Not the Best Strategy
PETA is at it again. In a spectacularly stupid move, they are demanding that baseball change the term "bullpen" to "arm barn" because "bullpen" evokes images of terrified bulls being held before the slaughter. Incredibly stupid because "bullpen" doesn't evoke that image for anyone I know. Spectacularly stupid because "barn" is a concept they protest because it's not nice to animals to keep them penned up. Colosally stupid because it just makes everyone want to laugh at them and their cause. Like the Babylon Bee suggesting they'll want to change the word "bat" to something different to not offend flying rodents.
Did Not See That Coming
Patrick Anderson bought an electric vehicle (EV) and did a comparison with gas cars. His conclusions were a bit of a surprise. EVs have hidden costs, are more expensive to drive, and are a significant challenge in finding chargers. He published a report, and it was not what we've been led to believe. The extreme environmentalists want us to pay the price for cleaning up the planet. We should probably look at the price tag.
Unequal Equality
Philadelphia will be the first major US city to ban traffic stops for minor violations ... for the sake of equity. "Equity?" you ask. Yes. Black drivers are targeted at disproportionately higher rates, so the "Driving Equality Bill" (their term, not mine) will remedy that. Training police not to target racially is not possible. Banning police from arresting for all causes on the basis of race doesn't make sense, apparently. So let's just solve inequality by giving bad drivers a pass. Problem solved! Say, shouldn't we consider including other crimes for which POC are arrested at disproportionately higher rates?
Unexpected Consequences
Delilah Hamlin, daughter of actor Harry Hamlin, believes she suffered an accidental overdose while battling an autoimmune disease triggered by the COVID vaccine. The medical community isn't ready to reject the possibility. Is this vaccine safe? Sure, it is! Until it isn't. The point is not "Don't get vaccinated!" The point is "Know the risks." The point is we don't.
A Solution Without a Problem
Well, good news! They've managed to provide a solution to the problem of massive illness and death from COVID among preteens. U.S. Health officials have okayed vaccinations for 5 and up. Mind you, 94% of all deaths from COVID occur in the 50+ age group. Comparing the 50-64 age group with the 40-49 age group, the older group constitutes 18% of the deaths while while deaths in the 40-49 year old group comprise 4%. It's that sharp of a drop. By the time you get to the 0-17-year-olds, it is 0.08%, a total of 558 deaths out of 736,875 (as of Oct. 27, 2021). Compared with the risks of other possible problems caused by the vaccine, this is not a good sign. But California will be sure to ram it down their throats ... with others not too far behind.
Cancer Culture
We live in a culture no longer able to think, it seems. The Hockey Hall of Fame decided to cover the name of the assistant coach that led the Chicago Blackhawks to victory in 2010 for the Stanley Cup. Why? He's accused of sexual assault. Now, there is no way to justify sexual assault (although I will point out that he is accused and we are theoretically a nation of "innocent until proven guilty"), but the Stanley Cup has nothing to do with the character of those whose names are on it. I'd venture to guess that many of those names couldn't pass a "good character" test. The Stanley Cup is not a "good character" award. And the guy did help coach them to victory. The name on there says, "And he helped" and not "He's a wonderful fellow." We cannot keep this straight, and this kind of cancel culture has become a cancer in our midst.
We've Come a Long Way, Baby
The latest invasion of "My body, my choice!" kind of personal privacy and body sovereignty has arrived. Biden coerced OSHA to issue an illegal mandate that any employer with more than 100 employees (Why stop there?) must have their workers vaccinated. The aim is not ambiguous. "You will take our vaccine or you will not work, eat, survive." Twisting Paul, then, we get, "He who will not [get this vaccine] should not eat." Remember when we used to treat illnesses with soup and vitamin C instead of totalitarianism?
We're Being Lied To
We all know that previously obscure term now: "herd immunity." If enough of us can gain immunity to Virus X, Virus X will no longer be a problem. So we've been infected and injected and we're working hard toward this goal of "herd immunity." So it's strange how places like Germany where better than 2/3rds have received injections are experiencing record numbers of COVID cases and are calling the risk to vaccinated folks "moderate" and rising. You'd think, given the number who have had it and the number who have been vaccinated against it, the number of new cases would be plummeting rather than climbing. An aide to Biden, Jen Psaki, the chief of Homeland Security, and an "unnamed NSC staffer" -- all fully vaccinated -- have all come down with COVID. Could it be that the vaccine is not as effective as they have been advertised? It feels like someone is not telling us the truth.
Humorless
I apologize for this week's News Weekly. I won't be posting a "Bee Humor" section here. My president has opted to insure that, despite the fact that, having had COVID, I'm safer in the work environment than the vaccinated, I'm not safe enough to keep my job. So I'm not in a laughing mood while I look for work elsewhere ... while my president is working hard to make sure the opportunities are hard to find. As a believer, I see it as "guidance" and trust God. As an American, I see it as a war against reason and freedom, for which they will have to answer to a higher authority than I.
Postscript: It occurs to me that if a guy can identify as a girl and demand recognition for it and a girl can identify as a guy and everyone is required to agree, then I can identify as having been immunized against COVID and everyone must admit it's true ... shouldn't they? And given the objections "You're not a girl because the paperwork (birth certificate) says you're a guy" and "You're not a girl because the science says you're a guy" is answered with "None of that matters," then "No, you don't have a vaccine passport" (paperwork) or "No, you haven't been vaccinated" (science) shouldn't matter, right? Right? Methinks there is another double standard here.
Saturday, November 06, 2021
Friday, November 05, 2021
But God
If you did a search, I think you might be surprised to find how many times the phrase "but God" occurs in Scripture. In my search there were 42 instances. "But" is a contrasting conjunction or preposition. It indicates "something else." As "and" is "in addition to" and "or" is "another choice," "but" is "in contrast to." Applying that preface to "God," then, is contrasting God with something else.
The very first "but God" in Scripture is found in Genesis. "But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided." (Gen 8:1). The Flood was in full swing and the earth was covered in water and all looked bleak ... "but God remembered Noah ..." That is, "in contrast to the Flood, God ...". In contrast to the blotting out of all life on the planet, God remembered Noah.
In Egypt Joseph contrasted God with his brothers. "It was not you who sent me here, but God ..." (Gen 45:8). Joseph later comforted his brothers who feared reprisals with "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), a contrast we can all use in our daily existence with the evil intentions around us in contrast to God's sovereignty and love. In 2 Chronicles, King Jehoshaphat feared the overwhelming forces coming their way, but God told him, "Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's." (2 Chron 20:15) Another good reminder in our own times.
In the New Testament Jesus used a frightening "but God" in his parable of the rich fool when He said, "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'" (Luke 12:20). In contrast to the man's wealth, God intervened with death. He did it again in a conversation with the self-righteous Pharisees when He told them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15). A "but God" used in contrast with our own self-confidence can be ominous and devastating.
My favorites, though are in the writings of Paul.
In the Psalms David warned the wicked of their error of thinking that God was just like them (Psa 50:21). He isn't. "But God" gives a sharp distinction between God and other things. Things like our conditions and His plans. Things like our intentions and His. Things like our sin condition and His love and mercy. The incredible love of God that spans the gulf between our "enemies of God" status (Rom 5:10) and His saving grace exceeds our grasp (Eph 3:19). When we begin to think we understand it, we make the same error that David warned against. He is not just like us. He is in contrast to us. And that's a very good thing.
The very first "but God" in Scripture is found in Genesis. "But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided." (Gen 8:1). The Flood was in full swing and the earth was covered in water and all looked bleak ... "but God remembered Noah ..." That is, "in contrast to the Flood, God ...". In contrast to the blotting out of all life on the planet, God remembered Noah.
In Egypt Joseph contrasted God with his brothers. "It was not you who sent me here, but God ..." (Gen 45:8). Joseph later comforted his brothers who feared reprisals with "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), a contrast we can all use in our daily existence with the evil intentions around us in contrast to God's sovereignty and love. In 2 Chronicles, King Jehoshaphat feared the overwhelming forces coming their way, but God told him, "Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's." (2 Chron 20:15) Another good reminder in our own times.
In the New Testament Jesus used a frightening "but God" in his parable of the rich fool when He said, "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'" (Luke 12:20). In contrast to the man's wealth, God intervened with death. He did it again in a conversation with the self-righteous Pharisees when He told them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15). A "but God" used in contrast with our own self-confidence can be ominous and devastating.
My favorites, though are in the writings of Paul.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)Those two are huge. First, in contrast to our helpless state in our sin, God demonstrated His own love toward us by Christ dying for us. In the next, in contrast to our "dead in sin" condition, God in rich mercy and great love made us alive with Christ and even elevated and blessed us. These last instances are massive contrasts, setting our natural, sinful, helpless, spiritually-dead, rebellious condition against the unimaginable mercy and love of God who sent His Son to die for us.
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins ... But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:1-7)
In the Psalms David warned the wicked of their error of thinking that God was just like them (Psa 50:21). He isn't. "But God" gives a sharp distinction between God and other things. Things like our conditions and His plans. Things like our intentions and His. Things like our sin condition and His love and mercy. The incredible love of God that spans the gulf between our "enemies of God" status (Rom 5:10) and His saving grace exceeds our grasp (Eph 3:19). When we begin to think we understand it, we make the same error that David warned against. He is not just like us. He is in contrast to us. And that's a very good thing.
Thursday, November 04, 2021
Abusing the Language
I know, I know, I write a lot about abusing the language. This one, however, will be a little different. This one is only mildly about language.
Someone told me recently, "You should come across more humble." They went on to tell me that being more humble will make you look less arrogant. (I think we all can see that, right?)
I was baffled by this. I know it's not right to assume intent that isn't there, but it's also important to understand what was being conveyed. The natural understanding of the exhortation, then, would go something like, "You should be more humble ... like me." Now, that kind of line is more of a punchline to me. Everyone sees the idiocy of the statement. I've used it myself in jokes. "I wrote a book; Humility and How I Achieved It." Ha, ha. "I used to be arrogant, but now I'm perfect." Ha, ha. So my mind screams, "No! That cannot be what was intended." Then what? The person was disagreeing with something I had said. Clearly, if I was more humble, I wouldn't have said it. That's surely part of their intent. But if they did not intend to convey, "I'm right in this and you're not," then I don't know the point. And that's simply my claim on my side. My reason for what I said was "This is what Scripture says and this is how it has been understood since the beginning of time." That, I suppose, is arrogant? Or, no ... it comes across as arrogant? I can't see how. I didn't say it. It's Scripture and history, neither of which belong to me. Which comes across as more arrogant, then -- "This is what the Bible says and this is how everyone who believed the Bible prior to the 21st century understood it" or "All those people for all time were wrong and the Bible cannot mean what it might appear to clearly say"?
So, intended or not, "You should be more humble, like me" is what was conveyed. And that is an abuse of the language in the sense that "humble" doesn't work like that. So I remain baffled. I should be careful, however. That kind of arrogance can sneak into anyone's thinking. I'll have to be careful to guard mine.
Someone told me recently, "You should come across more humble." They went on to tell me that being more humble will make you look less arrogant. (I think we all can see that, right?)
I was baffled by this. I know it's not right to assume intent that isn't there, but it's also important to understand what was being conveyed. The natural understanding of the exhortation, then, would go something like, "You should be more humble ... like me." Now, that kind of line is more of a punchline to me. Everyone sees the idiocy of the statement. I've used it myself in jokes. "I wrote a book; Humility and How I Achieved It." Ha, ha. "I used to be arrogant, but now I'm perfect." Ha, ha. So my mind screams, "No! That cannot be what was intended." Then what? The person was disagreeing with something I had said. Clearly, if I was more humble, I wouldn't have said it. That's surely part of their intent. But if they did not intend to convey, "I'm right in this and you're not," then I don't know the point. And that's simply my claim on my side. My reason for what I said was "This is what Scripture says and this is how it has been understood since the beginning of time." That, I suppose, is arrogant? Or, no ... it comes across as arrogant? I can't see how. I didn't say it. It's Scripture and history, neither of which belong to me. Which comes across as more arrogant, then -- "This is what the Bible says and this is how everyone who believed the Bible prior to the 21st century understood it" or "All those people for all time were wrong and the Bible cannot mean what it might appear to clearly say"?
So, intended or not, "You should be more humble, like me" is what was conveyed. And that is an abuse of the language in the sense that "humble" doesn't work like that. So I remain baffled. I should be careful, however. That kind of arrogance can sneak into anyone's thinking. I'll have to be careful to guard mine.
Wednesday, November 03, 2021
Born Again
"I'm a Christian," he told me, "but not one of those 'born again' kind." There is a resistance to the concept of "born again." Who made that up, anyway? Maybe Calvin or Augustine? What does it really mean?
As most of us know, it was Jesus who "made it up." Jesus spoke the words. "Truly, truly, I say to you," He said to Nicodemus, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) He went on to say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) So, if "Christian" is related in any way to "Christ" and Christ said, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," it is actually not possible to be a Christian without being "born again." "Born again" is fundamental to "Christian," and you can't have one without the other. That's not according to Billy Graham or Oral Roberts or somebody like that. That's according to Christ.
But, look, let's be kind. Let's throw the above fellow a rope. Maybe he is born again and just doesn't know it. So what is this thing called "born again"? According to Jesus, without it you can't even see the kingdom of God let alone participate. Without it you "cannot enter the kingdom of God." I would think, then, that we'd need to be clear on what it is. First, let's settle a salient point. The actual Greek text doesn't quite say "born again." It is most literally "born from above." That means that this is not Nicodemus's version (John 3:4). It's not physical (John 3:6). It's from above and not simply a rebirth. It's an act of God. So, what clues can we find about what it is?
