Monday, November 21, 2005
My Thoughts on General Motors
I've been hearing on the news all day that GM is going to close 12 plants and lay off 30 000 workers. I feel for those workers, their families, and their communities. If only their unions hadn't pushed for the kind of health coverage they now get - but I digress. GM has been losing market share every year for a long time now. Why? Because they build cars people don't want. I know that where I live in west Texas it doesn't seem that way since every second person has a Chevy truck. But here's my experience. A month ago my wife (Holly) was rear-ended as she was entering our driveway. While her Nissan Murano SUV was being repaired we rented a fairly new GMC Envoy. At first glance it seemed to be a nice vehicle - until we had to drive it for 2 weeks! When we got the Nissan back after 2 weeks it was such a step up - the Murano is smoother, has a more solid feel, better steering, better handling, more rear leg room, more cargo room, the engine is far more advanced, not to mention the CVT transmission, the interior materials and ergonomics are clearly superior to the GMC, and it gets better gas mileage. And, the Nissan is $6000 cheaper than the GMC. Brand loyalty and emotional appeals to "buy American" cannot overcome the vast differences in quality and function that now exist between American vehicles and their Japanese and German rivals. That's why GM is losing market share. It's still sad, but that's "where the rubber meets the road."
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The Real War of the Worlds
All week long I’ve been hearing the ruckus in the news about the Iraq war, and faulty intelligence, and torture, and oil, and blah, blah, blah. So I’ve decided to take a big picture approach. With the almost daily bombings in Iraq and Israel, the recent bombings in London, the current riots in France, the suicide attack in Jordan, and our own precarious political climate, it occurs to me that the world's future is being decided at this time. Moments like this are extremely rare in history. There are now three ideologies competing to shape the future of mankind. They are militant Islam, Western European secular socialism, and American Judeo-Christian values.
Though most people ignore the fact, almost all of the world's Muslims believe that all of mankind should be Muslim. This, in and of itself, is not troubling - after all, most Christians would like the whole world to be Christian. What is troubling is that if only 10 percent of these Muslims are prepared to use violence to impose their religion on others, we are talking about 100 million people. This is the reason about one million non-Muslim Sudanese have been killed in the last 15 years. This is the reason for the violence in Nigeria - Christians there are also resisting the violent imposition of Islam. This is the reason for Islamic terror - to weaken those countries that stand in the way of an Islamic takeover.
The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secular socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by leftist elites in our own country. This is the reason for the anti-American demonstrations in Europe. Most of these anti war types could not care less about the wars of the world. They have been silent throughout the mass murder of Sudan's blacks, during the genocide in Rwanda, during China's crushing of Tibet, and during Saddam's wars against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. American and European “peace” activists have found those atrocities and wars boring. European socialists and their American supporters are as passionate about secularism as Muslims are about Islam, and they want to dominate the world as much as militant Muslims want to. Their vehicles are the United Nations, the European Union, international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols, and international institutions such as the International Criminal Court in Brussels.
While Islam and socialism dominate many countries, the third ideology is unique to America. There is no other country that claims to be Judeo-Christian, and defines itself as good. Other countries laud their greatness, not their goodness, and there is a big difference (Nazi Germany was great, but not good). This is why America so often “goes it alone” - with the partial exceptions of Israel and Britain, no other society has the same values as we do. It is thus sad that these values are not secure in America. Many Americans, including almost its entire intellectual class, are as hostile to Judeo-Christian values as the militant Muslims and European socialists are. Almost no one is teaching the next generation of Americans what is unique about American values. American children are mostly educated by people who believe in Europe's values, not ours. The American way of life can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America – a battle that is far from won. This is why I have so much contempt for politicians of both parties. They are too obtuse to see the big picture because they are too busy yapping at each other’s heels over complete nonsense. Given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secular socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future. To quote Reagan, “If we fail, we will sentence our children to a thousand years of darkness.”
