Sometimes you just need to emote.

And who better to help than Paco De Lucia.

It's a humbling thing, listening to him, because all I ultimately can do is get caught up in the emotion of the music, because to be honest I find that the subtleties of his style are hard to track with.

[for simple instance, what's with the clapping? it's like the singers prearranged it totally at a tangent from the music just to mess with my head.]

If you don't like it, well then, Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Thpppppt!

God's Sovereignty - Not if, but How.

A friend and I were discussing the issue of whether the fact that God is sovereign over all things means that he actively orchestrates every single event in history, from the dropping of a piece of chalk to our acts of sin.

[We both reject Open Theism. This is just a discussion about the fact of God's sovereign control over all things and specifically HOW it works]

Briefly, these were the thoughts that emerged:

1. We are limited in our ability to understand the infinite. Therefore tread lightly.

2. God's sovereignty is not hands-off : free will is a loaded concept. Any will is always subsidiary and subject to God's purpose.

3. But (and Biblical examples are clear) God's sovereignty is not micro-management. He does allow sin. He does give Satan room to function (Job's case for example).

4. But does it need to be micromanagement? God is omnipotent... in that he has created laws and decrees, both Physical and Spiritual, which will come to pass whatever may try to interfere. Even in the micro, we CAN be out of his WILL (Sin) but never out of his sovereignly ordained PLAN. Can we disobey him? Obviously. But can we defeat his purpose for our lives? Consequently, just because we do something that goes against his command/will, it doesn't necessitate that we are also acting against his sovereignty.

Maybe the issue is that we need to separate the terms Sovereignty and Will. Does God do/force to happen everything he desires? ("he desires all men to be saved") No. But does God accomplish everything according to his purpose? (Eph 1) Clearly.

It boggles the mind. God's power is such that even when in the present all actions are turned against his will, ultimately looking back from a future date [nay, even in the rebellious now!], we can conclude that even though those actions may not have been according to his will; they were according to His intricately plotted out purpose.

Words of comfort to 'some of us' who are prone to wander.

[Now I realise this isn't an in depth study, so please feel free to use scripture to enhance /enlighten this discussion.]

Prayer

Let me be the evidence of what Your grace can do
To a generation struggling to find themselves in You
May they come to know the love of God,
May their eyes be made to see-
Give me the opportunity to share the truth
that sets them free
And may unity in all things
Be the banner of Your church,
And let revival's fire begin to burn:

This is my prayer,
Lifted to You
Knowing You care so much more than I do
This is my prayer,
In Jesus' name
Your will be done, I humbly pray.

[Bob Hartman - 1990]

Funny of the Day

Sometimes you just need to smile.

Who Do You Think You Are?

The beauty of YouTube: You may know of Stephen Fry, the British comedian. In a TV program on the BBC that goes by the title of this Blogpost, we are allowed a very personal glimpse into his journey to discover the story of his ancestry. It sounds boring, I know, but it turns into a very touching tale of hope, dreams, and the significance of every human life. And a reminder that there is a lot to be thankful for, even in a human sense.

If you have the time, it's worth a watch.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

I forgive you, but...

I've been thinking about forgiveness recently, and surprisingly there's a can of worms where I didn't imagine one to be: On whether forgiveness is conditional.

And so I did a little looking, and am going to make it a blogpost just because it's a place to have it for reference.

A few passages that relate:

Eph 4:32
"Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

Matt 18:21,22-
"Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.""

Luke 17:2-3
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, 4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

Mark 11:25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
(look up verse 26, it's a killer)

Dealing with the passages:

Eph 4:32 is a good starting point. Some have used it to say that our forgiveness is modelled on Christ's. Which in a sense is true, but you can take it to far by saying "Christ forgave but on condition of our repentance." I disagree, because the verse seems to be more about the act of forgiveness rather than the method - "God in Christ has forgiven you! You now go and forgive". The passage is not saying "God in Christ forgave you, but it was conditional on your repentance. Therefore, now go and forgive everyone who is truly repentant".

