"Ignore it and it'll go away"?    Or "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"?

This is an interesting discussion.

Is there a middle way?

Will Keith Ellison be the first Congressman to be sworn into office on the Quran rather than the Bible? This article by Dennis Prager is very interesting...

Also, is Jesus a 'King'?   And if so, what is He King of?? A spiritual kingdom? (yes...)  A political kingdom? (not yet...)  Is "exclusive commitment to the exclusive authority of Christ" an improper attitude for Christians to hold, as this theologian seems to think? What does that phrase even mean?

"Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"

Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?"

Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?"

Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." "

John 18:33-37

Several fascinating articles I came across today:

1. This post by Al Mohler mentions the growing numbers of schools (and kindergartens!) allowing "transgendered" children in school, and catering to them extensively (essentially imposing their worldview upon the other children). The question that immediately comes to my mind is the age-old "Should we engage or disengage?" ...i.e., how much is enough, before one takes one's children out to homeschool them rather than leaving them in to 'have a godly influence'?

2. Another post by Mohler mentions that married couples are now a minority of couples in the USA. This is a thought-provoking milestone in our national moral decline, to say the least...

3. This article by Richard Fernandez (quoting Dershowitz and Arbour) contains a very insightful analysis of the current moral dilemma faced by the United Nations and by those who look to the UN to solve the world's problems. Most of the post is excerpted below:

"Is National Self Defense a War Crime?" Asks Alan Dershowitz in a op-ed in Canada’s National Post. The answer says Dershowitz is "yes" if you ask Louise Arbour, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and currently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, for so long as national self defense entails the risk of inflicting collateral damage. Dershowitz rejects her position and goes on to argue that:

"Democracies simply cannot protect their citizens against terrorist attacks of the kind launched by Hezbollah without some foreseeable risk to civilians. There cannot be any absolute prohibition against such self-defensive military actions so long as they are proportional to the dangers and reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian casualties."

Barbour's thinking has set up a wholly secular equivalent of the Problem of Evil. If we remove the term "God" from the standard proposition and replace it with appropriately secular terms we have this restatement:

Barbour's Dilemma is the problem of reconciling the existence of oppressive regimes, genocide and mass slaughter in a world governed by a wholly benevolent, pacifistic, nonviolent and impotent United Nations.

If the United Nations is benevolent then it cannot tolerate the existence of a Rwanda, Congo, North Korea or a Darfur. But if it attempts to stop these atrocities then inevitably it must inflict some collateral damage which will cause some people to die and that, according to Barbour, is a War Crime. There is no way out of the paradox and the system is in logical self-contradiction. Unlike the real problem of evil, a theodicy is not allowed as a solution to Barbour's Dilemma.because in a secular context, no meta-solutions are allowed by invoking a God who can make amends for everything or whose true nature we cannot completely understand. Those transcendant quantities cannot exist in Barbour's secular universe. They might exist in a religious universe, but not in the United Nations'.

There are also other problems with the UN hegemony...  where does the source of moral legitimacy for any enforcement arise, whether 'collateral damage' is done or not?   What right does any human have to 'impose morality' of any kind whatsoever upon a fellow human?   ...or, from whence does that right come?

There's another discussion I'm participating in at http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html that is delving into questions of 'secular morality', if you're interested and have some time.

I learned a cool new word today - "crenellated".

Kinda makes you wish you went to a university like this, eh?   ...where "diversity" is "tolerated" and "free speech" is "championed."

This post is a combination of two thoughts, both of which are rambling, so if you only have a little time, skip it.

1. Al Mohler clearly delineates in this article the emergence of yet another name for the same old people... the new name being "Middle Church, Middle Synagogue, Middle Mosque", and the same old people being "liberals."

Here's a question that has deeply intrigued me... why are liberals and conservatives so predictable?   Why is it that so many seemingly nonrelated issues/beliefs are so prevalently combined in the same groups of people?  Why is it the case that knowing what a person thinks about the proper interpretation of the book of Genesis or the most appropriate national welfare policies can correlate so highly with that person's beliefs about abortion pills, gun control, the fight against terrorism, or global warming?