Though most people ignore the fact, almost all of the world's Muslims believe that all of mankind should be Muslim. This, in and of itself, is not troubling - after all, most Christians would like the whole world to be Christian. What is troubling is that if only 10 percent of these Muslims are prepared to use violence to impose their religion on others, we are talking about 100 million people. This is the reason about one million non-Muslim Sudanese have been killed in the last 15 years. This is the reason for the violence in Nigeria - Christians there are also resisting the violent imposition of Islam. This is the reason for Islamic terror - to weaken those countries that stand in the way of an Islamic takeover.
The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secular socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by leftist elites in our own country. This is the reason for the anti-American demonstrations in Europe. Most of these anti war types could not care less about the wars of the world. They have been silent throughout the mass murder of Sudan's blacks, during the genocide in Rwanda, during China's crushing of Tibet, and during Saddam's wars against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds. American and European “peace” activists have found those atrocities and wars boring. European socialists and their American supporters are as passionate about secularism as Muslims are about Islam, and they want to dominate the world as much as militant Muslims want to. Their vehicles are the United Nations, the European Union, international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols, and international institutions such as the International Criminal Court in Brussels.
While Islam and socialism dominate many countries, the third ideology is unique to America. There is no other country that claims to be Judeo-Christian, and defines itself as good. Other countries laud their greatness, not their goodness, and there is a big difference (Nazi Germany was great, but not good). This is why America so often “goes it alone” - with the partial exceptions of Israel and Britain, no other society has the same values as we do. It is thus sad that these values are not secure in America. Many Americans, including almost its entire intellectual class, are as hostile to Judeo-Christian values as the militant Muslims and European socialists are. Almost no one is teaching the next generation of Americans what is unique about American values. American children are mostly educated by people who believe in Europe's values, not ours. The American way of life can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America – a battle that is far from won. This is why I have so much contempt for politicians of both parties. They are too obtuse to see the big picture because they are too busy yapping at each other’s heels over complete nonsense. Given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secular socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future. To quote Reagan, “If we fail, we will sentence our children to a thousand years of darkness.”
Friday, November 11, 2005
The Use and Abuse of Scripture
I believe that our familiarity with scripture borders on contempt. How often do we go back to texts we think we know and read and reread? What are we thinking during the scripture readings on a Sunday morning? Have you ever complained that a preacher read too much scripture? Just last week I got a note from a member asking me not to read so much scripture! Then I think of my trips to Zambia. I wish you could see the faces of Christians pleading with us to send Bibles. I wish you could have heard one African brother telling me that the only Bible in their congregation belonged to his father way back in 1937. I wish you could have seen the men frantically writing down every text we read because they had no Bibles to read it for themselves.
I see example everywhere of the abuse of scripture, some obvious, and some subtle. I have heard scripture rapidly quoted with anger and bitterness by people using the Bible as their own personal machine gun to win an argument, and I have debated with an atheist on historical inconsistencies they happened to uncover in the Bible. These examples have one thing in common – these people were quoting scripture without having a relationship with the author of scripture. You must have a loving relationship with God in order to understand His revelation to us!
I have observed two very extreme, very opposite ways of reading scripture, and I believe they are both dangerous:
1. Pattenism:
By this I mean reading scripture for the sole purpose of extracting rules and procedures, and guidelines. This is dangerous because scripture then becomes cold and lifeless. Passages can be ripped from their literary and historical contexts, and we tend to focus on the question, “Does the silence of scripture prohibit or allow something?” – a question that the Bible itself does not answer. Reading the Bible this way can make us intellectually lazy because if the Bible is reduced to a collection of facts to be learned, then you can only know so much, and once you have all the facts and rules down there’s not much left to do but argue with anyone who disagrees.
