious with even a cursory reading of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels and Revelation.

The vast majority of evangelical pastors believe that Jesus will come back very, very soon.  My father has preached this truth for nearly 50 years, and my current pastor has done the same for almost as long. Who can blame them?  They began their ministries in the 60s, when it seemed the whole world was falling apart around them. Vietnam, the drug culture, free "love", a rebellious music culture, political posturing, attempted and successful assassinations, the Cold War and the arms race all made it seem as though the world could end at any moment. The biggest selling book in the 70s was a book about prophecy, "The Late, Great, Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey, ultimately selling 28 million copies by 1990 (Wikipedia).

But, clearly, the return of Jesus has not happened.  Why not?  I think there are some reasons to think that His return may not be as "imminent" as has been thought.

First, consider that the Tribulation, the 7-year time period of divine wrath, is to be the culmination of God's judgement on the earth. It is to be the apex, the grand climax of history.  It is true that the world is in bad shape, but is it SO bad as to warrant this type of treatment? A quote, attributed to Billy Graham in the 60s,  said that if God didn't come back soon, He would owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. Ignore, please, the idea that man would tell God that He had to apologize for anything.  Look instead at the type of situation that caused these two cities to be destroyed.  They were full of sexual immorality, to the point of being unsafe to be outside at night.  "Big deal.  My neighbourhood is like that." Yes, but not the entire city.  Not the entire country.  Not the whole world.  Furthermore, EVERYONE in the city came and wanted to engage in their perversion with unwilling participants - demanding it so forcefully, in fact, as to endanger the life of the man, Lot, who was trying to protect them.  Even then, if God had found 10 believers, He would have spared the cities, as He had promised to Abraham.

Is our society THAT wicked, at this moment?  It could be better, yes, but it could be a lot, lot worse, and I submit that it will have to get a lot worse before God's patience runs out.  God promised Abraham that he would inherit the land of Canaan. However, he would have to wait for it, "for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." At least four hundred years would pass before the Israelites were freed from Egypt to conquer the Promised Land, and even then, God would wait another 40 years, owing to the rebellion of His nation.  God is LONG suffering, way more than any of us might be.

Another difficulty with the imminent idea has to do with the new temple. According to popular thought, the temple will be built on Mount Zion, or the Temple Mount, the site of Solomon's Temple.  The key difficulty here is that there is already a structure there - the Dome of the Rock, completed in A.D. 691.  It is one of the most sacred shrines in all of Islam.  Are Muslims enthusiastic about their religion?  Consider that they are willing to kill people for drawing pictures of Muhammad, and it will be easy to imagine what would happen if anybody even remotely suggested the idea of tearing down a 1,320-year-old sacred shrine, and building in its stead another temple, belonging to their sworn enemy.

If this were some marginal religion without any real clout, it might not be an issue. However, there are over 1.65 billion Muslims in the world, according to a study by Houssain Kettani, in January, 2010. That figure constitutes about 24% of the world's population.  Another report estimates that there will be over 2 billion within the next 20 years. Almost all of this increase will be due to births, as there is a large number of youth of child-bearing age within the religion.  If Islam is growing at such a rate, why would they even consider compromising on the holy site of Bait-ul-Muqaddas, the Noble Sanctuary, the third most holy site in all of Islam? It is hard, at present, to imagine a circumstance that would permit any world leader to convince Muslim leaders to agree to a peace agreement that included such a provision.

It is true that God is sovereign, and that "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD."   God can change circumstances in a heartbeat. However, based on the patience of God, and the Muslim demographic, perhaps the question that has been asked for so long, "Are we ready for Jesus to come soon?" might better be changed to "Are we ready for Jesus NOT to come soon?"

The God We Want

A lot of people have rejected God, for a variety of reasons.  However, I believe that many of these reasons fall into one category - unfulfilled expectations.  They look at what God claims he can do, and then when he doesn't do it, they conclude either that he is a liar not worthy of following, or, more frequently, that he does not exist.  They do not find God the way they want him.  What kind of god do they expect to find?