I guess these things must be deeply connected somehow...?   Not only that, but in spite of all these "correlations," liberals and conservatives keep insisting "don't put me in a box!"   "I'm not a stereotypical blue democrat / red republican!  I'm purple!  Just like Jesus was!"

The stridency of the world is so immensely wearying sometimes.

2. Closely related, the heartbreak and the grief (for me), of/on-behalf-of so many of my friends (especially my Christian friends) struggling through (for lack of a better term) "reactionary postmodern angst".

It's one thing when you see "the world" yelling against God, striving constantly to contradict and circumvent His truth and His beautiful pattern for us, boiling/teeming/laboring like ants to invent "whatever is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10).

But it's another thing when close friends go through these struggles...  when close friends reject God and the teaching of the Bible, not because they've found something better, nor because they have solid reasons for their rejection, but for various paltry motivations (that we flesh-bound humans are so notorious for)...

"... it doesn't satisfy me emotionally ..."

"... I've just been burned too much in the past by hypocrites who taught this doctrine but lived in sin and selfishness..."

Extending C.S.Lewis' famous quote: "...We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us. Like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot understand what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea."

It's as if the ignorant child, when I sit down to explain to him how wonderful the beach really is, replies to me: "Oh yes, I know all about it.  I saw a movie once about the beach.  But the theatre was hot and smelly and the people around me were loud and obnoxious.  Not for me, thanks.  I'll just stick with my mud pies."

I am currently empathizing more than usual with Paul in Romans 9:2...  "great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart..."

Part of it, I am hoping, is the age of my friends - perhaps they are young and inexperienced, and after another decade or two has rolled over them, they will come to their senses and cling wholeheartedly to the truth.  Yet I know that many older people have simply become set in their liberal mindsets, irrevocably.

Even more the problem, most likely, is the "spirit of the age" we live in....  Oh, the pain of seeing my dear friends "infected" by the (postmodern, "spiritual", anti-reason, anti-doctrine, cynical, relativistic, emotion/experience-driven, scoffing, sensual, reactionary, nauseating) spirit of the age.

I can't convince them - they won't listen.  I can't laugh at them - the love of Christ constrains me.  I can't ignore them... splagchnistheis in action.   Prayer, patience, acceptance-with-joy the only options.   1 Corinthians 1-3 an encouraging stay.

For an "under-the-sun" perspective, this poem by Edgar Guest (posted in the comments section below) ain't too bad.

Though granted, there is something far better than his version...  living "unafraid" not blindly/naively, nor irrationally/defiantly, but supremely confident in an omnipotent loving Heavenly Father...

This is a very insightful article.

Excerpt:

...Civilization was invented so that ordinary folks could leave the tasks of vengeance and justice to a state who would presumably dispense it impartially according to laws enacted by common consent. But as states fail to do their job, and as the "International Community" gets reduced to impotence and symbolic acts by the dead weight of political correctness, a growing number of people are finding themselves living in a world of increasing anarchy. Paradoxically, the amount of real civilization in the world -- as represented by actual security and effective governance -- is declining in direct proportion to the increase in the number of filigrees and curlicues in the treaties, declarations, understandings and covenants that the "International Community" has barricaded itself with. Two parallel universes begin to coexist. An imaginary universe obsessed with Global Warming, multiculturalism, world governance and image inhabited by bureaucrats and intellectuals, and a real universe shot with poverty, rife with ethnic hatreds, chaos and inhabited by militias; with the imaginary universe pretending it is in control of the real universe....

"Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower. He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God? As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist. For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven."

Interesting... (as is also his idea of how religion can be 'removed' from the world...)

While I certainly would not claim to defend "religion" in general, I am extremely interested in the rationality and viability of belief in Jesus Christ as the Creator, Savior, and Lord God (which Dawkins would probably call 'the religion of Christianity').  So here is my reply.