Jesus made a parallel between "born again" and "born of water and the Spirit." Scholars have argued about just what this "born of water and the Spirit" means, in particular, the water part. Does it mean being physically born? ("Her water broke.") Does it mean baptism? Maybe, but Jesus asked Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" (John 3:10) What did Nicodemus know of baptism? Not much, so not likely. And it is somewhat silly to suggest, "You have to be born physically before you can enter the kingdom" because Duh! "Born through baptism" doesn't seem likely since Nicodemus wouldn't have known and "born physically" doesn't seem likely because it doesn't add anything to the conversation. What then? Well, if Nicodemus was supposed to know this, how about something in Nicodemus's Bible? In Ezekiel we read of God saying,
That makes it pretty clear, then. This "born again" is what the New Testament calls "regeneration" which cleanses from sin plus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is "from above" and not accomplished by us, our works, our faith, anything from our end. How can it? Before this occurs we can't even see the kingdom. Before this happens we are unnwilling and unable to accept the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). Before this happens we are "enemies of God" (Rom 5:10), hostile to Him (Rom 8:7). There isn't merely an unwillingness; there is an inability. It must then be from above.
Is it possible to be a Christian without being born again? Not according to Jesus. The two are antithetical. You cannot have one without the other. Is it possible to be born again and not know it? Sure, I think it is. It is from above, remember? It may not have been part of your consciousness. Then can you know if you are? Sure. One of the first signs is belief (John 3:15-16). One of the first signs is turning from darkness (John 3:20-21). Paul said that the result of salvation (not the cause) is good works (Eph 2:10). John said that the one born of God does not and cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). Peter said being born again offered a "living hope" (1 Peter 1:3). John wrote that if we believe, that means we have been born of God and that status causes us to love God's people (1 John 5:1). He went on to say, "Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world." (1 John 5:4) So, yes, there are hints, clues, signs, evidence. So you should check into that. However, if you're going to stick with "not one of those 'born again' kind of Christians," you might want to drop the "Christian" part since Christ disagrees with you on that point.
As most of us know, it was Jesus who "made it up." Jesus spoke the words. "Truly, truly, I say to you," He said to Nicodemus, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) He went on to say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) So, if "Christian" is related in any way to "Christ" and Christ said, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," it is actually not possible to be a Christian without being "born again." "Born again" is fundamental to "Christian," and you can't have one without the other. That's not according to Billy Graham or Oral Roberts or somebody like that. That's according to Christ.
But, look, let's be kind. Let's throw the above fellow a rope. Maybe he is born again and just doesn't know it. So what is this thing called "born again"? According to Jesus, without it you can't even see the kingdom of God let alone participate. Without it you "cannot enter the kingdom of God." I would think, then, that we'd need to be clear on what it is. First, let's settle a salient point. The actual Greek text doesn't quite say "born again." It is most literally "born from above." That means that this is not Nicodemus's version (John 3:4). It's not physical (John 3:6). It's from above and not simply a rebirth. It's an act of God. So, what clues can we find about what it is?
Jesus made a parallel between "born again" and "born of water and the Spirit." Scholars have argued about just what this "born of water and the Spirit" means, in particular, the water part. Does it mean being physically born? ("Her water broke.") Does it mean baptism? Maybe, but Jesus asked Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" (John 3:10) What did Nicodemus know of baptism? Not much, so not likely. And it is somewhat silly to suggest, "You have to be born physically before you can enter the kingdom" because Duh! "Born through baptism" doesn't seem likely since Nicodemus wouldn't have known and "born physically" doesn't seem likely because it doesn't add anything to the conversation. What then? Well, if Nicodemus was supposed to know this, how about something in Nicodemus's Bible? In Ezekiel we read of God saying,
"I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules." (Ezek 36:24-27)Well, look at that. Now, of course, God was talking to Israel in exile and He planned to return them, but what about all this other stuff -- cleansed with clean water and new spirit and all that? "I will put My Spirit within you," He said. He had gathered them from exile, but this hadn't happened. That's because it was waiting for Nicodemus's time or, more accurately, Jesus's time. That's because it was describing something much bigger than "returned from exile" and something much bigger than "My people, Israel." So this would be the water and the Spirit required. The water that cleanses from sin and the Spirit which inhabits these who are born again. Well, then, this explains more clearly what's in view here. It requires 1) a cleansing from sin and 2) the presence of the Spirit. It's interesting, then, that we read, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5) Well, would you look at that! Water and Spirit. What is the water? The "washing of regeneration."
That makes it pretty clear, then. This "born again" is what the New Testament calls "regeneration" which cleanses from sin plus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is "from above" and not accomplished by us, our works, our faith, anything from our end. How can it? Before this occurs we can't even see the kingdom. Before this happens we are unnwilling and unable to accept the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). Before this happens we are "enemies of God" (Rom 5:10), hostile to Him (Rom 8:7). There isn't merely an unwillingness; there is an inability. It must then be from above.
Is it possible to be a Christian without being born again? Not according to Jesus. The two are antithetical. You cannot have one without the other. Is it possible to be born again and not know it? Sure, I think it is. It is from above, remember? It may not have been part of your consciousness. Then can you know if you are? Sure. One of the first signs is belief (John 3:15-16). One of the first signs is turning from darkness (John 3:20-21). Paul said that the result of salvation (not the cause) is good works (Eph 2:10). John said that the one born of God does not and cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). Peter said being born again offered a "living hope" (1 Peter 1:3). John wrote that if we believe, that means we have been born of God and that status causes us to love God's people (1 John 5:1). He went on to say, "Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world." (1 John 5:4) So, yes, there are hints, clues, signs, evidence. So you should check into that. However, if you're going to stick with "not one of those 'born again' kind of Christians," you might want to drop the "Christian" part since Christ disagrees with you on that point.
Tuesday, November 02, 2021
Who Says?
I've written in recent times about the problem of sin and the reality of God as just. It hasn't sat well with some. As far as I can tell, some conclude that sins are no big deal. They refer to them as "typical sins of humanity" and would consider punishing someone with "an eternity of torment" unjust. In their words, this would be "an unjust and irrational and frankly, quite evil, punishment." If you believe in that kind of punishment for sin, they argue, you do so with "a set of human traditions." I said that sin requires death, to which they say, "Says who? WHO SAYS that all sin – of whatever shape or size or impact, must be paid for by a human life?"
I thought when it started that they simply had a different understanding of the nature of sin. Clearly that is true, but that last question tells me that it's much more. It's a different source for truth. It's a different standard of reality. That sounds too crazy, so I need to be clear. They understand sins to be "typical" and view them through a lens of human concepts. Quite understandable. If you steal in today's world, we don't send you to "eternal torment." In today's justice, if we argue "a life for a life," for instance, the prevailing perceptions would shout loudly "No!" Capital punishment is banished in a large part of the civilized world because it "violates justice." That's the common perception. Kind of a "consensus" argument. Why would anyone understand it differently? A mere "set of human traditions" perhaps? The bottom line, then, is their "Says who?". We need to answer that critical question.
Starting with that last "capital punishment" example, in Genesis we read, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." (Gen 9:6) The text is Scripture, sure, but who was speaking? It was God. That is, this quote is the words of God in the word of God. And God in His word requires the death penalty for murder. That's who says. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Moving to the concept of "an eternity of torment," in Matthew we read, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt 18:6). That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Who said it? That, of course, was Jesus. Using the same words with which Jesus condemned the Pharisees ("Woe to you" (Matt 23:13-35)), Jesus said, "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:7). He goes on to say some startling things. "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire." (Matt 18:8-9). "Eternal fire" and "hell of fire"? Jesus's own words. Who speaks of "millstones" and "eternal fire" for sin? Jesus does. (Jesus referenced "eternal fire" twice in Matthew (Matt 18:8; Matt 25:41).) Jesus went on to describe hell as "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48), which, as it turns out, is a quote from Isaiah 66:24. Sounds a lot like "eternal." Who says? Jesus. The concept of gnashing teeth in anguish is Jesus's (Matt 13:42). The concept of hell as "outer darkness" is Jesus's (Matt 25:30). Jesus warns, "Whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt 5:22). The term "eternal punishment" comes from the lips of Jesus (Matt 25:46). The question was "Who says?" Reasonable question. The answer is "God says." The Father said it in the Old Testament. The Son said it in the New Testament. The rest of Scripture attests to the same.
Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ...". When Paul writes, "The wages of sin is death," (Rom 6:23), I conclude that the wages of sin is death. When Paul writes, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," I conclude that all have sinned and that sin transgresses the glory of God. It doesn't take a mere "human tradition" to come to this. It does take a different source of truth to deny it.
I thought when it started that they simply had a different understanding of the nature of sin. Clearly that is true, but that last question tells me that it's much more. It's a different source for truth. It's a different standard of reality. That sounds too crazy, so I need to be clear. They understand sins to be "typical" and view them through a lens of human concepts. Quite understandable. If you steal in today's world, we don't send you to "eternal torment." In today's justice, if we argue "a life for a life," for instance, the prevailing perceptions would shout loudly "No!" Capital punishment is banished in a large part of the civilized world because it "violates justice." That's the common perception. Kind of a "consensus" argument. Why would anyone understand it differently? A mere "set of human traditions" perhaps? The bottom line, then, is their "Says who?". We need to answer that critical question.
Starting with that last "capital punishment" example, in Genesis we read, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." (Gen 9:6) The text is Scripture, sure, but who was speaking? It was God. That is, this quote is the words of God in the word of God. And God in His word requires the death penalty for murder. That's who says. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Moving to the concept of "an eternity of torment," in Matthew we read, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt 18:6). That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Who said it? That, of course, was Jesus. Using the same words with which Jesus condemned the Pharisees ("Woe to you" (Matt 23:13-35)), Jesus said, "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:7). He goes on to say some startling things. "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire." (Matt 18:8-9). "Eternal fire" and "hell of fire"? Jesus's own words. Who speaks of "millstones" and "eternal fire" for sin? Jesus does. (Jesus referenced "eternal fire" twice in Matthew (Matt 18:8; Matt 25:41).) Jesus went on to describe hell as "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48), which, as it turns out, is a quote from Isaiah 66:24. Sounds a lot like "eternal." Who says? Jesus. The concept of gnashing teeth in anguish is Jesus's (Matt 13:42). The concept of hell as "outer darkness" is Jesus's (Matt 25:30). Jesus warns, "Whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt 5:22). The term "eternal punishment" comes from the lips of Jesus (Matt 25:46). The question was "Who says?" Reasonable question. The answer is "God says." The Father said it in the Old Testament. The Son said it in the New Testament. The rest of Scripture attests to the same.
Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ...". When Paul writes, "The wages of sin is death," (Rom 6:23), I conclude that the wages of sin is death. When Paul writes, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," I conclude that all have sinned and that sin transgresses the glory of God. It doesn't take a mere "human tradition" to come to this. It does take a different source of truth to deny it.
Monday, November 01, 2021
Fear
This is not about COVID or vaccines or the like. I start out pointing to them to illustrate the concept. There is an interesting dichotomy in our standard conversations about COVID. On one hand, we have people absolutely certain that if we don't get vaccinated, we're all going to die. Saner minds will prevail and assure us that, no, we won't all die; we'll all just get COVID. Now, the truth is that less than 10% of the world's population has been infected with COVID. Infection rates are small. WebMD suggests that an average of 5% to 20% of the U.S. will get the flu each year, a higher infection rate than COVID. But, no, if we don't force the vaccine on everyone, we're all going to get COVID even though the numbers radically deny this. If the "glove does not fit" -- if the numbers deny the claim -- why is it out there? Well, the news media is pushing the stories of crowded ERs and ICUs and several other acronyms. Of course, the fear of COVID brought on by the media is causing primary care physicians to refuse to treat COVID patients and any hint of COVID is perceived as a death sentence to the population, which is why ERs and ICUs et al. are piling up, but that's beside the point. The media points at the numbers. "Thousands are getting COVID." So, obviously, if we don't all get vaccinated, we're all going to get COVID.
The argument doesn't work in reverse. The CDC is hesitant about releasing numbers, but some reports say that more than 60,000 people who have been fully vaccinated have come down with COVID. Tens of thousands. So ... why no panic? Because the media isn't reporting it. If someone brings it up, what they report is "It's a small fraction of those who have been vaccinated." And that is true. Just as true as the fact that it is a small fraction of the world population that has contracted COVID. But that's not what the media reports from that side. Consider, if we shouldn't panic about being infected after getting the vaccine because it's a relatively small percentage that do, why should we not panic about being infected with COVID in the first place since it's a relatively small percentage that do?
As I said, this is not about COVID or vaccines. It's not even about the media. It's about you and me. We have this tendency. If the news reports it, we assume 1) it's true and 2) it's everywhere. The shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, really did happen. It really was bad. So did the Columbine event. Bad stuff. I'm not suggesting they didn't happen and I'm not suggesting the media lied. But what did we do? We panicked. "Kids are dying everywhere! We've got to do something about this now!" In truth, school shootings are news because they are exceedingly rare. There are over 75 million kids in schools in America, and as of October 17, 2021, there have been 86 deaths in school shootings over the last 5 years. Just briefly, that's 1 in 872,000 kids. That's 0.00011%. That's infinitesimal compared to the COVID statistics. But we're still scared because the news has reported it so it's everywhere. Like COVID. It's not almost nonexistent (like COVID) because the numbers say so because the media isn't reporting that aspect.