The other way of misusing scripture is even more dangerous:
2. Subjective Emotionalism:
When I am around students at ACU I often hear the phrase, “God laid it on my heart.” However, what they think God laid on their heart is sometimes heresy. God could not have laid on their heart something nearly as vapid as what comes out of their mouths. One of my theology professors told me that one time a young married couple came to see him, and the wife boldly declared that God had spoken to her – she was to abstain from sex with her husband. The teacher asked the husband, “Has God spoken to you about this?,” and he said, “NOPE!” And the teacher said, “Now this is interesting. Do you know that God has addressed this topic directly in scripture?” (see 1 Corinthians 7:5) A woman was claiming a “revelation” from God that directly contradicted scripture!
This is the danger of treating the Bible as a “living document.” When reading scripture becomes a private, purely emotional, application-only experience you also rip passages out of their contexts, and force those passages to say things they were never intended to say. Looking for “personal meaning” in scripture is like interpreting a piece of modern art at the museum – “whoa, that’s cool – never saw that before.” This way of reading scripture perpetuates the trendy myth that the sole aim of Christianity is to develop a “personal relationship” with Jesus, but when you find an unintended application in scripture you are committing violence against the integrity of the text. For example, I was sitting in on a small group study some time ago, and we were studying one of the prophets – a text where the prophet was condemning Israel, Isaiah I think. And people were saying, “Us Americans need to change. Look at this message from God. God will destroy our nation if we continue to sin and act immoral” – and I felt foolish pointing out that the prophet was speaking to Israel, not the United States. God has no covenant with the United States. The "new Israel" is the church, not America!
Here’s my point. I basically believe that scripture cannot have a meaning that the original author did not intend for the original audience to understand. I know that earns me the label of being a historical-critical reader of scripture. It’s just that I’ve seen so much abuse of scripture I want to be sure I approach scripture with humility and give the text the respect I claim to have for it.
I see example everywhere of the abuse of scripture, some obvious, and some subtle. I have heard scripture rapidly quoted with anger and bitterness by people using the Bible as their own personal machine gun to win an argument, and I have debated with an atheist on historical inconsistencies they happened to uncover in the Bible. These examples have one thing in common – these people were quoting scripture without having a relationship with the author of scripture. You must have a loving relationship with God in order to understand His revelation to us!
I have observed two very extreme, very opposite ways of reading scripture, and I believe they are both dangerous:
1. Pattenism:
By this I mean reading scripture for the sole purpose of extracting rules and procedures, and guidelines. This is dangerous because scripture then becomes cold and lifeless. Passages can be ripped from their literary and historical contexts, and we tend to focus on the question, “Does the silence of scripture prohibit or allow something?” – a question that the Bible itself does not answer. Reading the Bible this way can make us intellectually lazy because if the Bible is reduced to a collection of facts to be learned, then you can only know so much, and once you have all the facts and rules down there’s not much left to do but argue with anyone who disagrees.
The other way of misusing scripture is even more dangerous:
2. Subjective Emotionalism:
When I am around students at ACU I often hear the phrase, “God laid it on my heart.” However, what they think God laid on their heart is sometimes heresy. God could not have laid on their heart something nearly as vapid as what comes out of their mouths. One of my theology professors told me that one time a young married couple came to see him, and the wife boldly declared that God had spoken to her – she was to abstain from sex with her husband. The teacher asked the husband, “Has God spoken to you about this?,” and he said, “NOPE!” And the teacher said, “Now this is interesting. Do you know that God has addressed this topic directly in scripture?” (see 1 Corinthians 7:5) A woman was claiming a “revelation” from God that directly contradicted scripture!
This is the danger of treating the Bible as a “living document.” When reading scripture becomes a private, purely emotional, application-only experience you also rip passages out of their contexts, and force those passages to say things they were never intended to say. Looking for “personal meaning” in scripture is like interpreting a piece of modern art at the museum – “whoa, that’s cool – never saw that before.” This way of reading scripture perpetuates the trendy myth that the sole aim of Christianity is to develop a “personal relationship” with Jesus, but when you find an unintended application in scripture you are committing violence against the integrity of the text. For example, I was sitting in on a small group study some time ago, and we were studying one of the prophets – a text where the prophet was condemning Israel, Isaiah I think. And people were saying, “Us Americans need to change. Look at this message from God. God will destroy our nation if we continue to sin and act immoral” – and I felt foolish pointing out that the prophet was speaking to Israel, not the United States. God has no covenant with the United States. The "new Israel" is the church, not America!