There's more clarity available - Matt 18 and Luke 11 can be used to show that forgivness necessitates repentance. However, when we look at the passage in Mark 11:25, there we find a broader context. And putting the three verses together, this is how it looks:

1. We are to forgive all who sin against us unconditionally. (Mark 11:25). This is the broad circle, as it were.
2. We are therefore (now a smaller circle) required to forgive everyone who asks us for forgiveness. (Matt 18, Luke 17:2-3) The logic is obvious in light of Mark 11.

Some synonyms of words found in the Bible for forgive: "to show grace", "to release", "to deduct". In that light, when we forgive, we would be required to show grace (not hold onto a root of bitterness) to release (from debt) and to deduct (from any losses we might have incurred). That's Biblical forgiveness, and all these attitudes are possible unilaterally.

However, there is a place where a hands on approach is necessary, and Matt 18 and Luke 17:2-3 make that clear - there are times when the type of sin committed necessitates confrontation. Interestingly, the onus is not on the sinner but on the sinned against " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault". The motive is not vindication but restoration. "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

Sometimes we run away from confrontation and "just forgive" but true love sometimes needs to do more to gain our brothers and sisters. And sometimes other people have to be broght into the picture (Matt 18), but that's about Church discipline.

This is therefore where I stand: Christian Forgiveness is unilateral and unconditional, but there are times when restoration is necessary even if forgiveness has been granted by the wronged party - again, a separate but related issue - love seeks the restoration of lost relationship and the repentance that accompanies restoration. Part of what you might need in the process of leaving bitterness behind is to address the issue with the person who has sinned against you.

Duh.

We live in an age of intensely high levels of wondrous intellectuality.

It took a study to show this.

One more pebble hits the wall.

TIME Magazine put out an article over the weekend which purports to prove that Jesus is still dead. Normally this kind of stuff I would just ignore, but then I started thinking - about how ironic it is that Christians are accused of intellectual suicide and grabbing at straws of "faith" (apparently faith meaning belief in the non-existent). The intellectual unfairness that takes place in such "findings" gives me the same feeling as having a root canal.

But because a celebrity is taking up this cause, it's going to be more mainstream than it would have been and have more intellectual clout (ironically) than it would have had. A movie review site I read said this about the whole thing-

"It’ll be interesting to see what he’s come up with, but it’ll be just as interesting to see the Christian response. Here’s the thing about the faithful: no matter how much proof you show them, they won’t believe what they don’t want to believe. We’re supposed to respect that sort of inane inflexibility."

How do you respond to statements like that? I don't think we really need to. Compare it to consiracy theories: That man never went into space or landed on the moon (google it, there's plenty of such sites) or that the holocaust never happened. And "proof" is supplied. At the heart of it is incredulity. How do you respond to such ideas? Normal people don't usually waste their time on researching a response.

Conspiracy theorists probably have similar words about their detractors as "inane inflexibility".

It is of note that the issue at stake is foundational: The resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19:

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

He said it not from a standpoint of fear, like the world assumes, but of confidence. Where was his confidence? In his blind "faith"? Not likely. See what he says just prior to the verses above:

1 Cor 15:3-8
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. "

Why do we believe that James Cameron has no case? Well, because he's trying to rewrite the facts. That pebble is going to drop to the ground.

Edit: Cameron's Problems Begin
Edit: For Further Reference

Lost in Space

Spaceships with paying customers touring the far reaches of space... Space entrepreneurs... $20,000 to go on a spaceflight. I'm kind of a sci-fi fan and at first glance these ideas sounds like cheesy middle-of-the-road science fiction.

Except it's coming to a space station near you, say in another 15 years.

I'm not kidding

"Fifteen years from now, every kid will know he can go to orbit in his lifetime."

Cool. I was scared about the potential expenses of sending my kids to college. Now this.

Book your ticket here.

Three Lessons From Lewis, CS.