What's my point? It's not COVID or vaccines, guns or not, school shootings or not. It's not even the media. If the media did not slant the news (it does) and was completely unbiased (it isn't), they'd still tell us about unusual things going on and we'd still conclude, "The sky is falling!!" My point is us. We believe the scary lie. We conclude there is much to fear. We don't do due diligence and think. "This is not the time to think! This is the time to feel, to panic!" And voices that suggest "Fear not" get shoved aside as "misinformation." "Don't panic," our world tells us today. "Be very, very afraid."
I know a God with a better idea (e.g., Isa 41:10; Josh 1:9; 2 Chron 20:15; Php 4:6-7; Matt 6:34; Psa 34:4; 1 Peter 5:7).
The argument doesn't work in reverse. The CDC is hesitant about releasing numbers, but some reports say that more than 60,000 people who have been fully vaccinated have come down with COVID. Tens of thousands. So ... why no panic? Because the media isn't reporting it. If someone brings it up, what they report is "It's a small fraction of those who have been vaccinated." And that is true. Just as true as the fact that it is a small fraction of the world population that has contracted COVID. But that's not what the media reports from that side. Consider, if we shouldn't panic about being infected after getting the vaccine because it's a relatively small percentage that do, why should we not panic about being infected with COVID in the first place since it's a relatively small percentage that do?
As I said, this is not about COVID or vaccines. It's not even about the media. It's about you and me. We have this tendency. If the news reports it, we assume 1) it's true and 2) it's everywhere. The shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, really did happen. It really was bad. So did the Columbine event. Bad stuff. I'm not suggesting they didn't happen and I'm not suggesting the media lied. But what did we do? We panicked. "Kids are dying everywhere! We've got to do something about this now!" In truth, school shootings are news because they are exceedingly rare. There are over 75 million kids in schools in America, and as of October 17, 2021, there have been 86 deaths in school shootings over the last 5 years. Just briefly, that's 1 in 872,000 kids. That's 0.00011%. That's infinitesimal compared to the COVID statistics. But we're still scared because the news has reported it so it's everywhere. Like COVID. It's not almost nonexistent (like COVID) because the numbers say so because the media isn't reporting that aspect.
What's my point? It's not COVID or vaccines, guns or not, school shootings or not. It's not even the media. If the media did not slant the news (it does) and was completely unbiased (it isn't), they'd still tell us about unusual things going on and we'd still conclude, "The sky is falling!!" My point is us. We believe the scary lie. We conclude there is much to fear. We don't do due diligence and think. "This is not the time to think! This is the time to feel, to panic!" And voices that suggest "Fear not" get shoved aside as "misinformation." "Don't panic," our world tells us today. "Be very, very afraid."
I know a God with a better idea (e.g., Isa 41:10; Josh 1:9; 2 Chron 20:15; Php 4:6-7; Matt 6:34; Psa 34:4; 1 Peter 5:7).
Sunday, October 31, 2021
A Spirit of Fear
While researching tomorrow's blog entry, I came across this verse. Paul famously wrote, "God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Tim 1:7). We like that one. We really do. It resounds with us. Like Nike's "Just do it" or the ever present, "You do you," or the very popular idea of "Don't let anyone get in the way of your dreams." We like that. There is only one problem. Paul wasn't talking about that.
Fear is not all bad. In fact, there are things that should be feared. There is the obvious. Don't be fearless in front of an oncoming bus. That kind of thing. There is the really problematic. "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom 3:18) was regarded as a real problem. So what was the point of "God has not given us the spirit of fear"?
Paul was writing to Timothy. Remembering his sincere faith that was passed down from his mother and grandmother, Paul told him, "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6). Now, I put a period just there, but my version has a comma; there's more to the thought. But Paul's point here is to urge Timothy "to fan into flame the gift of God." What was holding Timothy back? Apparently it was this "fear" he references in verse 7.
The word is interesting. Throughout the New Testament the Greek word translated fear is some form of φόβος -- phobos -- from which we obviously get our own "phobias." The word refers to that which strikes terror (or, in one, single translated instance, "respect" (Eph 5:31)). When Paul bemoaned the fact that "There is no fear of God before their eyes," he used that word, phobos. This is not that word. The word translated "fear" here occurs in the New Testament only in this text. Nowhere else. Its root occurs 4 times (Matt 8:26; Mark 4:40; Heb 12:28; Rev 21:8). It most correctly means "cowardly" or "timid." So in this verse in 2 Timothy the KJV translates it as "fear" while the NAS prefers "timidity" and Interlinear goes with "cowardice." Clearly these are all related and somewhat similar, but phobos -- terror -- and "timidity" or "cowardice" are not quite the same.
So what is Paul's point here? Paul is not saying, "There's nothing to fear." Clearly, there are lots of things we should fear, beginning with God. What Paul is saying here is "In those things that God has given you to do, don't be timid. That's not why God gave them to you. That's not what God empowered you to be. In those things God has given you to do and be, He has given you power and love and a sound mind. Don't be timid, then, but be powerful, loving, and thinking clearly."
All of the sudden it doesn't seem to be nearly as much about "Don't be afraid" and about a whole lot more, doesn't it?
Fear is not all bad. In fact, there are things that should be feared. There is the obvious. Don't be fearless in front of an oncoming bus. That kind of thing. There is the really problematic. "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom 3:18) was regarded as a real problem. So what was the point of "God has not given us the spirit of fear"?
Paul was writing to Timothy. Remembering his sincere faith that was passed down from his mother and grandmother, Paul told him, "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6). Now, I put a period just there, but my version has a comma; there's more to the thought. But Paul's point here is to urge Timothy "to fan into flame the gift of God." What was holding Timothy back? Apparently it was this "fear" he references in verse 7.
The word is interesting. Throughout the New Testament the Greek word translated fear is some form of φόβος -- phobos -- from which we obviously get our own "phobias." The word refers to that which strikes terror (or, in one, single translated instance, "respect" (Eph 5:31)). When Paul bemoaned the fact that "There is no fear of God before their eyes," he used that word, phobos. This is not that word. The word translated "fear" here occurs in the New Testament only in this text. Nowhere else. Its root occurs 4 times (Matt 8:26; Mark 4:40; Heb 12:28; Rev 21:8). It most correctly means "cowardly" or "timid." So in this verse in 2 Timothy the KJV translates it as "fear" while the NAS prefers "timidity" and Interlinear goes with "cowardice." Clearly these are all related and somewhat similar, but phobos -- terror -- and "timidity" or "cowardice" are not quite the same.
So what is Paul's point here? Paul is not saying, "There's nothing to fear." Clearly, there are lots of things we should fear, beginning with God. What Paul is saying here is "In those things that God has given you to do, don't be timid. That's not why God gave them to you. That's not what God empowered you to be. In those things God has given you to do and be, He has given you power and love and a sound mind. Don't be timid, then, but be powerful, loving, and thinking clearly."
All of the sudden it doesn't seem to be nearly as much about "Don't be afraid" and about a whole lot more, doesn't it?
Saturday, October 30, 2021
News Weakly - 10/30/21
2nd Hand Social Media
Doctors around the world are reporting a new pandemic, a rapid rise in teenage girls developing Tourette-like tics from Tik Tok. Tik Tok is a Chinese social networking service primarily for sharing videos. Trump was worried about national security over Tik Tok. Now it's addiction, pornographic content, privacy concerns, cyberbullying, and, this latest, sudden-onset-Tik-Tok-induced Tourette Syndrome. What could go wrong? We've loved the affects of cigarettes and all that. Let's keep this thing going, too!
You Keep Using That Word
The Tennessean reports "Conservative Southern Baptist leader Mike Stone sues Russell Moore." The problem is a claim of "defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and emotional distress" against Russell Moore, former president of the Southern Baptist's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Moore quit that job and leaked documents against a variety of Southern Baptist leaders. Without defending Moore or any Southern Baptist leaders, I'd really like to get the media to stop using terms like "conservative" when describing a Southern Baptist leader openly and intentionally taking a believer to court in direct and clear violation of the Scriptures (1 Cor 6:1-6) that a true conservative Christian would uphold. Stop it. Both of these men have opted to drag the name of Jesus through the mud for all to see. Please don't refer to them as "conservative."
Honest Evil
New Zealand's prime minister was in an interview talking about a new traffic light system they were going to adopt. She said they would move forward when each District Health Board has 90 per cent of its population with both doses of the vaccine." The reporter asked if she wasn't creating two different classes of people -- the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. She unapologetically agreed, "That it is what it is. So, yep. Yep." But, please, let's not have any of those stupid comparisons to the Jews in Nazi Germany and the like, okay?
Strange Definition of "Irreparable Harm"
Days before some new Oklahoma life-saving laws were supposed to go into effect, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a temporary stay to allow the ongoing murder of babies. "'The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that these laws would cause irreparable harm to Oklahomans,' Center for Reproductive Rights President and CEO Nancy Northup said." Right. Because if an Oklahoman can't be killing an "unauthorized" baby, it will do them "irreparable harm." I'm sure the baby would like to contest that analysis.
Almost Right
I complain so much about the media that I thought it only fair to point to one story someone almost got right. All the outlets were reporting about the Texas transgender law that Governor Abbott signed, but I only saw one that intentionally made the salient point. "LGBT advocates say it will prevent transgender athletes from participating on teams designated for their gender identity," the story says. However, CBS also points out that the "bill's text states it will address past discrimination against girls in athletics." Despite the loud complaints from the media and the LGBT crowd, the bill is not about transgender, but about protecting girls from sports injuries incurred by playing against biological males. Now if only they got the "transgender" thing right. (I still haven't figured out what a "gay transgender" is.)
The Importance of Words
Last year during the riots in Kenosha, WI, around the shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another. His trial is going on now. A Wisconsin judge decided that those who died in the shooting could not be termed "victims" because Rittenhouse has not been convicted. Now, the simple fact that these dead men were unquestionably victims of a shooting is irrelevant here because if the prosecuters call them "victims," that would prejudice the jury. The defense can call them "looters, rioters, arsonists, or any other pejorative term" because that is definitely not yet determined. Tell me again why we put our trust in "the justice system."
Not News
The story says the White House will not be giving out any treats this year. Well, that's not really news, is it? Oh, for Halloween. Okay. But still ...
The Friendly Skies?
If you travel ... anywhere -- "passenger railroads, intercity bus services, and other public transportation" -- the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now promises to fine you from $500 to $3,000 for failing to wear a mask. Vaccination status is irrelevant because we all know the vaccine doesn't protect you from getting or spreading COVID. I just love the comment of the TSA Administrator. "By doubling the range of penalties, we seek to reinforce the importance of voluntary adherence." "Voluntary adherence"? Is it voluntary when it's forced? "Have a nice flight ... just ... you know ... without sufficient air." Friendly skies indeed.
Unequal Justice
During the Obama presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Crickets. No one cares. During the Trump presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Outrageous! So now the Biden administration wants to make amends and provide an estimated $450,000 per person compensation. Mind you, many of the separations were because the family relationship was unclear or even nonexistent. Mind you, these people were coming into the country illegally. Mind you, we don't care. It was Trump! Please pay out the $1 billion and charge it to our account.
The New "Fake News"
From the UK Health Security Agency, there is a disturbing report. The report is an examination into the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine. Important question. The report says that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against infection is between 75% and 85% and against symptomatic disease is between 80% and 90%. In the last 5 weeks for everyone above the age of 30 those who have been vaccinated with at least 2 doses outpace the COVID cases of those who are unvaccinated (pg. 17). That is, currently, in the UK, more fully vaccinated people are getting COVID than unvaccinated people. We will, of course, have to suppress this as "misinformation."
Beagle Outrage
You may have heard about Fauci and his puppy experimentation, not only infecting beagles with diseases to test for remedies, but also cutting their vocal cords so they wouldn't have to hear them whimper. Fodder for the satire sites. Genesius Times says that the FDA has agreed to use children ages 5-11 in deadly experiments instead of beagles. The Bee suggests Dr. Fauci is hoping that the beagle story will distract from the fact that he has been performing experiments on humanity for the past 18 months.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Postscript: I had to laugh at the "Coronavirus has died after infecting Chuck Norris" story.
Doctors around the world are reporting a new pandemic, a rapid rise in teenage girls developing Tourette-like tics from Tik Tok. Tik Tok is a Chinese social networking service primarily for sharing videos. Trump was worried about national security over Tik Tok. Now it's addiction, pornographic content, privacy concerns, cyberbullying, and, this latest, sudden-onset-Tik-Tok-induced Tourette Syndrome. What could go wrong? We've loved the affects of cigarettes and all that. Let's keep this thing going, too!
You Keep Using That Word
The Tennessean reports "Conservative Southern Baptist leader Mike Stone sues Russell Moore." The problem is a claim of "defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and emotional distress" against Russell Moore, former president of the Southern Baptist's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Moore quit that job and leaked documents against a variety of Southern Baptist leaders. Without defending Moore or any Southern Baptist leaders, I'd really like to get the media to stop using terms like "conservative" when describing a Southern Baptist leader openly and intentionally taking a believer to court in direct and clear violation of the Scriptures (1 Cor 6:1-6) that a true conservative Christian would uphold. Stop it. Both of these men have opted to drag the name of Jesus through the mud for all to see. Please don't refer to them as "conservative."
Honest Evil
New Zealand's prime minister was in an interview talking about a new traffic light system they were going to adopt. She said they would move forward when each District Health Board has 90 per cent of its population with both doses of the vaccine." The reporter asked if she wasn't creating two different classes of people -- the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. She unapologetically agreed, "That it is what it is. So, yep. Yep." But, please, let's not have any of those stupid comparisons to the Jews in Nazi Germany and the like, okay?