Here’s my point. I basically believe that scripture cannot have a meaning that the original author did not intend for the original audience to understand. I know that earns me the label of being a historical-critical reader of scripture. It’s just that I’ve seen so much abuse of scripture I want to be sure I approach scripture with humility and give the text the respect I claim to have for it.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
I Voted!
Well, my friends, I voted today for the first time ever in my life. Yes, I'm 31, and I have never voted before today! South Africa's first free election was held in 1994 - 2 months after I left, and I only became a U.S. citizen this February. So today I fulfilled my civic responsibility (depite my dualistic Augustinian leanings) and voted. How did I vote on Prop.2? I voted Yes - but I really thought about it first. Yes, I know homosexuality is bad, but ammending the constitution deserves plenty of thought.
And now for some random thoughts:
Why I hate the media reason number 1: All week I've been hearing about "French youths" rioting. You mean little Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse are upset over not being admitted to the annual fête de la pomme, du cidre et du fromage at the Place de la Marie? (translation: cheese eating contest.) No, no, no! These are Muslim youths rioting as part of a long-term strategy of testing French resolve because they believe all of "Christian Europe" ought to be Muslim. The French have been weighed on the scales of history, and they have been found wanting!
And about the obscene profits of "big oil." Just so you know, I worship at the altar of the free-market. I am a Libertarian, a member of the Acton Institute, and friends with members of the Cato Institute and the Federalist Society. HOWEVER, the oil companies do not operate in a free market. They are heavily regulated by congress, fuel is taxed through the roof, and six companies (Conoco-Philips, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, Total-Fina, and BP) collude with each other in what amounts to a virtual monopoly. Our economy is intertwined with the price of fuel. It costs about $4 to remove a barrel of oil, and it sells for $60. Don't give me supply and demand rationale. The oil market is artificially manipulated. When gas goes from $1.50 to $3 in the space of one year, and profits go up by 75% something ain't right! And don't forget one more thing. God is always on the side of the poor. Read Micah and Amos. Those are some real "family values" my Republican friends.
And now for some random thoughts:
Why I hate the media reason number 1: All week I've been hearing about "French youths" rioting. You mean little Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse are upset over not being admitted to the annual fête de la pomme, du cidre et du fromage at the Place de la Marie? (translation: cheese eating contest.) No, no, no! These are Muslim youths rioting as part of a long-term strategy of testing French resolve because they believe all of "Christian Europe" ought to be Muslim. The French have been weighed on the scales of history, and they have been found wanting!
And about the obscene profits of "big oil." Just so you know, I worship at the altar of the free-market. I am a Libertarian, a member of the Acton Institute, and friends with members of the Cato Institute and the Federalist Society. HOWEVER, the oil companies do not operate in a free market. They are heavily regulated by congress, fuel is taxed through the roof, and six companies (Conoco-Philips, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, Total-Fina, and BP) collude with each other in what amounts to a virtual monopoly. Our economy is intertwined with the price of fuel. It costs about $4 to remove a barrel of oil, and it sells for $60. Don't give me supply and demand rationale. The oil market is artificially manipulated. When gas goes from $1.50 to $3 in the space of one year, and profits go up by 75% something ain't right! And don't forget one more thing. God is always on the side of the poor. Read Micah and Amos. Those are some real "family values" my Republican friends.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
"Liturgical Dancewear" ?