First and foremost, he should prevent calamity and disease.  Who has not agonized over the death of an innocent child, or a baby born with a debilitating handicap and wondered how God could allow such a thing? Something strikes at our very being to see anyone suffer, of course. With adults it is easy to think that they might have done something to deserve the situation in which they find themselves. With children, on the other hand, we prefer to think that God should step in and act. When he doesn't, faith takes a hit.

What else should God do to prove he exists?  Certainly the prevention of violence would be high on the list.  Can't God step between a mugger and the bullet he fired at his victim?  Would it be too much to expect a rapist to have a heart attack before seeking out a victim?

Another aspect would be judge of the wicked.  Obviously wickedness abounds in the world today.  Terrorism, slavery, drugs, human trafficking, corruption, and exploitation is a very short list of very serious actions that mankind is currently involved in, and appears to be getting away with it all the time.  Where is God, if he exists?

These do not even take into account the times that we needed money at certain times, or the car broke down, or we lost a job, or the business went bankrupt - all instances where God could have intervened, but did not.

So then, someone might read where God says, "Call unto me and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things that thow knowest not," and think that it is not true.  One could read "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold" and come to the conclusion that God is just toying with us when we don't get what we think we need.  In fact, probably many Christians have abandoned the faith, because they could not wrap their minds and hearts around the apparent contradiction that God talks a big game, but at crunch time, he fails to deliver.

God, however, is not a vending machine, where we put money on, pull a lever, and grab the candy bar that comes out.  He is not a butler, waiting at our every beck and call.  He is not a child who must do our bidding, when and where we want it.  On the contrary - he is the father, leading and directing, warning and disciplining when necessary, providing the basic necessities, not the luxuries we so desperately desire.

Most importantly, he is the father to his children.  What does a father desire most from his children?  Requests?  Demands?  Pouting?  No. He desires a relationship with them.  Jesus also said "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.  Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.  For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."  (John 6.26-7)

A person who wants to see what God can do must first accept God as he is, not as he "should" be.  Then, he must strive to develop a relationship with him, being more interested in who he is than in what he can do.

The People in Your Church

This is a promotional video done by Ambassador Baptist Church, about some of the stories that form the membership there.  It reminds us that everyone has a history, nobody is perfect, and behind the smiles are problems that can crush the life out of a person.  The grace of God helps us through these difficult times and gives us a purpose, a reason to continue, as we remember that this world is not the end of all things.

Real People in Church

What the Church Needs

I came across this today.  I have had the feeling, no doubt others have as well, that the Church has lost its compass.  It needs to come back to its roots, to its foundation.  As it was said in the Letter to the Church of Ephesus, in Revelation 2.4, "I hold this against you, you have forsaken the love you had at first."  The church is not obsolete - it remains God's plan for this age.  However, may He help us find our footing again, and set us on the right path.

95 Modern Theses for the Church

Christians and Politics

Have you ever wondered why most conservative Christians subscribe to capitalism, and liberal unbelievers ascribe to socialism?  It seems a bit backwards, when you consider that capitalism is based on selfishness and greed, and socialism is based on looking out for your neighbour.  Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why do we support the systems that we do? 

Most people want to live better than they already do.  That might be hard for some people to understand, especially looking at "rich" people.  Why do they need all that stuff?  Isn't there a point where they can reasonably say "I have enough"?  A $50,000 car serves their purpose, so why do they need one that costs $75,000?  Put the shoe on another foot.  Can't we just as easily say the same for a person who has a $10,000 car that is five years old?  It works, so why does he want a newer vehicle?  There are people who have no car at all.  They get around just fine, but they would still like to have their own wheels.  Ask nearly everyone who is not "rich" how much is enough?  Chances are they will say something that indicates "A little bit more than I have now."   Everyone is, in one sense or another, what we could consider "greedy."  So which system is better?