John Piper, talking about reading and books that have influenced him, stopped to mention the impact CS Lewis had on his life and his thinking. I thought it was worth mentioning. These are lessons worth thinking about and imbibing.

1) He has made me wary of chronological snobbery. That is, he has shown me that "newness" is no virtue and "oldness" is no fault. Truth and beauty and goodness are not determined by when they exist. Nothing is inferior for being old and nothing is valuable for being modern. This has freed me from the tyranny of novelty and opened for me the wisdom of the ages. He said one: every third book you read should be from outside your own (provincial) century.

2) He demonstrated for me and convinced me that rigorous, precise, penetrating logic is not inimical to deep, soul-stirring feeling and vivid, lively, even playful imagination. He was a "romantic rationalist." He combined what almost everybody today assumes are mutually exclusive: rationalism and poetry, cool logic and warm feeling, disciplined prose and free imagination. In shattering these old stereotypes for me, he freed me to think hard and to write poetry, to argue for the resurrection and compose hymns to Christ, to smash an argument and hug a friend, to demand a definition and use a metaphor.

3) Finally, Lewis has given (and continues to give) me an intense sense of the "realness" of things. This is hard to communicate. To wake up in the morning and to be aware of the firmness of the mattress, the warmth of the sun rays, the sound of the clock ticking, the sheer being of things (quidity as he calls it). He helped me become alive to life. He helped me to see what is there in the world--things which if we didn't have them, we would pay a million dollars to have, but having them, ignore. He convicts me of my insensitivity to beauty. He convicts me of my callous inability to enjoy God's daily gifts. He helps me to awaken my dazing soul so that the realities of life and of God and heaven and hell are seen and felt.

Piper later makes the point that it's not the reading of many books that is important. It is reading good books well... "Meditative reading, reading which stops and ponders, reading which sees deep into reality - that is the kind of reading which profits." With his life and mind as an example... he speaks words we would do well to heed.

Free Food!

What a concept.

Pay-as-you-can Restaurants!

The first thought that came to me was, this would never work in India. People would take advantage of the non-capitalist altruism inherent in such an idea. Then I thought, maybe I'm being too pessimistic about my people, who I do love.

And then I read further. Oh the irony!

Paying the check by honor system has its risks; there are always those who will exploit the opportunity and eat for free � perhaps more so in big cities. At Babu, an Indian restaurant in New York City, the pay-what-you-feel-is-fair method resulted in too many people getting a free meal. One Friday night, a rowdy group of 10 young Indians walked in and took over the restaurant's large central table. Their response to no prices was to leave no money; not even a tip for the wait staff. Babu now states their prices.

There you go. I'm not just a paranoid pessimist.

Anyway, the point is it's a cool concept - not sure it's profit-making, but a very Christian idea, I'd think.

You're Special!

Guess what? You made the cover of time magazine! It's true!

Check it out.

Congratulations, you world changer!

Seriously, check out some of the articles in the current issue... it's a fascinating analysis of how our world is changing - for good (and) or bad.

The Marketing of Self

It's no secret that we live in a world where image is important. But if this article is to be understood as truth, we now seem to be moving into an arena where what people think is the definitive factor in shaping personality.

"Treating our personalities as products reflects an increasingly competitive society in which the best way to stand out is to develop an engaging--and easily defined--image. Companies and celebrities have been doing it for years. Now it's the average guy's turn. 'For a long time, parents discouraged their children from worrying about what others think. They didn't realize how shortsighted and stupid that was,' says Mark Leary, a social psychology professor at Duke University who studies impression management. 'We need other people to think well of us.'"

From Time.com - "It's a Brand-You World"

I have to interpret this from my own bias - In a sense, as a Christian, people do need to think well of me... but on what basis? My personal greatness? And for what reasons? Self glory? For the world, the fear of man has become standard procedure. But listen to the words of Scripture:

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
[2 Cor 2:14-17]

I love my Country

Part of our National Pledge (which I used to recite every week in school) goes like this:

"I love my country
and I am proud of it's rich and varied heritage.
I shall always strive to be worthy of it"

Dude, how can I even begin to strive to be worthy of THIS rich heritage? Monkeys!
TIME.com: Monkey See, Monkey Do

Edit: So let me preempt smart comments connecting me and monkeys and India... Danny, you know who you are.