I know that this blog community likes to share examples of the shallowness of modern evangelicalism, so here's one I have to share. This morning I found a new catalogue in my church mailbox - "Spiritual Expressions. Liturgical Dancewear for 2006." Check out www.spiritualexpressions.com for a good laugh.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Why I Believe in Providence and Free-Will
After some recent political rants, I want to return to some theology. What is my theology of providence? What about suffering? The million dollar question is why do good people suffer? The most consistent challenge to belief in God has been the problem of evil and human suffering. The essential beliefs Christians hold about the nature of God seem incompatible with the evil that is so prevalent in the world. We believe that God is good (omnibenevolent), all knowing (omniscient), and powerful (omnipotent). The difficulties are, therefore, if God is good, and loves humans beings, why doesn’t He always act to deliver those He loves from suffering? And, if God is all-powerful, is it not reasonable to expect Him to deliver His people from suffering? Without dismissing these concerns, a better question for people of faith might be, what can God accomplish by allowing suffering? Human survival is one answer. For example, pain exists as a biological warning system. If I place my hand into a fire, I will recoil, but imagine the horrific result if my hand felt no pain! Pain and suffering often lead to growth in knowledge and power. Athletes know that temporary pain will lead to a stronger body. The world needs a system of ordered regularities – the “laws of nature.” Pain is the price of an ordered universe and human free will. Also, is it true that a good person must necessarily always stop pain when they have the power to do so? For example, when my mother first took me for immunizations, the needle being jabbed into my arm hurt! I was suffering, and my mother did nothing to stop it. So, was she a good mother or a bad mother?
Here are some central questions. Can God be in control of some things without constantly being in control of everything? Do humans have free will in a created order governed by God? What is the nature of divine sovereignty? Is it to alleviate personal suffering on an individual basis, or is there a higher purpose? Scripture provides some answers to these questions. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac in Genesis 22, it was to teach Abraham that freedom from suffering is less important than God’s covenant. The story of Joseph, and his rationale to his brothers is Genesis 50, teaches that the suffering of individual people sometimes brings about good for God’s collective people. Job teaches that we are God’s, to do with as He pleases. “Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:11). God is our Creator. He graciously gives us life, and every breath is a gift from Him. I have no “right” to expect one more breath! In the New Testament, the example of Christ teaches us that freedom from suffering is less important than God’s redemption of the world. In John 9 Jesus’ disciples ask him why a certain man was born blind. Did he sin, or did his parents sin? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3).
Can we make deals with God? This question is not often asked as bluntly, but it is asked implicitly. The belief that good people should not suffer because of their own righteousness is rampant in both Jewish and Christian life. Many people of faith believe that they should be able to avoid the calamities that afflict the less pious. This, in essence, is attempting to make a “deal” with God – “I’ll do what you want so that you will do what I want.” Believers, as well as non-believers, seek to reconcile the existence of God with the fact that good people suffer. But an equally appropriate question is, “Why shouldn’t good people suffer?” Rabbi Harold Kushner once asked, in this regard, “Should a pious person be able to go out on a freezing night without a jacket and not get sick?” And yet many Jews and Christians believe that if one observes God’s laws it is therefore unjust for the righteous to suffer. But unjust according to who’s definition of justice? This attitude may help to explain why unjust suffering can be so devastating to people’s faith. For many religious people, the problem of how a just, loving, and powerful Creator can allow terrible injustices is compounded by their belief that if they suffer while doing good, God has reneged on a “deal” with them. But the purpose of religion is to change the behavior of the believer, not God’s behavior. God will reward good and punish evil in the afterlife, not necessarily in this life. If God always rewards the righteous in this life, then the opposite must also be true – suffering is punishment from God. This belief is as prevalent as it is wrongheaded and cruel. I have heard Christians tell people who are suffering that if they prayed more and got closer to God their suffering would be alleviated! This belief renders the question, “Why do good people suffer?” self-contradictory. Those who believe that being righteous will protect them from suffering have already answered the question – if you suffer, you’re not a good person! The answer is not to make deals, but to understand God’s providence. Divine providence is rooted in the character of God, particularly His love. God’s desire to love and to be loved caused Him to