Belief/trust in Jesus Christ is not primarily about "explanation, exhortation, consolation, or inspiration", although it certainly does provide an excellent basis for each of them.   Instead, the primary concern of a follower of Jesus Christ must be truth.  

We must ask not "what would provide me with the best sermon" but "what is the actual state of affairs in the universe and in my life?"  "What is the truth about my soul? (if I have a soul)"  

Is it true that God exists, that He has created me, that I am responsible to Him for my actions?  Is it true that although I have messed up my life beyond any hope of eternal happiness, that God wrapped Himself in flesh and came to the earth for the express purpose of dying in my place?

Dawkins mention of "explanation" is closest to what I'm saying, though I bet I could summarize what he was referring to in a single sentence - "a long time ago people didn't know what caused lightning and rain, so they invented gods to pray to, but now we know that lightning and rain are caused by physical laws, so we don't need gods anymore... we're grown-up now."  Actually, contra Dawkins, some events are still "explained" better under the theistic hypothesis than the naturalistic hypothesis, like Creation and the Resurrection.  And the theistic/possibility-of-miracles hypothesis doesn't impinge upon real operational science at all.

Dawkins, eloquent and educated though he is, not only comes to the wrong conclusions, but even deeper - he is asking the wrong questions.

The "professionalization of war"... very thought provoking...     -    "What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"

Also relevant are the obvious questions for Christians...   we know that Christ's kingdom is "not of this world",  and we are citizens of that heavenly kingdom... but we are still called to "honor the king", "pay taxes", and perhaps even to fight for peace and freedom.  Granted, "fighting for peace" sounds strange, especially to our MSM-conditioned ears.   But it is a historical reality... a harsh worst-case option which is sometimes a "tactical necessity" (a poignant phrase from Canadian/UN soldier Paeta Hess-von Kruedener about the reason Israel dropped bombs close to UN positions -- because Hezbollah was using the UN observers as human shields -- just a day or two after he emailed his report, Hess-von Kreudener was killed).

There really is a time for war and a time for peace.  As we evaluate this as Christians, it is essential to make sure that our actions are concerned solely for justice and not tainted by greed.  And it's essential to remember our true citizenship.

Would you say that enlisting in the military could be just as God-glorifying of a vocation as becoming a pastor or a missionary?  What do you think?

'Why have we fasted and You do not see?
Why have we humbled ourselves and You do not notice?'
Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire,
And drive hard all your workers.
Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist
You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high.
Is it a fast like this which I choose, a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it for bowing one's head like a reed
And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed?
Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the LORD?
Is this not the fast which I choose,
         To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free
And break every yoke?
Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry
And bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the naked, to cover him;
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light will break out like the dawn,
And your recovery will speedily spring forth;
And your righteousness will go before you;
The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am '
If you remove the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness,
And if you give yourself to the hungry
And satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
Then your light will rise in darkness
And your gloom will become like midday.
And the LORD will continually guide you,
And satisfy your desire in scorched places,
And give strength to your bones;
And you will be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins;
You will raise up the age-old foundations;
And you will be called the repairer of the breach,
The restorer of the streets in which to dwell.

Here is a interesting speech by famous author Michael Crichton, entitled "Aliens cause global warming."  If you're interested in science, politics, postmodernism or creationism, you will probably enjoy taking a few minutes to read through his speech.  He speaks from the perspective of a science-loving (and "pseudoscience-hating") modernist, pleading for objectivity in current and future scientific research.  And of course, scientific objectivity is a very good thing.  But it may be elusive... Crichton sees the handwriting on the wall - that postmodernism is gradually eliminating the objectivity of science (and even the practice of scientific research itself).

C. S. Lewis put it well... (M. D. Aeschliman, 'C. S. Lewis on Mere Science', 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18) ---
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature [i.e. quantum theory], and the surrender of the claim that science is true [i.e. postmodernism]. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age."

So what ought we Christians to do?

I suggest - follow God in full trust without "worrying about tomorrow", and revel in science / knowledge / learning more about God's creation, worshipping the Creator...