Strange Definition of "Irreparable Harm"
Days before some new Oklahoma life-saving laws were supposed to go into effect, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a temporary stay to allow the ongoing murder of babies. "'The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that these laws would cause irreparable harm to Oklahomans,' Center for Reproductive Rights President and CEO Nancy Northup said." Right. Because if an Oklahoman can't be killing an "unauthorized" baby, it will do them "irreparable harm." I'm sure the baby would like to contest that analysis.
Almost Right
I complain so much about the media that I thought it only fair to point to one story someone almost got right. All the outlets were reporting about the Texas transgender law that Governor Abbott signed, but I only saw one that intentionally made the salient point. "LGBT advocates say it will prevent transgender athletes from participating on teams designated for their gender identity," the story says. However, CBS also points out that the "bill's text states it will address past discrimination against girls in athletics." Despite the loud complaints from the media and the LGBT crowd, the bill is not about transgender, but about protecting girls from sports injuries incurred by playing against biological males. Now if only they got the "transgender" thing right. (I still haven't figured out what a "gay transgender" is.)
The Importance of Words
Last year during the riots in Kenosha, WI, around the shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another. His trial is going on now. A Wisconsin judge decided that those who died in the shooting could not be termed "victims" because Rittenhouse has not been convicted. Now, the simple fact that these dead men were unquestionably victims of a shooting is irrelevant here because if the prosecuters call them "victims," that would prejudice the jury. The defense can call them "looters, rioters, arsonists, or any other pejorative term" because that is definitely not yet determined. Tell me again why we put our trust in "the justice system."
Not News
The story says the White House will not be giving out any treats this year. Well, that's not really news, is it? Oh, for Halloween. Okay. But still ...
The Friendly Skies?
If you travel ... anywhere -- "passenger railroads, intercity bus services, and other public transportation" -- the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now promises to fine you from $500 to $3,000 for failing to wear a mask. Vaccination status is irrelevant because we all know the vaccine doesn't protect you from getting or spreading COVID. I just love the comment of the TSA Administrator. "By doubling the range of penalties, we seek to reinforce the importance of voluntary adherence." "Voluntary adherence"? Is it voluntary when it's forced? "Have a nice flight ... just ... you know ... without sufficient air." Friendly skies indeed.
Unequal Justice
During the Obama presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Crickets. No one cares. During the Trump presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Outrageous! So now the Biden administration wants to make amends and provide an estimated $450,000 per person compensation. Mind you, many of the separations were because the family relationship was unclear or even nonexistent. Mind you, these people were coming into the country illegally. Mind you, we don't care. It was Trump! Please pay out the $1 billion and charge it to our account.
The New "Fake News"
From the UK Health Security Agency, there is a disturbing report. The report is an examination into the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine. Important question. The report says that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against infection is between 75% and 85% and against symptomatic disease is between 80% and 90%. In the last 5 weeks for everyone above the age of 30 those who have been vaccinated with at least 2 doses outpace the COVID cases of those who are unvaccinated (pg. 17). That is, currently, in the UK, more fully vaccinated people are getting COVID than unvaccinated people. We will, of course, have to suppress this as "misinformation."
Beagle Outrage
You may have heard about Fauci and his puppy experimentation, not only infecting beagles with diseases to test for remedies, but also cutting their vocal cords so they wouldn't have to hear them whimper. Fodder for the satire sites. Genesius Times says that the FDA has agreed to use children ages 5-11 in deadly experiments instead of beagles. The Bee suggests Dr. Fauci is hoping that the beagle story will distract from the fact that he has been performing experiments on humanity for the past 18 months.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Postscript: I had to laugh at the "Coronavirus has died after infecting Chuck Norris" story.
Friday, October 29, 2021
Lies and Statistics
Normally this would have been on my News Weakly for this week, but it was a bit too long for that vehicle.
The story is out. A report released by a group called the Arizona Public Health Association claims that COVID is now the leading cause of death in Arizona. The report is based on the Arizona Department of Health Services Data Dashboard for COVID deaths and the CDC WONDER page for causes of death. Beware, Arizonans; COVID is lurking at your door.
As it turns out, the CDC does not have data for 2020 (or 2021), so the report based its evaluation on earlier data, assuming no change. Of course, lots of sources are reporting that deaths from these other causes (like heart disease, cancer, suicide, and drug overdose) skyrocketed in 2020 largely because of COVID fear. The CDC itself had a report on that. The CDC reported a 15.9% increase in deaths in 2020 in all areas. That information didn't make it to this analysis. I wonder why?
So, while the CDC still lists heart disease as the #1 cause of death in Arizona (and the U.S.), this report is much more reliable. Why? As it turns out (buried in the story above), the executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association has been a staunch opponent of Arizona's handling of the pandemic. Is it possible there is an ulterior motive for this report?
The actual data available says that in 2019 Arizona saw 12560 deaths from heart disease alone and 24500 with heart disease as a contributor. In 2019, there were 12485 cancer deaths in Arizona. Moving to 2020, Arizona saw 13237 deaths from COVID. If the CDC is right and there was a 15% increase in deaths in 2020, that would put heart disease deaths around 14500 and cancer deaths upwards of 14400, both more than COVID. (If we just used a 10% increase, those numbers would be 13800 and 13700 respectively, still more than COVID.) Taking into account the CDC reports and the Arizona Department of Health Services data and so forth -- you know, actual facts -- it turns out that the Arizona Public Health Association is fibbing. It turns out that this story is a lie and those who are propogating it are propogating a lie. You can pick a possible motive for the lie, but it appears to be a lie.
I don't suppose anyone might think there was ulterior motives in this report, would they? Nah! That can't be. This wouldn't fall under the category of "misinformation," would it? Surely not! "Misinformation" is defined today as "the stuff that contradicts what we claim to be facts." Ultimately, what they are not telling anyone is that the leading cause of death worldwide is actually abortion, accounting for 42 million unborn babies in 2020. But, sure, let's go with COVID on this. Much better press.
The story is out. A report released by a group called the Arizona Public Health Association claims that COVID is now the leading cause of death in Arizona. The report is based on the Arizona Department of Health Services Data Dashboard for COVID deaths and the CDC WONDER page for causes of death. Beware, Arizonans; COVID is lurking at your door.
As it turns out, the CDC does not have data for 2020 (or 2021), so the report based its evaluation on earlier data, assuming no change. Of course, lots of sources are reporting that deaths from these other causes (like heart disease, cancer, suicide, and drug overdose) skyrocketed in 2020 largely because of COVID fear. The CDC itself had a report on that. The CDC reported a 15.9% increase in deaths in 2020 in all areas. That information didn't make it to this analysis. I wonder why?
So, while the CDC still lists heart disease as the #1 cause of death in Arizona (and the U.S.), this report is much more reliable. Why? As it turns out (buried in the story above), the executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association has been a staunch opponent of Arizona's handling of the pandemic. Is it possible there is an ulterior motive for this report?
The actual data available says that in 2019 Arizona saw 12560 deaths from heart disease alone and 24500 with heart disease as a contributor. In 2019, there were 12485 cancer deaths in Arizona. Moving to 2020, Arizona saw 13237 deaths from COVID. If the CDC is right and there was a 15% increase in deaths in 2020, that would put heart disease deaths around 14500 and cancer deaths upwards of 14400, both more than COVID. (If we just used a 10% increase, those numbers would be 13800 and 13700 respectively, still more than COVID.) Taking into account the CDC reports and the Arizona Department of Health Services data and so forth -- you know, actual facts -- it turns out that the Arizona Public Health Association is fibbing. It turns out that this story is a lie and those who are propogating it are propogating a lie. You can pick a possible motive for the lie, but it appears to be a lie.
I don't suppose anyone might think there was ulterior motives in this report, would they? Nah! That can't be. This wouldn't fall under the category of "misinformation," would it? Surely not! "Misinformation" is defined today as "the stuff that contradicts what we claim to be facts." Ultimately, what they are not telling anyone is that the leading cause of death worldwide is actually abortion, accounting for 42 million unborn babies in 2020. But, sure, let's go with COVID on this. Much better press.
Thursday, October 28, 2021
Far from Center
By default, human beings operate on the basis, "I will be like the Most High." We spend a lot of time training the youngest not to, with questionable success. With the advent of helicopter parents and the "global good" of "just be yourself" and "don't let anyone stop your dreams," the latest generation is being called the "me generation" because they have been taught to embrace "me first." But pointing at them doesn't help; we all do it.
When it comes, then, to being a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- we find a rearranged world. We find that we are not the center. On one hand, the sooner we learn that, the better off we are. On the other hand it's such a foreign concept that many of us struggle with it.
Take, for instance, the "cheerful giver." The term isn't obscure. We all know "God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:7). We all know, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35). But for most of us giving doesn't come naturally. Consider. The common question among Christians is "How much am I required to give?" One statistic says that if Christians tithed -- gave 10% -- there would be an additional $165 billion available for churches to use. But what do we see? Christians on average give 2%. Wait! What did we likely hear as you were reading these last two sentences? Someone has likely countered, "Christians aren't required to tithe!" The statement is true. There is no New Testament command to for Gentile believers to tithe. And that, dear reader, is why we Christians like to ask, "How much am I required to give?"
You will note that the question is, at its core, wrong headed. It comes from "I" and assumes "me" at the center. It begins with the premise, "What I have is mine." Scripture, on the other hand, asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7). David declares, "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." (Psa 24:1). God's Word is not unclear; everything belongs to God. Applying that fact to the question at hand, it would seem that the proper question would be, "How much do I actually need to keep?" Instead of "How much stuff can I accumulate? How much pleasure can I purchase? How much comfort in life can I buy?", we should be asking, "What does the Owner of these funds want me to do with them for His glory?" Instead of "How much am I required to give?" it should be "How little can I keep?"
But that's not us, is it? Surrendering all like that seems ... unnatural. So we try to determine how little we have to give up or how far we can go toward sin or how much time do we actually need to spend in prayer and God's Word? We have lives. We have concerns. We are people on the go and we are, beyond all that, very important. Some of us where better masks over our "me first" attitudes, but not one of us is free of it. So Jesus's "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23) seems pretty harsh. And that's simply because we are still people in sinful flesh (Rom 7:22-24) who forget that we are far from the center. The world does not revolve around "me."
When it comes, then, to being a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- we find a rearranged world. We find that we are not the center. On one hand, the sooner we learn that, the better off we are. On the other hand it's such a foreign concept that many of us struggle with it.
Take, for instance, the "cheerful giver." The term isn't obscure. We all know "God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:7). We all know, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35). But for most of us giving doesn't come naturally. Consider. The common question among Christians is "How much am I required to give?" One statistic says that if Christians tithed -- gave 10% -- there would be an additional $165 billion available for churches to use. But what do we see? Christians on average give 2%. Wait! What did we likely hear as you were reading these last two sentences? Someone has likely countered, "Christians aren't required to tithe!" The statement is true. There is no New Testament command to for Gentile believers to tithe. And that, dear reader, is why we Christians like to ask, "How much am I required to give?"
You will note that the question is, at its core, wrong headed. It comes from "I" and assumes "me" at the center. It begins with the premise, "What I have is mine." Scripture, on the other hand, asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7). David declares, "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." (Psa 24:1). God's Word is not unclear; everything belongs to God. Applying that fact to the question at hand, it would seem that the proper question would be, "How much do I actually need to keep?" Instead of "How much stuff can I accumulate? How much pleasure can I purchase? How much comfort in life can I buy?", we should be asking, "What does the Owner of these funds want me to do with them for His glory?" Instead of "How much am I required to give?" it should be "How little can I keep?"
But that's not us, is it? Surrendering all like that seems ... unnatural. So we try to determine how little we have to give up or how far we can go toward sin or how much time do we actually need to spend in prayer and God's Word? We have lives. We have concerns. We are people on the go and we are, beyond all that, very important. Some of us where better masks over our "me first" attitudes, but not one of us is free of it. So Jesus's "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23) seems pretty harsh. And that's simply because we are still people in sinful flesh (Rom 7:22-24) who forget that we are far from the center. The world does not revolve around "me."
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Inciting Terror
This could be the most outlandish thing I've heard to date. Based on a report from the Yale School of Public Health, the headline reads "Unvaccinated people should expect to catch COVID every 16 months." Mind you, COVID has infected 10% of the population. Mind you, the vaccination lasts 6 months and needs to be boosted, from all appearances, every 6 months, so the immunity acquired from catching COVID is, according to Yale, more than 3 times as long as the vaccinated immunity. But the real problem is only 10% have been infected with COVID. So why would they decide to state that all unvaccinated people should expect to be infected every 16 months? This is why we hear people tell us, "We're all going go die!" (And I haven't heard that from only one.) This is why people are so terrified of COVID. This is why people have lost their minds to so much fear that they believe that any unvaccinated need to be quarantined, locked up, or worse. This is absolutely intended to produce terror. (And what they're not saying but must if they're going to stand by this headline is that every vaccinated person will need continuous, 6-month boosters ... for life.)
Read the Yale report. What they said was the immunity for those who recovered from COVID wanes, on average, after 16 months. The report did not say people should expect to get it. Statistically, no one should expect to get it. You have a 90% chance of not getting it. But that doesn't matter anymore. The media, the government, and now the populace have lost their minds to this virus. We happily surrendered freedom for security after 9/11. We surrendered far more freedom when this virus came out in 2020. We're being conditioned to surrender freedom for safety like so many sheep. And we're thanking them for it. Just shut your mouths, roll up your sleeves, take the continuous shots, and thank the government and Big Pharma for their kindness. Whatever you do, don't THINK.
