Why I Love Money

I've been horrible when it comes to organizing our finances, but recently all that has changed. I've begun using personal finance software.

For a while I tried Intuit's Quicken, which is an excellent product, but, against my wishes, Microsoft has the better product for me: MS Money 2005.

I hate saying "Thank You" to Microsoft, because I'm pretty much anti-Microsoft (for the Redmond-based company is the Evil Empire from which Linux must deliver us). But . . . thanks, Microsoft (ugh!).

With Money, I quickly set up a budget that will work for me. It tells me what bills need to be paid when, and how much. It reports where all our money goes. On its start page it even tells me with a bar chart how close I am to reaching my preset monthly spending limit when it comes to groceries, dining out, and miscellaneous costs.

After every session, Money 2005 backs up my data to an external storage device of my choosing, so I don't have to worry if my computer crashes (MS Windows would never do that, would it?).

Having been the classic procrastinator when it comes to doing the checkbook, now I can't wait to receive our bills in the mail so I can crank out the payments that are already budgeted. I'm sure that feeling will pass soon, but at least now I won't dread taking care of our finances, because I will track it well and with the greatest amount of ease.

Also, tonight I enrolled in our bank's online services, so all of our up-to-the-minute information is at my fingertips.

Even with these marvels of technology, my mom does all of her checkbooking and bill paying by hand, using a skill she learned in school called "math." I don't know how she does it, but I'm sure she still does it better than me. Maybe some people don't need the computer crutch, but I definitely need Money.

Why I Don't Play With Jeff

Even though it's tempting, I'm not going to bother answering emails from Jeff.

He sent a couple of anonymous emails, signed "A friend," to my old email account before identifying himself as Jeff a few weeks ago. As a former Catholic, he has been trying to point me to some anti-Catholic writings on the Web. I read what he sends, and if he was serious I would be happy to correspond with him.

The problem is that his name is not Jeff, and he was never Catholic. I won't correspond with Jeff as long as he calls himself Jeff, or seeks anonymity, or makes up stuff. If someone has to play games by sneaking "the truth" across, I'm not going to participate -- despite my morbid curiosity.

What bugs me is that, in real life, this person (yes, I know who he is) will not discuss our differences because he believes the Bible teaches us not to "argue religion." While I would dispute even that, I can accept his refusal to discuss Christianity at any depth, because I have no choice. But I can't understand thinking it's okay to challenge another's views only if it's done anonymously via email.

I do appreciate his concern for me -- and I know his concern is genuine -- but I would prefer even greater genuineness. Truth is strong enough to stand on its own, without any help from untruth.

"Threw the Truth Away"?

A commenter who identifies himself as "Cbuser" had this to say after reading some of my blogs:

Purgatory isn't Biblical, just as Catholicism and it's holidays are not Biblical, just as their paganistic rituals at their "Christ Mass" is not Biblical. I saw children placing flowers in front of an idol of the baby Jesus (like anyone knows what he looked like). Looks pagan to me, and since I am a former pagan, I believe that I know what I am talking about. Activities like that are pure idolatry and break the commandment that says to not bow down or to worship any idols.
I find it difficult to believe that you threw the truth away for such iniquity. I pray that your thoughts will change, and your heart as well.
Peace,
Cbuser

I'm not clear why I should abandon my thoughts concerning Catholicism and its holidays. Is it a "pagan ritual" to place flowers around a statue of the newborn Jesus?

If so, what about placing flowers at the gravestone of a deceased loved one? Is that worshiping the dead? Or is the intent not to honor the person who is represented by the gravestone?

Is it okay to carry around a picture of your spouse, and even kiss it when you think of her during a business trip?

Is it okay to have a gigantic statue of Abraham Lincoln in Washington D.C., and to visit it to honor his place in history?

Can we salute the American flag and "pledge allegience" to it?

Anyone who actually worships a statue or representation of any kind -- even of Jesus -- is breaking the First Commandment, which forbids idolatry or the worship of any thing or any person other than the one, true Creator God. To do so is patently contrary to Catholic teaching. Should I change my mind about the First Commandment?

"Cbuser" alleges to be a former pagan. I'd like to know what kind of paganism celebrates the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became flesh. Is this the official doctrine of "pagans"? Or is Cbuser looking at surface-level similarities between pagan practices and Christian ones?

There are pagans who practice a form of meditation. So do Christians. Is Christian meditation therefore "pagan"? If there is a pagan rite that involves the use of water, does that make Christian baptism "pagan"? If there are Eastern religions that have a "holy book," does that mean the notion of Sacred Scripture is "pagan"? All this gets to be pretty silly, looking for superficial similarities in order to brand Christian practices with the "pagan" label.

If we insist on looking at the superficial, why not look at the other details? The Bible speaks of a Baby named Jesus, born of a virgin. Others visited Him and brought Him gifts. The angels in heaven rejoiced in song. Many other such words and details are associated with the observance of Christmas. According to Cbuser's logic, why don't these things make Christmas "biblical"?

It all boils down to this: When judging a practice, one must look at its heart, not its skin. A certain color of lipstick may be worn by both a chaste woman and a filthy prostitute, but the two women are fundamentally different. Their lip color means little. The two women are not cut from the same cloth.