What does capitalism espouse? It is based on the survival instinct.  At its core, the idea is that a person will look out for himself before anyone else. It is the survival instinct.  Capitalism takes advantage of the impulse to seek a better life.  That impulse might compel someone to start a business.  In doing so, he might need to hire some people.  People who need a job - a better position than they are in at that moment - come to apply for the job.  If they are accepted, they will be able to improve their lot in life.  They could then make an improvement on their house, for example, and so in turn they will have to hire a carpenter.  The carpenter now has more work, and more money at his disposal.  And so it goes.  This is what Reagan meant by his much-maligned "trickle down economics."  By allowing the (undeniably) rich to keep more of their own money, they would feel free to build up their businesses and start others, hiring people who would then spend their money on other things that would have to be supplied by different people.  The system is by no means perfect.  People will use and abuse it to maximize their return-on-investment, often by under-paying their employees or forcing them to work over-time.  The system also lends itself to control by a select few.

What is the basis of socialism?  It seems, at first glance, a decent proposal.  We are all in this together.  To answer Cain's question to God, Yes, we are, in fact, our brother's keeper.  Therefore, we should make sure we look out for one another.  When one is "out of luck," society should make sure he can keep body and soul together long enough to find a job and start up again.  From this comes food stamps, unemployment benefits, health-care, and welfare to make sure that children have the basic necessities.  It surely seems as though this is what God had in mind when He said, "Love thy neighbor," doesn't it?

Is it true, then, that Christianity should espouse socialism, and leave the capitalism to the atheists?  Why isn't it that way?  I believe there are a few reasons why this is not the case.

First, Jesus did tell us to care for one another, as the socialists claim.  However, I think it instructive to note who He was talking to.  In His sermons, when He gave instruction on how to live, He always spoke to the common people, never to the governing class.  He never told the Pharisees and Sadducees, Herod, Pilate or any other governor that it was the responsibility of the government to take care of the underprivileged.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, He made it clear that taking care of one's neighbour was a personal responsibility.

Second, Christians have a better understanding of human nature, because they read and understand the Bible and what God says about His creation.  It IS true that, under normal circumstances, a person will normally look out for himself before others.  This does NOT mean that they will ignore the needs of those around him.  On the contrary, many conservative Christians, rich or poor, are very generous with their time and money, trying to improve the lot of life of their "neighbours."  It is a frustrating process, since in general they can help only one person or a small group at a time.  This is one reason why everyone should participate - to maximize the ability of society to help those in need.

Socialists, by contrast, try to improve the lot of a large group - society in general - by direct fiat.  They believe that people are not generous enough, which is why there are needy people.  Therefore, taxes are levied, to fill the coffers so that help is available.  This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.  Curiously, however, it fails to take into consideration the "greed" factor.  There are some people who will take advantage of such a system.  Many times, they will actually have to settle for less money if they get a job, compared to what they receive from the government, with the added benefit of having to get up early and not being able to watch television or play video games all day.  Who could say "No" to such a great system?  Of course, socialists and capitalists decry the abuse of both of these systems, as they should. 

Socialists do not recognize man as he is; they see him as they want him to be, and try to manipulate him to be that way.  Capitalists - not all of whom are Christians, by the way - see man as he is, and use the system to take advantage of his natural tendencies. 

Capitalism is better able to meet the needs of large numbers of people, because it utilizes the innate driving force of the group.  Socialism fails to recognize this basic tendency, and is therefore susceptible to abuse by large numbers of people, often rewarding them for not working, in direct violation of II Thessalonians 3.10, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."

The Sixth Day of Creation, Part 1

Well, it had been a busy week, comparatively speaking.  First, there was nothing, then water, light, dry land plants, sun, moon, and most recently sea life and birds. However, God was not finished yet.  The land needed some inhabitants.  "Let the land produce living creatures;  livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.  And it was so."  