Read the Yale report. What they said was the immunity for those who recovered from COVID wanes, on average, after 16 months. The report did not say people should expect to get it. Statistically, no one should expect to get it. You have a 90% chance of not getting it. But that doesn't matter anymore. The media, the government, and now the populace have lost their minds to this virus. We happily surrendered freedom for security after 9/11. We surrendered far more freedom when this virus came out in 2020. We're being conditioned to surrender freedom for safety like so many sheep. And we're thanking them for it. Just shut your mouths, roll up your sleeves, take the continuous shots, and thank the government and Big Pharma for their kindness. Whatever you do, don't THINK.
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
When Words Fail
I have been complaining for a long time about the dissolution of language. It doesn't take a super genius or even a conservative to see that our world appears to be in the business of rewriting the way we communicate with each other. From less books and more internet to radical language revision to ... fill in your own example ... we're working harder than ever to change how people think by altering how we communicate (a la 1984). Do I think it's a conspiracy? Of course! But not one of human origin. This one comes from the father of lies.
In my short lifetime we've seen the end of "marriage" as a reasonable term, the shift of "love" to "sex," and whole lot of "alternative definitions" in the same sense as the ludicrous "alternative facts." These new definitions include defining "inclusiveness" to include exclusiveness, "tolerance" to embrace intolerance, and "equality" to begin to mean inequality. "Racism" no longer means "believing a particular race is superior to others" and now means "white people." "Sexism" once referred to the parallel of "racism" -- the belief that a particular sex was better than another. Now "sexism" is defined as "males." No one ever questioned "gender" before and now we've decided it has no actual meaning at all. One site, a "gender wiki," lists 249 different genders. Absolute nonsense.
How is this possible? How can we slip into such insanity? Oh, that's easy. Sin rots the brain. The more we embrace sin, the more our brains rot. Today we classify sin -- especially sexual immorality -- as perhaps the highest good. So it is no surprise that we can't even define simple terms or communicate properly. We live in a crazy world.
Some would like me to believe that what is needed is more careful reasoning and clearer logic. That might work in a sane-but-misguided world, but that's not the world in which we find ourselves today. I think the better option is elsewhere. I've noticed that, when I offer Scripture, opponents just dodge it. When I show "this verse" and "that passage," they certainly don't agree, but neither do they offer answers ... to those passages. "Oh, that's not true," they'll tell me. "That's just your opinion," they'll assure me. but what they don't do is tell me what those passages actually mean. Why? Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12). Because God says that His Word "shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa 55:11).
Maybe you disagree. Maybe you have a better plan. I'm beginning to see that this is a problem stirred up by the prince of the power of the air -- you know, the one whose path is followed by those dead in their sins (Eph 2:1-3). I'm beginning to see that it's the work of the god of this world who "has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:4). Trying to do battle in logic and reason and facts with a people who have little use for any of that becomes pointless. I think it's time to let a God capable of making live people out of dead people and open blind eyes do the work. As for me, I'll take that better "sword."
In my short lifetime we've seen the end of "marriage" as a reasonable term, the shift of "love" to "sex," and whole lot of "alternative definitions" in the same sense as the ludicrous "alternative facts." These new definitions include defining "inclusiveness" to include exclusiveness, "tolerance" to embrace intolerance, and "equality" to begin to mean inequality. "Racism" no longer means "believing a particular race is superior to others" and now means "white people." "Sexism" once referred to the parallel of "racism" -- the belief that a particular sex was better than another. Now "sexism" is defined as "males." No one ever questioned "gender" before and now we've decided it has no actual meaning at all. One site, a "gender wiki," lists 249 different genders. Absolute nonsense.
How is this possible? How can we slip into such insanity? Oh, that's easy. Sin rots the brain. The more we embrace sin, the more our brains rot. Today we classify sin -- especially sexual immorality -- as perhaps the highest good. So it is no surprise that we can't even define simple terms or communicate properly. We live in a crazy world.
Some would like me to believe that what is needed is more careful reasoning and clearer logic. That might work in a sane-but-misguided world, but that's not the world in which we find ourselves today. I think the better option is elsewhere. I've noticed that, when I offer Scripture, opponents just dodge it. When I show "this verse" and "that passage," they certainly don't agree, but neither do they offer answers ... to those passages. "Oh, that's not true," they'll tell me. "That's just your opinion," they'll assure me. but what they don't do is tell me what those passages actually mean. Why? Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12). Because God says that His Word "shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa 55:11).
Maybe you disagree. Maybe you have a better plan. I'm beginning to see that this is a problem stirred up by the prince of the power of the air -- you know, the one whose path is followed by those dead in their sins (Eph 2:1-3). I'm beginning to see that it's the work of the god of this world who "has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:4). Trying to do battle in logic and reason and facts with a people who have little use for any of that becomes pointless. I think it's time to let a God capable of making live people out of dead people and open blind eyes do the work. As for me, I'll take that better "sword."
Monday, October 25, 2021
Strategy
When we were young church-going boys, we loved the Old Testament. So many stories of war and battles and all. Of course, later it became very interesting to see the strategies employed. Many times an opponent of Israel would send overwhelming forces to wipe out this little nation only to get defeated. Then there was Israel vs Ai when Israel sent underwhelming forces because "this will be easy" and got sent packing. In the Bible, battle plans often went sideways. In the Bible, it was always because God was in charge. So it made me wonder; what about us today? We have battles today -- primarily political and social and such. Are we employing good strategies? How do our strategies compare with the Old Testament ones?
Almost without exception the one expected to win the battle in the Bible and in today's world is the one with the biggest numbers, the best weapons -- the biggest force. That was the Old Testament view, too. "We're under threat! Let's get some help ..." from Egypt or others. Ahab enlisted Jehoshaphat's aid (2 Chron 18:3). Israel went to Egypt for assistance (Isa 31:1). The Scriptures warn not to put our "trust in princes" (Psa 118:9; Psa 146:3) when clearly "princes" are the power we should enlist to help. And we do it today, don't we? We form coalitions to affect voters and public opinion. We urge people to vote the way we want to protect our rights and our freedoms. We even join with spiritual opponents who share our political views to protect ourselves from "the Left" or "socialists" or whatever other political evil is right around the corner ... or currently in our faces. It's interesting, then, that 1) we tend toward the same strategies that they did in the Old Testament stories and 2) God so often disdains those strategies.
I like some of the strategies we find in Scripture. God told Joshua to "march around the city 7 days in a row and then blow trumpets." Um ... right, God. But they did, and the results are remembered to this day. Gideon gathered a large army to fight the Midianites and ended up taking only 300 into battle at God's instructions to keep Gideon and Israel from saying, "My own power has delivered me" (Judges 7:2), and it was a rousing victory. My favorite, though was Jehoshaphat's battle plan. He heard that "A great multitude is coming against you from beyond the sea" and was rightly terrified, so he "turned his attention to seek the LORD" (2 Chron 20:3), him and all his people. God told him, "The battle is not yours but God's." (2 Chron 20:15). So Jehoshaphat put together his battle plan. He took his people to the place where the battle would occur. He put the choir out front. And they sang hymns and watched God annihilate the enemy (2 Chron 20:20-23).
I wonder sometimes if we couldn't pick up a few pointers from these stories. We wring our hands or get ourselves worked up into a fighting mood over all the evils and inequities and injustices we see around us. And we set up committees and form unions and prepare strategies. "This means war!" And all along God is standing by. "The battle is not yours but God's." I wonder if sometimes we might not be better off if we put the choirs out in front and worshiped God rather than fretting over our trials. Well, it's a thought. It might be difficult since we rarely use choirs anymore, right?
Almost without exception the one expected to win the battle in the Bible and in today's world is the one with the biggest numbers, the best weapons -- the biggest force. That was the Old Testament view, too. "We're under threat! Let's get some help ..." from Egypt or others. Ahab enlisted Jehoshaphat's aid (2 Chron 18:3). Israel went to Egypt for assistance (Isa 31:1). The Scriptures warn not to put our "trust in princes" (Psa 118:9; Psa 146:3) when clearly "princes" are the power we should enlist to help. And we do it today, don't we? We form coalitions to affect voters and public opinion. We urge people to vote the way we want to protect our rights and our freedoms. We even join with spiritual opponents who share our political views to protect ourselves from "the Left" or "socialists" or whatever other political evil is right around the corner ... or currently in our faces. It's interesting, then, that 1) we tend toward the same strategies that they did in the Old Testament stories and 2) God so often disdains those strategies.
I like some of the strategies we find in Scripture. God told Joshua to "march around the city 7 days in a row and then blow trumpets." Um ... right, God. But they did, and the results are remembered to this day. Gideon gathered a large army to fight the Midianites and ended up taking only 300 into battle at God's instructions to keep Gideon and Israel from saying, "My own power has delivered me" (Judges 7:2), and it was a rousing victory. My favorite, though was Jehoshaphat's battle plan. He heard that "A great multitude is coming against you from beyond the sea" and was rightly terrified, so he "turned his attention to seek the LORD" (2 Chron 20:3), him and all his people. God told him, "The battle is not yours but God's." (2 Chron 20:15). So Jehoshaphat put together his battle plan. He took his people to the place where the battle would occur. He put the choir out front. And they sang hymns and watched God annihilate the enemy (2 Chron 20:20-23).
I wonder sometimes if we couldn't pick up a few pointers from these stories. We wring our hands or get ourselves worked up into a fighting mood over all the evils and inequities and injustices we see around us. And we set up committees and form unions and prepare strategies. "This means war!" And all along God is standing by. "The battle is not yours but God's." I wonder if sometimes we might not be better off if we put the choirs out in front and worshiped God rather than fretting over our trials. Well, it's a thought. It might be difficult since we rarely use choirs anymore, right?
Sunday, October 24, 2021
Free from Anxiety
In 1 Corinthians Paul famously addresses the married (1 Cor 7:1-15) with some controversial stuff, so, many of us miss his comments to the single (1 Cor 7:25-40). In particular, he gets a little odd there:
The topic is "If you're married, stay that way; if not, stay that way." (1 Cor 7:27-28) Why? Because "the appointed time has grown very short." Right. Wait, what? "The present form of this world is passing away." Oh, okay. So how do we make sense of this?
Paul already made it clear that husbands and wives had responsibilities to each other (1 Cor 7:3-5). He's not saying, "Cease your relationships." What, then? He's saying that this world system is on its way out. He's saying that it's on its way out soon. In fact, it is an unavoidable reality that we are closer than ever to Christ's return. "In light of this," Paul is saying, "live for eternity." How? Don't be so attached to the things of this world. Don't make your spouse your sole focus. Don't make your emotional journey your primary concern. Don't live for "stuff" ("those who buy"). Don't live for pleasure ("use the world"). "All this," Paul is saying, "is temporary." It's a vapor, a mere moment in time. In view of eternity, it's a blip. "And," he says, "it will be trouble." (1 Cor 7:28).
Paul says, "I want you to be free from anxieties." (1 Cor 7:32). How? Don't be so tied to this world. Don't make this world your home. We're just, as Peter puts it, "sojourners and exiles." (1 Peter 2:11). We're just passing through. Look, you know us. You know how we are. We get wrapped up in our surroundings. What will we eat? What will we wear? What will we do? Paul says to let it go. Yes, love your spouse, weep and rejoice, buy, and even enjoy what God gives us to enjoy in the world, but don't get caught up with it. Like he said previously, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor 6:12). Do those things, but do them in a helpful way and not under their control. Live for Jesus.
This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor 7:29-31)Okay, let's see ... "Let those who have wives live as though they had none ..." Umm, right. Paul, is this kind of like "the sound of one hand clapping or something? What is he talking about here?
The topic is "If you're married, stay that way; if not, stay that way." (1 Cor 7:27-28) Why? Because "the appointed time has grown very short." Right. Wait, what? "The present form of this world is passing away." Oh, okay. So how do we make sense of this?
Paul already made it clear that husbands and wives had responsibilities to each other (1 Cor 7:3-5). He's not saying, "Cease your relationships." What, then? He's saying that this world system is on its way out. He's saying that it's on its way out soon. In fact, it is an unavoidable reality that we are closer than ever to Christ's return. "In light of this," Paul is saying, "live for eternity." How? Don't be so attached to the things of this world. Don't make your spouse your sole focus. Don't make your emotional journey your primary concern. Don't live for "stuff" ("those who buy"). Don't live for pleasure ("use the world"). "All this," Paul is saying, "is temporary." It's a vapor, a mere moment in time. In view of eternity, it's a blip. "And," he says, "it will be trouble." (1 Cor 7:28).
Paul says, "I want you to be free from anxieties." (1 Cor 7:32). How? Don't be so tied to this world. Don't make this world your home. We're just, as Peter puts it, "sojourners and exiles." (1 Peter 2:11). We're just passing through. Look, you know us. You know how we are. We get wrapped up in our surroundings. What will we eat? What will we wear? What will we do? Paul says to let it go. Yes, love your spouse, weep and rejoice, buy, and even enjoy what God gives us to enjoy in the world, but don't get caught up with it. Like he said previously, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor 6:12). Do those things, but do them in a helpful way and not under their control. Live for Jesus.
Saturday, October 23, 2021
News Weakly - 10/23/21
Sad Passing
Colin Powell died due to complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. Sad for him and his family and friends. A warning note for those who are placing their hope in a vaccine.