Joke of the Day

From the British BlackAdder series (the millenium special) starring Rowan Atkinson as BlackAdder:

George: This has to be some kind of practical joke, surely...?

BlackAdder (standing beside his newly constructed "time machine"): Certainly not... when was the last time I played a practical joke?

Darling: Well, there was the time time you said you were dying of kidney failure, and I donated one of my kidneys to save your life, and then you said it was an (sic) April fool and we had to throw my kidney away (holds back sobs)

(all but Darling laugh at the obviously happy memories)

BlackAdder: Well, yes, there has been the odd HILARIOUS practical joke, but not this time...

Jesus Camp

Don't want to say much - but this video says a lot about many things. And I'm not going to comment.

Joke of the Day

Humor from that respected comedian of our time, John MacArthur.

Question: "Is there any room for dinosaurs in the Bible?"

Answer (from JM): "I guess it depends on how big your Bible is."

Drumroll please.

Prosperity Gospel hits the mainstream

TIME.com: Does God Want You to Be Rich? A Holy Controversy

When Time covers something like this, you know it's hit the bigtime. According to the article,

"17% of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61% believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31%—a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America—agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money."

And what about Jesus' words in the Gospels? Well the article leaves the contradiction between this doctrine and scripture without real answer. Instead:

But for a growing number of Christians like George Adams, the question is better restated, 'Why not gain the whole world plus my soul?' For several decades, a philosophy has been percolating in the 10 million-strong Pentecostal wing of Christianity that seems to turn the Gospels' passage on its head: certainly, it allows, Christians should keep one eye on heaven.

No real surprises about how popular all this is, though I was surprised to see Rick Warren listed as a major detractor to this doctrine.

In trying to be "balanced", the article ends up being vague and clouding the issue... and you end up left with the idea that there is no clarity in scripture on this topic and that the Church has not really addressed the issue clearly. Not true, even in my limited personal experience.

The crisis to me is singular: The view of God that is being propounded here is idolatory. In fact, on probing further it seems that the real God here is self. Maybe it's a reflection on a peculiarly American mindset that "I" is the beginning and end of all things.

Tozer warned his generation that the Church needed a high view of God--So much more urgent is this call today.
Some verses come to mind.

About Christ:
[Colossians 1:16]
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

From Paul:
[Acts: 20:22-24]
And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

Let's understand who God is as he has revealed himself to us, not as we want him to be, and tailor our lives and purpose in life to a right view of God.

Endless Heavenly Fun

This site will humor my little peabrain for hours and hours. So many sound clips, so little time. From the site:

Here are 101 versions of the song that doesn't remain the same, depending on whether it's the the Australian music hall version, the Gilligan's Island version, the backwards version, the backwards splice-and-dice quarter note version, the glass harmonica version, the Doors version, the reggae version and on and on (all MP3s). Much of this came from former FMU DJ KBC's CD of the same name, which took much of it's content from this 1992 LP.

The reggae rendering is pretty fascinating actually (Elvis?!)... as is the Doors version... remarkable parody. And the Australian music hall one is plain funny. And DOLLY PARTON? What in the world.

How could you not visit? It's something to do about heaven.
Site Link

You HAVE to be kidding me!

It seems to me I just posted about Mel Gibson only a few days ago, and called HIM nuts for his drunken ramblings. But Here's something that just takes the cake.

Now I am aware that there is a minority in India who are fascinated by Adolf Hitler, and idolize him as a great man - the niavete and idiocy of the entire thing has always made it seem ridiculous to me. This however, is a whole new level of ridiculous. Gotta admit, we Indians too can be pretty darn nuts.

Link: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Climb down by 'Hitler' restaurant