Bus Fare

I just got an email from a friend that moved me to post its contents. If you haven't seen it, I hope it blesses you.

A lesson we should never forget:

Several years ago, a preacher from out-of-state accepted a call to a church in Houston, Texas. Some weeks after he arrived, he had an occasion to ride the bus from his home to the downtown area. When he sat down, he discovered that the driver had accidentally given him a quarter too much change. As he considered what to do, he thought to himself, 'You'd better give the quarter back. It would be wrong to keep it.' Then he thought, 'Oh, forget it, it's only a quarter. Who would worry about this little amount? Anyway, the bus company gets too much fare; they will never miss it.

Accept it as a 'gift from God' and keep quiet.

When his stop came, he paused momentarily at the door, and then he handed the quarter to the driver and said, 'Here, you gave me too much change '

The driver, with a smile, replied, 'Aren't you the new preacher in town?'

'Yes' he replied.

'Well, I have been thinking a lot lately about going somewhere to worship. I just wanted to see what you would do if I gave you too much change. I'll see you at church on Sunday.'

When the preacher stepped off of the bus, he literally grabbed the nearest light pole, held on, and said, 'Oh God, I almost sold your Son for a quarter.'

Our lives are the only Bible some people will ever read. This is a really scary example of how much people watch us as Christians, and will put us to the test! Always be on guard -- and remember -- You carry the name of Christ on your shoulders when you call yourself 'Christian.'

Quick Thought on Evolution

This just passed through my head (as a lot does - mostly wind) in regards to Evolutionary Theory. Please let me know if anyone else you know of has thought of it previously or if there are flaws in my logic or if it is unclear, which I am positive it will be - this is quickly thought out and quickly written:

One of the most pivotal of Evolution's tenets is that of Natural Selection. Creationists do not argue Natural Selection insofar as it describes "the survival of the fittest," or "adaptation over time" but do make the point - and a very valid one I do believe - that Natural Selection cannot create information, merely weed out that which is useless or, at least no longer used (or not needed in a specific location at a specific time, e.g. long fur coats in the tropics). Creationists and ID'ers note that all change from any one species to another within the same family ("Equine Poppa" to horse, zebra or donkey) is a loss of genetic information. One may find a useless fin here or there, but its always on a fish, never a tapir. Men have nipples, yes, but it would look mighty funny if we didn't. My point is, we see useless things occasionally, but never something that actually bears tremendous potential. Natural Selection supposedly gets rid of what we do not use therefore "whittling us up" to ever slightly larger potentials by whittling out the unused or unprofitable.

This point pops up a lot in discussions, and rightly so. There is no proof whatsoever of any mutation ever giving us a gain in information. Sorry, Wolverine's "healing factor" remains in the realm of comics and Hollywood. What has popped into my head is that, well, even if something terrifically useful were formed by mutation/chance/alien space bats it's usefulness would be in direct proportion to how much it was put to use. We don't see bumblebees with wings that, aeronautically speaking, could allow the creature to fly at hundreds of miles an hour but the creatures just don't do so... that seems ludicrous and real evolutionary scientists would tell you that just isn't the way evolution works.

One might say, but look at the potential the human body has! Look at the human mind! We only use 10 to 20 percent of that! Think of the potential! [Editor's note: the 10% theory is a myth - but I don't think it means "power" so much as "potential" anyway.]

Bingo.

We might see chimpanzees who can be taught to ride a bicycle, but I don't know any chimpanzees that can make a bicycle. Ironically, the human mind is far more powerful than any of us know (or possibly can know), and certainly if it were to come about during a thousand millennia through chance, adaptation and environment, it would still not be the wonder we see now. Even by Evolutionists own standards, mutation and natural selection would only allow a brain of fractionally more potential that what we currently use.

How can Evolution therefore account for the sheer immensity of the human mind, especially in regards to its seemingly unlimited potential? The Creationist standpoint that the mind of Man was designed as such by a Being who wished to make Man in His own image does not seem so incredible now.

Miyuki's Questions

Reference to Miyuki's Question on Facebook:

Ah, this can get really deep here. You are asking questions that can be answered easily and naively, or that can be expounded into truths so profound as to change your very being.

1) When you hear "church" what do you think of?