Powell's death was a sad passing. The Arizona Cardinals, on the other hand, have some pretty good passing. They are undefeated this year so far. In mid-July they were 50% vaccinated, but by September they were at 100%. It's odd, then, that the Cardinals lead the league in COVID cases -- 23 so far. Six just this last week. Odd how "fully vaccinated" seems to be losing its force.
California Again
Californian parents, kids, and school employees protested the statewide vaccine mandate for school employees and kids. In California school-age children (5-17) constitute 12% of the COVID cases and 0.037% of the deaths from COVID. For that age group, COVID is a nonentity. But let's get all those kids jabbed and now because ... well ... we know better. "Can I avoid this shot?" the little boy asks. "No! You're a minor!" "Can I be a girl?" "Sure! You know best!"
In related news, thank goodness the White House is on the job. They're finally planning to roll out COVID vaccinations for the least threatened, least impacted people on the planet -- the children. Soon children from 5-11 will be able to get vaccinated against a disease that has hardly disturbed the waters of this age group. File that under "protecting the well-defended." Of course, science is still not sure whether that's actually a good idea, but Biden promised to "believe science" ... unless, of course, he chooses not to. In the meantime, killing the unborn remains a high priority.
Politics as Usual
Everyone knows that churches cannot promote political candidates or they risk the loss of their tax-exempt status. Apparently over 300 black churches across Virginia have nothing to fear on that score when they air their video featuring Kamala Harris encouraging viewers to vote for Terry McAuliffe for governor. That old "No politics in the pulpit" doesn't apply to pulpits that agree with the party in power, I suppose
SIWs?
The "great Howard Stern" took on a black NBA player for his position on the vaccine. Of Kyrie Irving he said, "In terms of idiots, he’s got to be the top idiot in the country right now." He sprinkled in some other descriptives I won't reprint. Luckily, all the Social Justice Warriors jumped on him instantly, warning Stern to be less intolerant, less judgmental, less racist. Oh, wait, no. I guess as long as you're saying what the SJWs like, it's okay to be all that and more. Does that make them Social Injustice Warriors in this case?
Juxtaposition
The "ACLU" (I put it in quotes because they have demonstrated that the will pick and choose which "American civil liberties" they will defend) is suing Oklahoma because they have outlawed curriculum that teaches that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex" or that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." The lawsuit is over free speech. In stark contrast, then, Netflix employees walked out in protest of Dave Chappelle's humor because no one has the right to make jokes about anything LGBTQ+. And a top Berkeley physicist has resigned because his colleagues refuse to allow a geophysicist speak because of his views on merit-based college admissions. Dear ACLU, "free speech" is under attack in much more prevalent places than this. Oddly, you oppose it in cases that you oppose the speech. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
What it Ain't
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez waved her superior education on Twitter defining capitalism as "a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost." There are, apparently, no dictionaries or internet where AOC lives. The accusation is that she is using capitalism to push socialism, "investing heavily in her online store, selling T-shirts, sweatshirts and other merchandise with her name ..." Yes, that is capitalism. Unless, of course, we've redefined "capitalism" like we have "marriage," "racism," "sexism," "inclusion," "tolerance" ... oh, a long list.
Satire That Makes You Want to Cry
In a tragic event, Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that killed a cinematrographer and injured the director on the set of his current movie. (If you want a laugh, the Bing news feed headline for that story read, "Prop gun kills one." Mean ol' prop gun.) Clearly accidental. Clearly sad. One might wonder, however, why the media isn't jumping on this "mass shooting."
In other news, given Terry McAuliffe's position that guys who consider themselves girls should be allowed to use the girls' bathroom laid alongside the reported rape of a teenage girl in a high school bathroom by a boy dressed as a girl, it might not seem a leap to conclude that churches in Virginia will be interrupting worship for a brief message from Satan. I'm just sayin'.
Colin Powell died due to complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. Sad for him and his family and friends. A warning note for those who are placing their hope in a vaccine.
Powell's death was a sad passing. The Arizona Cardinals, on the other hand, have some pretty good passing. They are undefeated this year so far. In mid-July they were 50% vaccinated, but by September they were at 100%. It's odd, then, that the Cardinals lead the league in COVID cases -- 23 so far. Six just this last week. Odd how "fully vaccinated" seems to be losing its force.
California Again
Californian parents, kids, and school employees protested the statewide vaccine mandate for school employees and kids. In California school-age children (5-17) constitute 12% of the COVID cases and 0.037% of the deaths from COVID. For that age group, COVID is a nonentity. But let's get all those kids jabbed and now because ... well ... we know better. "Can I avoid this shot?" the little boy asks. "No! You're a minor!" "Can I be a girl?" "Sure! You know best!"
In related news, thank goodness the White House is on the job. They're finally planning to roll out COVID vaccinations for the least threatened, least impacted people on the planet -- the children. Soon children from 5-11 will be able to get vaccinated against a disease that has hardly disturbed the waters of this age group. File that under "protecting the well-defended." Of course, science is still not sure whether that's actually a good idea, but Biden promised to "believe science" ... unless, of course, he chooses not to. In the meantime, killing the unborn remains a high priority.
Politics as Usual
Everyone knows that churches cannot promote political candidates or they risk the loss of their tax-exempt status. Apparently over 300 black churches across Virginia have nothing to fear on that score when they air their video featuring Kamala Harris encouraging viewers to vote for Terry McAuliffe for governor. That old "No politics in the pulpit" doesn't apply to pulpits that agree with the party in power, I suppose
SIWs?
The "great Howard Stern" took on a black NBA player for his position on the vaccine. Of Kyrie Irving he said, "In terms of idiots, he’s got to be the top idiot in the country right now." He sprinkled in some other descriptives I won't reprint. Luckily, all the Social Justice Warriors jumped on him instantly, warning Stern to be less intolerant, less judgmental, less racist. Oh, wait, no. I guess as long as you're saying what the SJWs like, it's okay to be all that and more. Does that make them Social Injustice Warriors in this case?
Juxtaposition
The "ACLU" (I put it in quotes because they have demonstrated that the will pick and choose which "American civil liberties" they will defend) is suing Oklahoma because they have outlawed curriculum that teaches that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex" or that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." The lawsuit is over free speech. In stark contrast, then, Netflix employees walked out in protest of Dave Chappelle's humor because no one has the right to make jokes about anything LGBTQ+. And a top Berkeley physicist has resigned because his colleagues refuse to allow a geophysicist speak because of his views on merit-based college admissions. Dear ACLU, "free speech" is under attack in much more prevalent places than this. Oddly, you oppose it in cases that you oppose the speech. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
What it Ain't
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez waved her superior education on Twitter defining capitalism as "a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost." There are, apparently, no dictionaries or internet where AOC lives. The accusation is that she is using capitalism to push socialism, "investing heavily in her online store, selling T-shirts, sweatshirts and other merchandise with her name ..." Yes, that is capitalism. Unless, of course, we've redefined "capitalism" like we have "marriage," "racism," "sexism," "inclusion," "tolerance" ... oh, a long list.
Satire That Makes You Want to Cry
In a tragic event, Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that killed a cinematrographer and injured the director on the set of his current movie. (If you want a laugh, the Bing news feed headline for that story read, "Prop gun kills one." Mean ol' prop gun.) Clearly accidental. Clearly sad. One might wonder, however, why the media isn't jumping on this "mass shooting."
In other news, given Terry McAuliffe's position that guys who consider themselves girls should be allowed to use the girls' bathroom laid alongside the reported rape of a teenage girl in a high school bathroom by a boy dressed as a girl, it might not seem a leap to conclude that churches in Virginia will be interrupting worship for a brief message from Satan. I'm just sayin'.
Friday, October 22, 2021
DEIty
Forbes complained about Netflix's CEO and his "non-apology apology" around Dave Chappelle. Some of the comments in the story are enlightening. Let's take a look.
"Inclusion," writer Davia Temin said, "means that you really have to listen and be sensitive to diverse voices." Sure. But "inclusion" also means "inclusion," and the point of what is termed the "culture wars" is that inclusion now includes exclusion. Temin went on to say that Ted Sarandos's decision to run Chappelle's special "put Netflix smack between artistic freedom/freedom of speech and progressive values around inclusion and sensitivity to previously marginalized groups." So now values that oppose "artistic freedom/freedom of speech" are considered "progressive." We're movin' on. No more of that "free speech" stuff around here.
You can clearly see what's at stake here. In order to be "inclusive," it is necessary to exclude people who say what we, the powers that be, deem "offensive" in a very specific way. It's okay to offend those who don't agree with us. It's "progressive" to exclude those who don't agree with our "inclusiveness." And if you try to defend such things as genuine inclusiveness or free speech or artistic freedom, you are, in Temin's words, a bully. Standing for freedoms like that is now "a controversial stance."
Temin urged Sarandos to lead with "humanity, empathy, and compassion" and not to "reduce them to buzz words" as she reduced inclusion, tolerance, and freedom to buzz words. Currently "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is god. It even has its own acronym: DEI. A kind of "DEIty," I suppose. I can only dream that the DEI people could learn to be more diverse, equal, and inclusive in their efforts. While those are good things to pursue, doing so at the cost of the very things they are pursuing makes no sense. And what will they do when they find themselves no longer in power, excluded, marginalized, and no longer free to speak?
"Inclusion," writer Davia Temin said, "means that you really have to listen and be sensitive to diverse voices." Sure. But "inclusion" also means "inclusion," and the point of what is termed the "culture wars" is that inclusion now includes exclusion. Temin went on to say that Ted Sarandos's decision to run Chappelle's special "put Netflix smack between artistic freedom/freedom of speech and progressive values around inclusion and sensitivity to previously marginalized groups." So now values that oppose "artistic freedom/freedom of speech" are considered "progressive." We're movin' on. No more of that "free speech" stuff around here.
You can clearly see what's at stake here. In order to be "inclusive," it is necessary to exclude people who say what we, the powers that be, deem "offensive" in a very specific way. It's okay to offend those who don't agree with us. It's "progressive" to exclude those who don't agree with our "inclusiveness." And if you try to defend such things as genuine inclusiveness or free speech or artistic freedom, you are, in Temin's words, a bully. Standing for freedoms like that is now "a controversial stance."
Temin urged Sarandos to lead with "humanity, empathy, and compassion" and not to "reduce them to buzz words" as she reduced inclusion, tolerance, and freedom to buzz words. Currently "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is god. It even has its own acronym: DEI. A kind of "DEIty," I suppose. I can only dream that the DEI people could learn to be more diverse, equal, and inclusive in their efforts. While those are good things to pursue, doing so at the cost of the very things they are pursuing makes no sense. And what will they do when they find themselves no longer in power, excluded, marginalized, and no longer free to speak?
Thursday, October 21, 2021
In Case There Were Questions
After my thoughts on the vaccine earlier this week, I got some very helpful inputs. Some were helpful like "I'll be praying" or "Trust God" or the like. Some were helpful like "You're an idiot" and "How could you even question the science?" kind of "helpful." Thanks to all. While I have probably come to my own conclusion on this (bearing in mind lots of good input), I thought I'd develop the thinking a little further so that people might be able to examine it for themselves.
There are lots of people who oppose the COVID vaccine. There are lots of reasons. They range from the legitimate to the absurd. Some have religious objections (valid or not). Some have medical objections. Some don't trust the government. Some question the science. Some are opposed on principle to the mandate. Some think it's an attempt to control us or kill us or some such. Lots and lots of reasons. Some of those reasons would, if carried to their logical conclusion, require other right-thinking people to also oppose the vaccine. Others take a more "libertarian" approach. "I oppose it for me. You are certainly free and even advised to get the vaccine."
I oppose the vaccine. I'm one who opposes it for personal reasons in contrast to sounding the alarm: "It's evil! Run!" I don't look down on anyone who has taken or is considering taking the vaccine. I don't think this falls in a "universal" status. I don't have a religious objection and I am saddened that Christians would try to use the Bible to prove that God is opposed to the vaccine. First, let me be clear. I am not working off of "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories." My sources are places like the CDC, the NIH, medical laboratories, and major news outlets. So ... what kind of objections do I have?
Since the Bible says nothing on the topic -- you know, my "go to" source of truth -- I'm forced to consider other things. First and foremost, there's the science. "That's settled!" they tell me. Really? In the news this week, Colin Powell died from complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. The CDC says, "No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness." We got that. We all agree. People with no immunity are the highest risk for contracting and dying from COVID. This is no surprise and no debate. People with the vaccine can still get, spread, and even die from COVID. We've also heard and agree to that. According to the CDC, the unvaccinated are 6 times more likely to get COVID and 11 times more likely to die from COVID. According to the CDC, the vaccine is between 86% and 89% effective against hospitalization from COVID. All scientific facts. But ...
What about those who have had COVID? Typically, scientists refer to those who recover from COVID-19 as having "natural immunity." (I object to the term. I think "natural immunity" should refer to those who have immunity prior to getting exposed. According to some studies up to 60% of us have that form of natural immunity. I would call immunity from having recovered from COVID "acquired immunity" and immunity from the vaccine as "injected immunity", but, hey, no one cares what I think.) Going with their term, studies have been ongoing regarding how long natural immunity lasts. Back in January of 2021, the National Institutes of Health determined that "The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection." A more recent study put it out to 15 months. Both numbers are longer than the 6 months that they're telling us the vaccine gives us. And how effective is natural immunity? One large study said that the reinfection rate of those who have recovered from COVID was on the order of 0.7%. That is, 99.3% effective … versus 89% effective for the vaccine (or less).