Many people tend to mix two biblical stories at this point - the Creation account, and the account of Noah and the Ark.  Since everyone "knows" that Noah took two of every kind of  animal with him on the Ark (which is not true), it is easy to conclude that God made two of every kind of land-dwelling animal.  It is beyond doubt that He created only two humans in the beginning. While merely alluded to in Chapter 1 ("male and female He created them," without clarifying a quantity), it is clearly stated in the events of Chapter 2.  It is reasonable to think that God brought the animals to Adam in pairs, because it says that "no suitable helper was found."  It was as if Adam was naming animals, thinking, "There's two of these, two of those, over there is another pair of something...hmm, I wonder where the other one of me is?" Whether this is true or not, it is NOT automatic that God created only two of each kind of land animal, or sea animal, or bird, for that matter.  


Consider that there was a LOT of land.  Probably, as I mentioned, there was more land than water at this stage.  What would prevent God from making a herd of animals of one type, instead of only two?  Obviously, I cannot prove this hypothesis, but it certainly seems reasonable to me.  On the other hand, if God did create only two, there would have been enough genetic information for natural selection to develop all of the species we see today, including all of the extinct ones that have been discovered as fossils.

The Fifth Day of Creation

When all of the base material was in place, God began to fill  it.  And fill it.  And fill it.  "Let the water teem," He said.  Now, 6,000 years later, we STILL don't know what is hiding in the deep parts of the sea.  It has been said that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our own oceans.  There are microscopic plants, plants that can barely be seen with the naked eye, small ones, medium sized ones and large ones.  There are also microscopic animals, animals that can barely be seen with the naked eye, small, medium, large and extra large ones, and the famous and beautiful whales, giant octopus and squid.  Who is not captivated by underwater documentaries?  Hollywood is scarcely able to invent stranger things than what already lurks beneath the surface of the deep.

But God was not finished there.  He filled the sky as well.  These also vary enormously in size, from the frenetic buzzing of the diminutive hummingbird, to the majestic soaring eagle of modern times, and included the gigantic Quetzalcoatlus, sort of a Pterodactyl on steroids.  It had a wingspan of 10 meters - more than 30 feet!  What a breathtaking sight it must have been to see the sky filled with these types of creatures.

The Fourth Day of Creation

Day Four is one of my favourites.  It has a phrase that just blows me away.  We will get there, but first, let us consider what was created.

In contrast to Day One, when God said, "Let there be light," the Bible says, "And God said, 'Let there be lights . . .'"  I find it interesting that until Day Four, the light that was created before had no real source.  It was not emanating from anything, unless, as I mentioned, it came from God himself, but it seems as though the light is separate from him. Here God gives a source to the light.  The two principle ones, of course, being the Sun (the "greater light") and the Moon (the "lesser light").

So what is the phrase that knocks me off my feet?  It is only five words, which indicate the other things that God made on this particular day. The Bible says simply, "He also made the stars."

Have you ever considered the amount of material that is included in those five words?  For about 5,600 years, man thought that all those lights were mostly the same - glowing specks of luminosity helping him find his way around at night.  Galileo was one of the first to be able to differentiate between stars, planets and moons, which he did shortly after the invention of the telescope.  It has been only within the last few decades, however, that we have been able to get a good look at what was created on Day Four.  When we look up and see a "star", it could be a planet, star, galaxy or even a cluster of galaxies, each with billions of stars.  Furthermore, advanced telescopes such as the Hubble have sent back incredible images of deep space, and some of the wonders of the magnitude of the creation of God.

What surprises me is the understatement.  You would think that such an impressive display of creative majesty might deserve more than five words, but that is all that it gets.  It is as if Adam was writing down the events as God had explained before the Fall.  He got the part about "moving on the face of the waters," and "everything after its kind," followed by the greater and lesser lights.  Perhaps at that point he had writer's block, and could not remember what came next.  So he yells to the kitchen, where Eve is washing the dishes, "Honey, what else did God say He created on day 4?"  Eve replies, "Did you mentioned the stars?" Adam slaps his forehead, "Oh, yeah, thanks," and writes, "He also made the stars."