create, and His continual desire to love causes Him to interact with that creation. Out of His love, God created humans as moral free agents because virtue cannot be coerced. Divine providence does not imply a tyrannical God who controls the universe at every level. In His great love, God has granted to humanity the power to choose its own destiny through choices. For me, a “puppetmaster” God negates the concept of love (for further guidance watch “Bruce Almighty”). Our understanding of providence provides answers to the tragedies of life by informing the Christian community that love is central to the nature and character of God, and love implies risk since refusal to control another being is a demonstration of love for that being. The outcome of God’s work in the world is not a foregone conclusion since God’s actions are predicated on human decisions. Even His plan for the redemption of humanity had the potential for failure because it depended on choice. In a Christian sense, providence means that God is more concerned with the eternal state of humanity than our temporal level of comfort. This understanding of divine providence is inextricably intertwined with the theology of creation. If God refuses to act as a universal tyrant, determining through foreknowledge, the course of every event, then the world He created necessarily has the potential to evolve freely. In such a system, humans have the intrinsic capacity to commit evil. The dialectic of good and evil is built into creation from the beginning. In a sense, God’s great love makes Him subject to His own creation. He is grieved when evil is committed, He changes His mind when pressed, and He is moved to act when we approach Him in prayer. Believing that God is tied to His creation because of love has implications for how we interact with creation. Any view of providence must dismiss the Deistic view that God has created, and then moved on, never interacting with His creation, but rather watching from afar. On the other end of the theological spectrum, determinism also tends to negate the love of God. In a word, I believe in free will because of LOVE.
Here are some central questions. Can God be in control of some things without constantly being in control of everything? Do humans have free will in a created order governed by God? What is the nature of divine sovereignty? Is it to alleviate personal suffering on an individual basis, or is there a higher purpose? Scripture provides some answers to these questions. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac in Genesis 22, it was to teach Abraham that freedom from suffering is less important than God’s covenant. The story of Joseph, and his rationale to his brothers is Genesis 50, teaches that the suffering of individual people sometimes brings about good for God’s collective people. Job teaches that we are God’s, to do with as He pleases. “Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:11). God is our Creator. He graciously gives us life, and every breath is a gift from Him. I have no “right” to expect one more breath! In the New Testament, the example of Christ teaches us that freedom from suffering is less important than God’s redemption of the world. In John 9 Jesus’ disciples ask him why a certain man was born blind. Did he sin, or did his parents sin? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3).
Can we make deals with God? This question is not often asked as bluntly, but it is asked implicitly. The belief that good people should not suffer because of their own righteousness is rampant in both Jewish and Christian life. Many people of faith believe that they should be able to avoid the calamities that afflict the less pious. This, in essence, is attempting to make a “deal” with God – “I’ll do what you want so that you will do what I want.” Believers, as well as non-believers, seek to reconcile the existence of God with the fact that good people suffer. But an equally appropriate question is, “Why shouldn’t good people suffer?” Rabbi Harold Kushner once asked, in this regard, “Should a pious person be able to go out on a freezing night without a jacket and not get sick?” And yet many Jews and Christians believe that if one observes God’s laws it is therefore unjust for the righteous to suffer. But unjust according to who’s definition of justice? This attitude may help to explain why unjust suffering can be so devastating to people’s faith. For many religious people, the problem of how a just, loving, and powerful Creator can allow terrible injustices is compounded by their belief that if they suffer while doing good, God has reneged on a “deal” with them. But the purpose of religion is to change the behavior of the believer, not God’s behavior. God will reward good and punish evil in the afterlife, not necessarily in this life. If God always rewards the righteous in this life, then the opposite must also be true – suffering is punishment from God. This belief is as prevalent as it is wrongheaded and cruel. I have heard Christians tell people who are suffering that if they prayed more and got closer to God their suffering would be alleviated! This belief renders the question, “Why do good people suffer?” self-contradictory. Those who believe that being righteous will protect them from suffering have already answered the question – if you suffer, you’re not a good person! The answer is not to make deals, but to understand God’s providence. Divine providence is rooted