"Church" in the sense that you have put it in quotation marks makes me think you no longer assume it is a "place or building" - but you assume most people do. I read about half of those who answered thought as much as well. Church is "the Body of Christ." The eternal, catholic (ie, universal) and incorruptible community of believers throughout the history of God's people.
That is why Paul refers to us as members of the body. As in a body part, each with his/her own ability and duty and personality, different from others, but of one heart, one head. Christ.
It is also described as the "Bride of Christ." One of the most profound and visual images of the Church. An image that should denote that if our "marriage" to Christ is full, we should see products of our love, "children." More family members.

2) What is your definition of a Christian?

See above. First used by Paul to describe the community of believers. But that is a difficult question. Defining that is presuming to judging others - a fine difference from discerning. That is why it isn't really so tightly laid down in the Bible other than saying "One who professes Christ Jesus with their lips."
But lets say it like Christ Himself said it; "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Matt 12:50) and again, "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) that is a Christian. Abiding in Christ - having a living faith in the living God through Jesus Christ.

3) What do you think the role of a Christian is?

Are you asking what are our jobs? Dunno. We each have our own. If you mean in the most basic sense, then we are told right out, "Go, and make disciples of all men!" If God were speak straight out of Heaven, I doubt half the people in the world who are Christians now would even listen. And if He came in undisguised, then no one could even comprehend, but fall on our faces and all of reality would melt away (thats basically what the end of time will be like according to Revelation) but if He comes as man, as someone you can relate to and be with and count on, than He must be limited to a space just like us. If you didn't have the choice to believe, then you wouldn't have the choice to love either. God values your choices. So, he leaves it us, those who believe to spread the love. For it is a relationship He is seeking with you. How else to have a relationship if not to relate to others. Our duty and desire is therefore to "love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbor as ourself."

4) What is love?

You should read CS Lewis' "Four Loves" - very good reading. The short answer? Love is giving another what you have that they need. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16 emphasis added)
Love is not to be confused with God. God is Love, but love is not God. Just because someone does something in love does not make it "good." Love with out justice, mercy, faithfulness, the laws of nature or humility is a demon that we sometimes call pride, lust or greed. Love of self, love of money, homosexuality, are all horrors that come from not abiding in the fullness of Love.
Affection, Eros, Friendship, Charity. These are the four great loves.

5) What is good?

You like difficult questions don't you? It would be easier to ask what is evil.
Good is the fullness of the Universe, the fullness of God, for only God is good, right?
Evil is simply the lack of good, as darkness is simply the lack of light. Good IS while evil IS NOT. Taken in these terms, everything that God made was pronounced "good" was it not? It is either by taking something apart from the rest or a piece of something broken from the fullness of its purpose that makes it "not-good."
For instance, you asked what love is? Love is good. Marriage is love's great reward. A promise before God, to another person. Friendship, affection, charity and eros, shared with the faithfulness of vows.
Divorce breaks the vows, steals the friendship and disrespects the parties involved.

Doing good can be many things. Sin on the other hand falls in two contexts. Sins of omission, and sins of commission. It can be defined fairly simply:
Taking a thing and twisting it, commission - a truth twisted, a promise broken, a good thing done at the wrong time, or in the wrong way. eg. Eating too much (gluttony), having sex outside of marriage (fornication), taking something that you didn't work for (theft).
OR in not doing it at all, omission - not giving (greed), not caring (pride), not getting out of bed laziness)
Oh man, thats not a great answer. That would require a book of several volumes. (About 66 volumes in fact...)

The Great Debate?

A terribly volatile subject:
It is most embarrassing, though probably shouldn't be, to Christians when a politician professes a profound "faith in God" and then proceeds pandering to the opposite, blatantly immoral side, exploiting both to win votes.

I say its embarrassing because to those voters (or mere onlookers) lost in the limbo of not knowing what to believe, it appears as though Christians, all of us, are hypocrites - or at least instead of standing for an ideal, we play hopscotch around it. Also, more so in the US than in other countries, "faith in God" to many means "faith in Jesus Christ." Not necessarily so.

I also add that we shouldn't be so embarrassed because what are we to expect? Honestly, we all do it on some level, why not particularly so when the stakes are so high? The more (potential) power you have, the higher the (potential) temptation. How much more power can you get in this world at this time than being President of the USA. Aside from that, just because one says they are faithful doesn't really prove anything. Lets see some of it in action, buddy. "So also, Faith without works is dead." (Jas 2:17)

The recent forum in Pennsylvania, a faith forum at that, offered Clinton and Obama both the opportunity to profess said "faith in God" and then answer questions offered up by leaders from several different faiths.
Go ahead and give that a read then pop back on over here and finish reading this.
.....
So? What do you think? If you are shocked, I will say you are naive. But what grabs my attention is that, even in the news was it seen as a blatant and shameless bid for votes. I would say that Clinton sounds like the tongue of Satan himself, except that the devil isn't usually so transparent or dumb. Potential for life? Obama had the stuffings to say that he didn't know. Maybe he doesn't, but it still sounds like a cop-out to me.