Perhaps the explanation has something to do with the way God relates to us.  I am not sure that he ever boasts about his works for the sake of boasting.  Obviously, he does tell us many times of the things he has done, but with a purpose - to let us know that he is with us, that he cares, that he is able to deal with whatever problem we might be facing. Based on what he has done before, we can trust him with the issues we are facing now, as well as the ones to come.

Describing this truth is truly beyond my ability.  Loui Giglio has done a much better job at trying to put the majesty of God into words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewKtSKbWZUI&feature=PlayList&p=128B484C4AC2D804&index=12

The Third Day of Creation

The first creative act of Day 3 was dry land.  Verse 9 of Genesis 1 says, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."  While true that God created dry land, let us not overlook a key phrase - "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place."  What implication does that have?

If you look at a map of the world today, you will see that 2/3 of the globe is covered by water.  We believe, of course, that most of that came from the Noahic Flood.  So what did the Earth look like before that?  The phrase "to one place" implies to me that there was more land than water - just the opposite of what we find today.  Together with the water canopy that many think was over the earth, it could be that the entire planet was one big tropical jungle, once everything was in place.

I think this is borne out in the amount of coal that we find in the earth's crust.  Coal, as you may know, is nothing more than plants that have been buried and subjected to intense pressure.  Wikipedia tells us,  "The main mineral resource known on the continent is coal."  Which continent?  That would be Antarctica.  How did such a frozen wasteland get to be covered with vegetation, buried with water and changed to coal?  Well, if the whole earth used to be a tropical jungle, when the flood came, there would be sufficient amounts of available plant life to be buried wherever it landed - in this case, Antarctica.  Furthermore, coal is mined in more than 100 countries in all of the other continents.  Another interesting tidbit is that the worldwide coal reserves amount to approximately 900 gigatons - that is, 900 billion (with a "B") tons, or almost 2 quadrillion pounds.  That is a lot of former plant life!

So, let's talk about the plant life.  Once the dry land was in place, God continued with the next item on His list - vegetation.  "Let the land produce vegetation. . . And it was so."  In "Star Trek II:  The Wrath of Khan," there is a scene that deals with the creation of a planet.  As the camera flies across the landscape, you can see land appear, followed by plants that grow at an astonishing rate.  The whole planet is ready to go in about 20 seconds.  This is probably not how Day 3 developed.  Remember, we are dealing with 24-hour days.  If God had created a tree, for example, that grew to 24 feet that first day, it would grow at a rate of one foot per hour, or 1 inch every 5 minutes.  An observer would not really have been able to see any development - it would be like watching the movement of a minute hand of a clock.  The rate would have been even slower with smaller plants, and the development of grass would be next to nothing.  This obviously does not take away from the miracle of Creation - it merely serves to remind us that things are not necessarily like what we see in the movies.

Here is first time that we read the phrase "after its kind."  Young Earth Creationists, like me, take this to mean that whatever offspring comes from something that God created will be similar to what the original life form was.  "What?"  Let me explain.  Let us say that God created an original apple tree.  Down through the centuries and millenia, those apple trees produced seeds, which became other apple trees.  Due to various environmental factors, different varieties of apple trees have developed.  This is called Natural Selection.  It is NOT evolution.  Evolution dictates that living things change into other living things - single-celled organisms become multi-celled, then fish, amphibians, all the way to the famous monkeys to man.  Natural selection causes different genetic characteristics to become dominant, leading to speciation.  All the species we have on the Earth at present came from an original "prototype."  Apple trees, then, came from other apple trees - they did not descend from banana trees, and banana trees did not come from apple trees.  God created every living thing to produce something more or less like itself.