Let's review. Science tells us that the vaccine is not failsafe. (Nothing is.) You can still get, spread, and even die from COVID whether or not you're vaccinated. Science tells us the vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalized or die from it than those who have not been immunized, but they also have a higher rate of infection ("breakthrough cases") than those who have had COVID and recovered. Breakthrough cases are as high as 14% while reinfection is less than 0.7%. Science tells us that the vaccine-acquired immunity is good for 6 months, but the immunity from having recovered from COVID is 18 months or more. So why are we not including those who have recovered from COVID among the "immunized"?
The effectiveness of the vaccine compared to the risk of the vaccine is an issue. This week New Zealand -- the land of the COVID-protection overkill, with major lockdowns and more than 75% vaccinated -- had its highest single day number of cases since COVID began. How can that be? Six months ago the prediction was that the vaccine immunity would lose 50% of its effectiveness every 108 days. One study indicated that antibody levels dropped after 12 weeks. Yale Medicine reports that CDC data indicates the vaccine effectiveness is dropping from 92% to 75% effectiveness. Isn't it interesting that one of the largest spikes occurred after the vaccines were rolled out? The government and the media are telling us it's an "unvaccinated epidemic" while they scurry about making sure people get their boosters because, well, it doesn't appear to be doing its job as well as it had before.
Something else science tells us is that there are lots of variables in here. All those percentages show that the realities vary from person to person. Age makes a difference. A person's immune system makes a difference. There are people who have died from the vaccine, for instance. What I want to know, then, is why it is that we're taking this "one size fits all" approach? Is it laziness? Is it apathy? Is it expediency? I'll tell you what it is not; it's not science.
I have another real concern here, and it, too, is science. Science tells us that we don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine. That's no fault of the vaccine, of course. It hasn't been around long-term, so we can't know. That's just the way things are. We could have a reasonable guess if this vaccine was a standard vaccine because we've tried lots of those before -- mumps, measles, chicken pox, polio, smallpox, the flu ... on and on and on. But this is not that. This is brand new. So here we are mandating that everyone submit themselves as guinea pigs for this grand experiment we call an "mRNA vaccine" and nod with confidence without cause that it will all be okay. Really? Then why are we giving Big Pharma a free pass and not holding them responsible for their product? It started for the emergency sake, but now that the FDA has approved it, why are we not holding their feet to the fire? Because they know that there could be problems Look, we just found out that the phthalates that have been in use since the 1920's are killing us , so, hey, let's jump on this "new vaccine" regimen without the slightest hesitation or concern. Well, I'll tell you what; I'll volunteer to be part of the "control group." We need some to not be vaccinated to compare with the vaccinated to see, long term, what the outcome is. I'll be that "not vaccinated" group ... for science.
Currently there are about 240 million cases worldwide and 45 million cases in the US (which leads the world in cases). Currently there have been about 5 million deaths worldwide and 725,000 deaths in the US. Let's do the math. In the US, that's a 13.5% infection rate with a case-fatality ration of 1.6%. Roughly 1 in 10 have been infected and less than 2% of those have died. Worldwide, it's only 3% who have been infected and 2% of those have died. In terms of overall fatality from COVID, Around 0.2% of the American population have died from COVID and something like 0.06% of the world population. Deaths are sad. Sickness isn't good. It's not good news. I think we're all agreed. But it's not the end of the world. We're not all gonna die (as I have actually been told by multiple sources). More than 85% of Americans have not been infected. Almost none of those who have died from it. Oh, by the way, roughly 95% of the deaths from this virus are 50 years old and older. The under-50 crowd make up less than 5% of the deaths. But, by all means, let's panic. Let's run around trying to solve a problem that is nowhere near as big as the government and the media and the alarmists at large are making it out to be. Where is the sanity in all of this?
One other factor. We live in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Oh, hold on. No. Not in this instance. In this instance you will submit. In this case you will bow the knee to your lord and master, Big Pharma. Oh, no, that's not fair. Big Government. Alright, not entirely. The tide of public opinion. In fact, I suspect it's all that and more. We here in America prize individuality, equality, and liberty. Except here and now. Women shout from the highest rooftops (like the Supreme Court), "My body! My choice!" and we applaud them. "Yes!" we cry, "You should be allowed to kill your baby if you so choose!" I whisper from my little blog, "My body, my choice," and they want to pin me down ... with a needle. "Shut up and take your medicine." Never mind that I find it morally objectionable. Never mind that I find it legally questionable. Never mind that I have rational, scientific questions and concerns. Never mind that I've been immunized by nature itself. As I said in my earlier entry, "This is America! We do not 'freedom' here!"
I believe that Science says that I am just as safe with natural immunity for myself and for others as any vaccinated person is. I believe that Science says that between me and the vaccinated, I am safer for me and those in my sphere than the vaccinated are. I think that Science agrees with me that we still don't know long-term effects. I believe that legally and morally forcing this one-size-fits-all medical experiment on everyone is wrong. What's most disturbing to me is this prevailing sense that anyone who has these science-based, unanswered concerns is an idiot at best and certainly morally reprehensible. It looks a lot like the end of a lot that once made America great, doesn't it? It certainly makes me wonder why they keep saying, "Trust science!" when what they mean is "Listen to ME when I find some science that agrees with me." All this to say I object, and I'll just have to trust God with the outcome.
There are lots of people who oppose the COVID vaccine. There are lots of reasons. They range from the legitimate to the absurd. Some have religious objections (valid or not). Some have medical objections. Some don't trust the government. Some question the science. Some are opposed on principle to the mandate. Some think it's an attempt to control us or kill us or some such. Lots and lots of reasons. Some of those reasons would, if carried to their logical conclusion, require other right-thinking people to also oppose the vaccine. Others take a more "libertarian" approach. "I oppose it for me. You are certainly free and even advised to get the vaccine."
I oppose the vaccine. I'm one who opposes it for personal reasons in contrast to sounding the alarm: "It's evil! Run!" I don't look down on anyone who has taken or is considering taking the vaccine. I don't think this falls in a "universal" status. I don't have a religious objection and I am saddened that Christians would try to use the Bible to prove that God is opposed to the vaccine. First, let me be clear. I am not working off of "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories." My sources are places like the CDC, the NIH, medical laboratories, and major news outlets. So ... what kind of objections do I have?
Since the Bible says nothing on the topic -- you know, my "go to" source of truth -- I'm forced to consider other things. First and foremost, there's the science. "That's settled!" they tell me. Really? In the news this week, Colin Powell died from complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. The CDC says, "No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness." We got that. We all agree. People with no immunity are the highest risk for contracting and dying from COVID. This is no surprise and no debate. People with the vaccine can still get, spread, and even die from COVID. We've also heard and agree to that. According to the CDC, the unvaccinated are 6 times more likely to get COVID and 11 times more likely to die from COVID. According to the CDC, the vaccine is between 86% and 89% effective against hospitalization from COVID. All scientific facts. But ...
What about those who have had COVID? Typically, scientists refer to those who recover from COVID-19 as having "natural immunity." (I object to the term. I think "natural immunity" should refer to those who have immunity prior to getting exposed. According to some studies up to 60% of us have that form of natural immunity. I would call immunity from having recovered from COVID "acquired immunity" and immunity from the vaccine as "injected immunity", but, hey, no one cares what I think.) Going with their term, studies have been ongoing regarding how long natural immunity lasts. Back in January of 2021, the National Institutes of Health determined that "The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection." A more recent study put it out to 15 months. Both numbers are longer than the 6 months that they're telling us the vaccine gives us. And how effective is natural immunity? One large study said that the reinfection rate of those who have recovered from COVID was on the order of 0.7%. That is, 99.3% effective … versus 89% effective for the vaccine (or less).
Let's review. Science tells us that the vaccine is not failsafe. (Nothing is.) You can still get, spread, and even die from COVID whether or not you're vaccinated. Science tells us the vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalized or die from it than those who have not been immunized, but they also have a higher rate of infection ("breakthrough cases") than those who have had COVID and recovered. Breakthrough cases are as high as 14% while reinfection is less than 0.7%. Science tells us that the vaccine-acquired immunity is good for 6 months, but the immunity from having recovered from COVID is 18 months or more. So why are we not including those who have recovered from COVID among the "immunized"?
The effectiveness of the vaccine compared to the risk of the vaccine is an issue. This week New Zealand -- the land of the COVID-protection overkill, with major lockdowns and more than 75% vaccinated -- had its highest single day number of cases since COVID began. How can that be? Six months ago the prediction was that the vaccine immunity would lose 50% of its effectiveness every 108 days. One study indicated that antibody levels dropped after 12 weeks. Yale Medicine reports that CDC data indicates the vaccine effectiveness is dropping from 92% to 75% effectiveness. Isn't it interesting that one of the largest spikes occurred after the vaccines were rolled out? The government and the media are telling us it's an "unvaccinated epidemic" while they scurry about making sure people get their boosters because, well, it doesn't appear to be doing its job as well as it had before.
Something else science tells us is that there are lots of variables in here. All those percentages show that the realities vary from person to person. Age makes a difference. A person's immune system makes a difference. There are people who have died from the vaccine, for instance. What I want to know, then, is why it is that we're taking this "one size fits all" approach? Is it laziness? Is it apathy? Is it expediency? I'll tell you what it is not; it's not science.
I have another real concern here, and it, too, is science. Science tells us that we don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine. That's no fault of the vaccine, of course. It hasn't been around long-term, so we can't know. That's just the way things are. We could have a reasonable guess if this vaccine was a standard vaccine because we've tried lots of those before -- mumps, measles, chicken pox, polio, smallpox, the flu ... on and on and on. But this is not that. This is brand new. So here we are mandating that everyone submit themselves as guinea pigs for this grand experiment we call an "mRNA vaccine" and nod with confidence without cause that it will all be okay. Really? Then why are we giving Big Pharma a free pass and not holding them responsible for their product? It started for the emergency sake, but now that the FDA has approved it, why are we not holding their feet to the fire? Because they know that there could be problems Look, we just found out that the phthalates that have been in use since the 1920's are killing us , so, hey, let's jump on this "new vaccine" regimen without the slightest hesitation or concern. Well, I'll tell you what; I'll volunteer to be part of the "control group." We need some to not be vaccinated to compare with the vaccinated to see, long term, what the outcome is. I'll be that "not vaccinated" group ... for science.
Currently there are about 240 million cases worldwide and 45 million cases in the US (which leads the world in cases). Currently there have been about 5 million deaths worldwide and 725,000 deaths in the US. Let's do the math. In the US, that's a 13.5% infection rate with a case-fatality ration of 1.6%. Roughly 1 in 10 have been infected and less than 2% of those have died. Worldwide, it's only 3% who have been infected and 2% of those have died. In terms of overall fatality from COVID, Around 0.2% of the American population have died from COVID and something like 0.06% of the world population. Deaths are sad. Sickness isn't good. It's not good news. I think we're all agreed. But it's not the end of the world. We're not all gonna die (as I have actually been told by multiple sources). More than 85% of Americans have not been infected. Almost none of those who have died from it. Oh, by the way, roughly 95% of the deaths from this virus are 50 years old and older. The under-50 crowd make up less than 5% of the deaths. But, by all means, let's panic. Let's run around trying to solve a problem that is nowhere near as big as the government and the media and the alarmists at large are making it out to be. Where is the sanity in all of this?
One other factor. We live in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Oh, hold on. No. Not in this instance. In this instance you will submit. In this case you will bow the knee to your lord and master, Big Pharma. Oh, no, that's not fair. Big Government. Alright, not entirely. The tide of public opinion. In fact, I suspect it's all that and more. We here in America prize individuality, equality, and liberty. Except here and now. Women shout from the highest rooftops (like the Supreme Court), "My body! My choice!" and we applaud them. "Yes!" we cry, "You should be allowed to kill your baby if you so choose!" I whisper from my little blog, "My body, my choice," and they want to pin me down ... with a needle. "Shut up and take your medicine." Never mind that I find it morally objectionable. Never mind that I find it legally questionable. Never mind that I have rational, scientific questions and concerns. Never mind that I've been immunized by nature itself. As I said in my earlier entry, "This is America! We do not 'freedom' here!"
I believe that Science says that I am just as safe with natural immunity for myself and for others as any vaccinated person is. I believe that Science says that between me and the vaccinated, I am safer for me and those in my sphere than the vaccinated are. I think that Science agrees with me that we still don't know long-term effects. I believe that legally and morally forcing this one-size-fits-all medical experiment on everyone is wrong. What's most disturbing to me is this prevailing sense that anyone who has these science-based, unanswered concerns is an idiot at best and certainly morally reprehensible. It looks a lot like the end of a lot that once made America great, doesn't it? It certainly makes me wonder why they keep saying, "Trust science!" when what they mean is "Listen to ME when I find some science that agrees with me." All this to say I object, and I'll just have to trust God with the outcome.
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
The Awful Alternative
Traditional, biblical Christianity has claimed from the beginning that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, that with His blood He paid the price that justice demanded and bought our forgiveness by taking our sins on Himself. Traditional, biblical Christianity then holds that we can be justified by grace through faith apart from works. The first version ("traditional") of this concept was called "the Ransom Theory." (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5-6). This view says just this: By His death, Jesus paid the ransom price for us. He redeemed us (Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7). Other theories rose around (not apart from) this one. Jesus came to have a moral impact (the "Moral Theory") and to be victorious over Satan ("Christus Victor"), but all through these others the Ransom Theory was fundamental. These others didn't deny or replace that basic claim of the Church and the Scriptures. Other theories emerged later. Anselm suggested that Jesus satisfied the demands of a Just God (the "Satisfaction Theory") -- that Jesus satisfied God's just wrath for our sin (1 John 2:2; ; Rom 3:25) -- but you can see that's just an expansion or clarification for the Ransom Theory. The Reformers put forth the "Penal Substitutionary Theory" as a refinement of the Satisfaction Theory, again an expansion and/or clarification of the Ransom Theory. Of course, to this day alternate views abound. He did not die to pay for sin. He did not redeem us. He did not become sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). From there they branch out. Some say He simply died as an example of what love looks like. Others say, "He died so everyone would be saved." (Universalism) At the core of these objections to the traditional, biblical view is just this: The cross is an offense. "God would never demand such a thing. That's not right."