Lets get on the same page here. Are we all speaking American English or what? What do they mean by life? Potential for life? That egg cell is alive and that sperm certainly is as well. Those are alive. Ah, do you mean, is it capable of sustaining life on its own without help from another? No. But lets not be coy, neither are you.

Do they mean life in the sense of a soul "being made?" Is there a soul there? Ah, there is the big debate.

Remember these guys are saying they have "faith in God." If we say that a soul comes into being with the first breath of life, well, as plausible in some circles as that may be, we know it isn't true Biblically. King David says so humbly in Psalm 51:5 that he was a sinner from the moment his mother conceived him.
So we must insist that the soul is poured into our being at the onset, given by God at the melding of the love between our parents, or even, in the basest of circumstances, the rape of our mother. Well, should we then fall into the Catholic boat of all intercourse being sacred and no contraceptives allowed?

Who is to say it isn't? Of course it is! Everything we have should be taken as sacred! Eating, drinking, playing. Talking to your neighbor. God pronounced all of His creation, "good." As my favorite writer (whom I imagine you all know) once said, 'Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest thing presented to your senses.' Since we take all these too lightly, what is stopping us from taking this great moment 'as two become one' so? Was the Lord not angry when Onan spilled himself on the ground because he knew that any offspring born of his brother's widow would not carry his name? Read Gen. 38:9. Apparently the Lord finds it sacred.*

The act may be (thank you, good and wise Lord) pleasurable, but it's God who gives life, so even when done for "enjoyment," if He so deems to give life, then it is His deeming. When it is done with blatant disregard to the fruits that said action may bring, you are not only being flippant with life itself but disrespectful of God. Whether someone was raped or whether it was planned out to the last detail, who are we to take any life so capriciously? If I'm not mistaken, I think we have invaded countries because people have been capricious with life.

I won't be a hypocrite. I am guilty of this - terribly so. More so than even I, myself, am capable of knowing or understanding. I am a proud and foolishly thoughtless man guilty of every sin. Since then, if I trust my life to Christ, then it is His light that must shine, not mine, nor anyone else's.
On the other hand, I'm not running for office, and those who do so I hope will follow out their thoughts to the end of the line. For certain not all the voters will do so, but many will. Christians and non-Christians alike. So, come on folks, lets be clear where we stand, for one thing or another. Pandering to every whim only makes for blathering fools. You cannot serve two masters, and Christians should know that.

*I like Shane Claiborne's footnote to this issue of abortion from "The Irresistible Revolution": "...if I'm going to discourage abortion, I had better be ready to adopt some babies and care for some mothers." There is a lot to that, but not everything is contained within it. There are orphanages and care centers - most run by Christians. That doesn't mean that only the people who work there have a right to speak out on the subject, but it might be said we listened to them a bit more than to those of us who don't.

Apologetics...

From JS
I'm new to Bible study, and can't offer much, but Catholic dogmas like the Papacy just don't have Scripture to back them up. The same with the perpetual virginity of Mary, mass, and so on. Indeed Catholics twist select verses to 'fit' their views, and to make their lies believable they go so far as to say the Pope is inerrant when explaining Scripture (a dogma also achieved through twisting verses). The Catholic church says if you don't believe what they say (their dogmas) then you are destined for hell. Hmm. OK, so imagine you gave a Bible to someone who has no idea what the Catholic church is. From reading the entire Bible it is utterly impossible for that person to even KNOW about these supposedly saving dogmas since Scripture backs none of them up. That suggests that the Bible is not enough to save a person, which contradicts many of the passages in it.

Why would God give us the Bible if it is useless without that additional material proposed by Popes? And if you accepted these additions which, as James points out, first came into being in the 300's, then what do you make of the final verses of Revelation which warn against anybody who adds or takes away from the Bible? If a Catholic thinks he can add stuff then that presumes that God lied in those verses, which contradicts the verse which says God is incapable of lying.

To believe the Catholic viewpoint is to believe in human knowledge being necessary to understand the Bible rather than God (as if God failed in being coherent, and without human intervention, we're all doomed). But the exact middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."