in the character of God, particularly His love. God’s desire to love and to be loved caused Him to create, and His continual desire to love causes Him to interact with that creation. Out of His love, God created humans as moral free agents because virtue cannot be coerced. Divine providence does not imply a tyrannical God who controls the universe at every level. In His great love, God has granted to humanity the power to choose its own destiny through choices. For me, a “puppetmaster” God negates the concept of love (for further guidance watch “Bruce Almighty”). Our understanding of providence provides answers to the tragedies of life by informing the Christian community that love is central to the nature and character of God, and love implies risk since refusal to control another being is a demonstration of love for that being. The outcome of God’s work in the world is not a foregone conclusion since God’s actions are predicated on human decisions. Even His plan for the redemption of humanity had the potential for failure because it depended on choice. In a Christian sense, providence means that God is more concerned with the eternal state of humanity than our temporal level of comfort. This understanding of divine providence is inextricably intertwined with the theology of creation. If God refuses to act as a universal tyrant, determining through foreknowledge, the course of every event, then the world He created necessarily has the potential to evolve freely. In such a system, humans have the intrinsic capacity to commit evil. The dialectic of good and evil is built into creation from the beginning. In a sense, God’s great love makes Him subject to His own creation. He is grieved when evil is committed, He changes His mind when pressed, and He is moved to act when we approach Him in prayer. Believing that God is tied to His creation because of love has implications for how we interact with creation. Any view of providence must dismiss the Deistic view that God has created, and then moved on, never interacting with His creation, but rather watching from afar. On the other end of the theological spectrum, determinism also tends to negate the love of God. In a word, I believe in free will because of LOVE.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Internet is in Danger
I won't go into too much depth here, but you need to know that the machinery is in motion to turn the operational control of the Internet over to the United Nations. It's "unfair" for the U.S. to control all this information and technology. Where can this go? Let's consider for just a moment the document that Bill Clinton called the greatest document ever written by man in support of human rights and freedom. That would the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document is supposed to be the great international blueprint for human rights around the world. The document says that it represents “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Does the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights protect free speech? Well, in a word, yes it does. Article 19 says that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. So far, so good. The declaration also says that everyone has a right to rest and leisure and a right to a standard of living. Interesting. It also says that all mothers and children are entitled to “special care and assistance.” Problematic to say the least, but let's go to Article 29 Paragraph 3. “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Do you need to read that again? This one clause negates every single right recognized in this so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” You have no freedom of speech. You have no freedom of expression. You have no right to property. You have no right to your precious “standard of living” - you have nothing if your exercise of those rights interferes with the goals of the United Nations.
Now, back to the Internet. When the United Nations gains control just how far will it go? Will it start censoring the Internet to make sure that nobody posts any information or opinions that might interfere with the “purposes and principles” of the United Nations? There is talk, for instance, of a world-wide income tax to fund U.N. operations. Would I be allowed to post an opinion in opposition to this scheme? Are you worried? You should be, especially when you consider that more Americans are concerned about Tom Cruise impregnating Katie Holmes!
Do you need to read that again? This one clause negates every single right recognized in this so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” You have no freedom of speech. You have no freedom of expression. You have no right to property. You have no right to your precious “standard of living” - you have nothing if your exercise of those rights interferes with the goals of the United Nations.
Now, back to the Internet. When the United Nations gains control just how far will it go? Will it start censoring the Internet to make sure that nobody posts any information or opinions that might interfere with the “purposes and principles” of the United Nations? There is talk, for instance, of a world-wide income tax to fund U.N. operations. Would I be allowed to post an opinion in opposition to this scheme? Are you worried? You should be, especially when you consider that more Americans are concerned about Tom Cruise impregnating Katie Holmes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)