Setting aside the argument for a moment, let's just take up the possibility that traditional, biblical Christianity has, for all this time, been wrong. Jesus died, sure, but He didn't "pay the price." He didn't "satisfy God's wrath." He didn't "fulfill the demands of justice." He died ... for some other purpose. What can we conclude? I think there are a few clear things.
First, clearly God is not "just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did not satisfy that demand, so God is not just. Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25). No, Abe, He won't. Second, while those opposed to the Ransom Theory et al. agree that Jesus died, they also must agree that He died unjustly. We all agree that what was done to Jesus was not just, certainly not in human terms. But Scripture is clear that God planned it (e.g., Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Thus, God's plan was not to satisfy the demands of justice for sin, but to perpetuate injustice on the person of His Son.
There are, of course, other losses. All those believers for all those centuries were wrong. All those fine hymns -- Nothing but the Blood, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, Beneath the Cross of Jesus, and so on -- are all bad, evil, offensive. Well, of course, and the Holy Spirit failed to bring so many of His own to the truth. Sure, to many, the cross is an offense. Well, Paul said it would be (1 Cor 1:18). To me a God who does not seek justice -- who does not provide what is right either for Himself, for His Son, or for His creation -- is not a God I can worship. Fortunately for me, the Bible portrays Him as that just, righteous, wrathful-while-forgiving, justifying God. That is indeed "Amazing grace." The Bible says that Christ died for our sins, ransomed us, redeemed us, paid the price for us (1 Cor 6:20). I know. Even some self-professed Christians find that offensive. Jesus isn't surprised (1 John 2:19).
Setting aside the argument for a moment, let's just take up the possibility that traditional, biblical Christianity has, for all this time, been wrong. Jesus died, sure, but He didn't "pay the price." He didn't "satisfy God's wrath." He didn't "fulfill the demands of justice." He died ... for some other purpose. What can we conclude? I think there are a few clear things.
First, clearly God is not "just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did not satisfy that demand, so God is not just. Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25). No, Abe, He won't. Second, while those opposed to the Ransom Theory et al. agree that Jesus died, they also must agree that He died unjustly. We all agree that what was done to Jesus was not just, certainly not in human terms. But Scripture is clear that God planned it (e.g., Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Thus, God's plan was not to satisfy the demands of justice for sin, but to perpetuate injustice on the person of His Son.
There are, of course, other losses. All those believers for all those centuries were wrong. All those fine hymns -- Nothing but the Blood, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, Beneath the Cross of Jesus, and so on -- are all bad, evil, offensive. Well, of course, and the Holy Spirit failed to bring so many of His own to the truth. Sure, to many, the cross is an offense. Well, Paul said it would be (1 Cor 1:18). To me a God who does not seek justice -- who does not provide what is right either for Himself, for His Son, or for His creation -- is not a God I can worship. Fortunately for me, the Bible portrays Him as that just, righteous, wrathful-while-forgiving, justifying God. That is indeed "Amazing grace." The Bible says that Christ died for our sins, ransomed us, redeemed us, paid the price for us (1 Cor 6:20). I know. Even some self-professed Christians find that offensive. Jesus isn't surprised (1 John 2:19).
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
Loving Yourself
Even those in the world know the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." They may not do it or even like it, but we all know it. But for some there is an easy answer. "Oh, that's easy. I can't stand myself. I can do that toward others, too."
Famed theologian Whitney Houston sang, "Learning to love yourself, It is the greatest love of all." Why? Well, because we all know that low self-esteem is a pandemic in its own right. There is a dearth of self-love. Just look around you. There are hoards of humans who fail to harbor warm affection for themselves. It's a real problem.
Which brings me to my point. I have argued much that "love" in the modern culture is not "love" in the Bible. Love in the vernacular is "warm affection," but in the Bible it is a choice we make to seek the best for others. So when I came across this concept of "love yourself," it occurred to me that this perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say. The world tells us that too many of us don't love ourselves (warm affection). It's true ... if you accept that love is defined as "warm affection." Paul says, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it." (Eph 5:29). "Now, hang on, Paul. Are you not aware of the self-esteem crisis?" Paul, here, is presenting the biblical version of love. He is not talking about "warm affection" for self; he is talking about "seeking the best for" self. That's the love he says we all have for ourselves.
This concept does not negate the emotions we equate with love. It simply shifts the original concept of love -- a choice to seek the best for. If I am seeking the best for someone, it is inevitable that warm affection will follow. I am not trying to deny that emotions are part of love. I'm simply pointing out that warm affection that springs from efforts to seek the best for the one you intend to love has more depth, more constance, more durability, and more value. This love can survive emotional valleys and carry to the next emotional peak. Because this love has its footing in choice, not feeling. Learning to love yourself in this sense is simply the survival instinct. We all have it. Now, can we seek that best for others? That is a higher calling.
Famed theologian Whitney Houston sang, "Learning to love yourself, It is the greatest love of all." Why? Well, because we all know that low self-esteem is a pandemic in its own right. There is a dearth of self-love. Just look around you. There are hoards of humans who fail to harbor warm affection for themselves. It's a real problem.
Which brings me to my point. I have argued much that "love" in the modern culture is not "love" in the Bible. Love in the vernacular is "warm affection," but in the Bible it is a choice we make to seek the best for others. So when I came across this concept of "love yourself," it occurred to me that this perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say. The world tells us that too many of us don't love ourselves (warm affection). It's true ... if you accept that love is defined as "warm affection." Paul says, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it." (Eph 5:29). "Now, hang on, Paul. Are you not aware of the self-esteem crisis?" Paul, here, is presenting the biblical version of love. He is not talking about "warm affection" for self; he is talking about "seeking the best for" self. That's the love he says we all have for ourselves.
This concept does not negate the emotions we equate with love. It simply shifts the original concept of love -- a choice to seek the best for. If I am seeking the best for someone, it is inevitable that warm affection will follow. I am not trying to deny that emotions are part of love. I'm simply pointing out that warm affection that springs from efforts to seek the best for the one you intend to love has more depth, more constance, more durability, and more value. This love can survive emotional valleys and carry to the next emotional peak. Because this love has its footing in choice, not feeling. Learning to love yourself in this sense is simply the survival instinct. We all have it. Now, can we seek that best for others? That is a higher calling.
Monday, October 18, 2021
Vaccination Ruminations
I've got this issue right now and I'm just going to lay it out here with my own ruminations on the topic because it's weighing heavily. Back in January my wife and I both had COVID. It was really pointless in our case. She had a fever for a day and lost her sense of taste and smell for a few months and nothing more. In my case I was completely and totally asymptomatic. I was tested afterward and had the antibodies, but that was the only effect. So she and I are both immune to COVID ... the natural way. Get the vaccine? Why? We already know how it works. Our bodies already have better immunity than the vaccine could provide. Why? No thanks.
Well, you've been watching things progress, I'm sure. The prevailing winds are that you either get vaccinated or just plan to die. No work, no food, no medical care, nothing. Loser. No, not all, but it is not a small number and it is not declining. People are outraged that Texas Governor Abbott said we should all get vaccinated, but it shouldn't be forced. "Shouldn't be forced??!! Yes, it should!" The president's plan is to do an end-around on the law and get OSHA to require all companies with at least 100 employees to require vaccinations. He's already mandated that all federally connected employers vaccinate 100%. But I live in Arizona and Governor Ducey outlawed mandating masks or vaccines, so I was fine here. Or so I thought.
It came down last week that since I work for an organization that has some contracts with the federal government, everyone connected with this organization can either get vaccinated or go find a job elsewhere, thank you very much. "But, I'm already immune!" Nope, we'll have none of that. "But, what about exemptions?" Yes, they are allowing exemptions. If you can show (with doctor's proof) that you physically cannot tolerate the vaccine or can give a religious reason you shouldn't have to take it, there will be unnamed "accommodations."
Here's my problem. I have no medical reasons and I don't have a religious reason not to get vaccinated. I've looked in my Bible and it's not there. I've seen others' arguments and they fall woefully short of "biblical." Now, I could use one of theirs, perhaps, but then I'd violate several biblical principles (like honesty, integrity, etc.), so that makes no sense. And my sharp misgivings about the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine compared to its potential harm is not allowed. "We don't care what facts you bring or what convictions you have. You either bow the knee or go hungry." And that's a problem for me on its own. I know some who are "bravely" saying, "Well, if that's the way it is, then I'll go hungry." They're counting on the kindness of others to get them through. But wouldn't that put me in the "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10) category? Great! Violating another biblical principle.
Now, I could retire from this job (at about 2/3rds of what I'm currently making) and hope to find another that doesn't require vaccines, but that's a hope, not a certainty. "God will protect you." Well, maybe, except that I can't point to anything that says, "God doesn't want you to get vaccinated," so I can't conclude that God will protect me for obeying Him rather than men since He didn't tell me not to get vaccinated.
Scripture doesn't help. Nothing tells me anything about this vaccine. Science doesn't help. Science tells us, "It's our best hope" even though only about 10% of the population have gotten sick and less than 2% of those have died and science indicates that immunity from having recovered from COVID lasts potentially years while the vaccine offers maybe 6 months before you get your next booster. (What's the plan - biannual boosters for life?) We don't know the long term effects and the whole thing is a grand new experiment on how to vaccinate and we all know that you can still get COVID and you can still spread COVID and you can still die from COVID, but all of that means nothing. Shut up and take this shot ... or else.
Well, I'm still not settled. I don't know what to do. I've been considering retirement for a couple of years. Maybe God is telling me, "Now!" I've had difficulties with this job for years and maybe God is telling me, "I've got something better for you. Go!" I'm tired of asking questions like "Why?" and "What about these concerns and those studies and all the disclaimers?" and "Why can't Big Pharma be held responsible?" and so on. There are legal questions and science questions and questions of liberty and ... but, I may just have to get used to questions in life that won't be answered and realize that I no longer live in a free country. Get over it. I don't know. I just don't know.
Well, you've been watching things progress, I'm sure. The prevailing winds are that you either get vaccinated or just plan to die. No work, no food, no medical care, nothing. Loser. No, not all, but it is not a small number and it is not declining. People are outraged that Texas Governor Abbott said we should all get vaccinated, but it shouldn't be forced. "Shouldn't be forced??!! Yes, it should!" The president's plan is to do an end-around on the law and get OSHA to require all companies with at least 100 employees to require vaccinations. He's already mandated that all federally connected employers vaccinate 100%. But I live in Arizona and Governor Ducey outlawed mandating masks or vaccines, so I was fine here. Or so I thought.
It came down last week that since I work for an organization that has some contracts with the federal government, everyone connected with this organization can either get vaccinated or go find a job elsewhere, thank you very much. "But, I'm already immune!" Nope, we'll have none of that. "But, what about exemptions?" Yes, they are allowing exemptions. If you can show (with doctor's proof) that you physically cannot tolerate the vaccine or can give a religious reason you shouldn't have to take it, there will be unnamed "accommodations."
Here's my problem. I have no medical reasons and I don't have a religious reason not to get vaccinated. I've looked in my Bible and it's not there. I've seen others' arguments and they fall woefully short of "biblical." Now, I could use one of theirs, perhaps, but then I'd violate several biblical principles (like honesty, integrity, etc.), so that makes no sense. And my sharp misgivings about the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine compared to its potential harm is not allowed. "We don't care what facts you bring or what convictions you have. You either bow the knee or go hungry." And that's a problem for me on its own. I know some who are "bravely" saying, "Well, if that's the way it is, then I'll go hungry." They're counting on the kindness of others to get them through. But wouldn't that put me in the "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10) category? Great! Violating another biblical principle.
Now, I could retire from this job (at about 2/3rds of what I'm currently making) and hope to find another that doesn't require vaccines, but that's a hope, not a certainty. "God will protect you." Well, maybe, except that I can't point to anything that says, "God doesn't want you to get vaccinated," so I can't conclude that God will protect me for obeying Him rather than men since He didn't tell me not to get vaccinated.
Scripture doesn't help. Nothing tells me anything about this vaccine. Science doesn't help. Science tells us, "It's our best hope" even though only about 10% of the population have gotten sick and less than 2% of those have died and science indicates that immunity from having recovered from COVID lasts potentially years while the vaccine offers maybe 6 months before you get your next booster. (What's the plan - biannual boosters for life?) We don't know the long term effects and the whole thing is a grand new experiment on how to vaccinate and we all know that you can still get COVID and you can still spread COVID and you can still die from COVID, but all of that means nothing. Shut up and take this shot ... or else.
Well, I'm still not settled. I don't know what to do. I've been considering retirement for a couple of years. Maybe God is telling me, "Now!" I've had difficulties with this job for years and maybe God is telling me, "I've got something better for you. Go!" I'm tired of asking questions like "Why?" and "What about these concerns and those studies and all the disclaimers?" and "Why can't Big Pharma be held responsible?" and so on. There are legal questions and science questions and questions of liberty and ... but, I may just have to get used to questions in life that won't be answered and realize that I no longer live in a free country. Get over it. I don't know. I just don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)