When you strip away the seasonal decorations, and especially the commercialism that has invaded it, Christmas is a holy day that celebrates the Coming of Christ. That is the heart of it. And there is no scripture that condemns the celebration of Jesus' birth; the Bible only shows it to be worthy of celebration (Luke 1-2). If Sacred Scripture condemned the celebration of Jesus' birth, then the Catholic Church would condemn it as well.

PS: I do know what the baby Jesus looked like: a very tiny, adorable Jewish person.

Quick Thought: Role of Preacher vs. Priest

So often, we hear the criticism that Catholics depend so heavily on their priest, who, after all, is just a man and does not affect their relationship with Christ.

Yet, ironically, many non-Catholics will quit their church or stop attending altogether because they don't like or trust their preacher. They are tired of boring sermons, visible sins, or bad administration.

What does that say about whose leaders' sins, personalities, or habits more negatively affect whose relationships with Christ?

Even if a priest gives boring sermons or doesn't even speak English well, a faithful Catholic remains faithful because the priest retains the authority to offer the Eucharist, which is the central component of the community's worship.

Happy Thanksgiving to Family and Friends

My dad wrote and emailed this Thanksgiving greetings to family and friends. I'm passing it along to you as well:

Why are we Thankful? We are thankful to know and to have a relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ our Savior and our soon coming King. We are thankful to have the privilege to be a part of His great Family. We are thankful for being called into His great truth. We love everyone dearly and are looking forward to spending our eternal life with all. We thank Him for His awesome, wonderful Word, for without it none of us would achieve eternal life. We are thankful for the many blessings He has bestowed upon us, our family, and our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are thankful for the nourishment He provides for our bodies as well as the Spiritual nourishment He provides for our minds. We are thankful for this beautiful green earth He has prepared for us to live on and live off of. We are thankful for the angels He has provided us for protection, and the many other things they do that we know nothing about. We are thankful for the Beautiful Feast and Holy Days He has given us to know His Plan and to keep together. We are thankful for our children and our grandchildren and their well being. We are thankful for our good health and longevity. We are even thankful for our pets. We are thankful we can lay down every night in a wonderful warm bed with a roof over our heads and can at will turn the heat up or down, whichever pleases us. So many do not. We are thankful to have running cold and hot water at our disposal at any time. So many do not. We are thankful for transportation to and from wherever we want to go. So many can not. We are thankful for the freedom to go and come any time we desire. We are thankful for the freedom to think things out and to make our own decisions each and every day. We are thankful for just waking up each morning and opening our eyes knowing this will be another glorious day we have and can follow His holy spirit to help us through all things, whether they be good or bad. We are thankful for so many "little" things: that we can see and hear and walk and talk. We are thankful to know that through all the the trials and tribulations it will turn out all right in the end. We are so thankful to know if we lose a loved one we will one day be reunited with them again. We are thankful for all of you, who through email keep in touch and keep our relationship going. And not least, we are so very thankful for living in the glorious land of liberty and for all of our men and women in uniform who will not be in a warm bed, with a roof over their heads and will not sit down to a wonderful thanksgiving dinner. We are thankful for their bravery and love of God, their country and family to want to keep it free and safe. Thank God Almighty and all of you for making this life of ours so joyous and such a pleasure to wake up to each day. God Bless you all. May He be with you always as you love and follow Him. May we all pause and reflect upon these things as we give thanks to the Giver of all good gifts. Count your blessings... and have wonderful and safe Thanksgiving.

From the heart and with much love,
Lloyd 'n' Gail

Justification Debate

If you have an extra 2 hours and 48 minutes to spare, listen to this debate between Fr. Mitchell Pacwa and James R. White on the subject of "Justification by Faith Alone." I'm listening to it now. Good stuff.

EXCELLENT New Blog Site

Vance Stinson's is an excellent Q&A-style Christian apologetics blog site, updated regularly -- probably daily. Bookmark it, but don't forget mine either!

"Whether or Not"

This blog site is not strictly religious or political. This entry might fall under the category of "musings." And it's not very deep.

When writing, I try to avoid the phrase "whether or not," even though it's commonly used. It seems redundant. Doesn't the word "whether" already imply "or not-ness"?

For example, look at these sentences:

1. Does it matter whether or not I leave the toilet seat up?
2. Does it matter whether I leave the toilet seat up?

Both sentences mean the same thing, but the second is more efficient.

Sometimes it's not that easy. Try this one:

1. You're going to finish your supper, young man, whether you like it or not!
2. You're going to finish your supper, young man, whether you like it!

The first sentence makes sense, but not the second. In such cases, I have succumbed to using "or not."

Out of stubornness, however, I've found ways around it. In my blog entry about purgatory, I originally wrote,

Whether or not you've defined it for yourself, most likely you believe in a "purgatory" of sorts . . .

But after a short struggle, I finally came up with,

No matter whether you've defined it for yourself, most likely you believe in a "purgatory" of sorts . . .

This gave me a strange satisfaction. While it's no shorter, still I beat that miserable "or not" -- even though it was begging to hang out with "whether."

William Zinnser, author of On Writing Well, rightly declares, "Clutter is the disease of American writing." Whether or not you agree with that diagnosis is your business, but it's something I try to remember. Usually.

Dirty Liberal (link to blog site)

Dirty Liberal

Purgatory: Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice

I have three questions about the afterlife for my Christian readers:

1. Do you believe that most of us, even if we're "good people," die as sinners, functionally speaking?
2. If so, do you believe that we will never again sin once our earthly life is over and our eternal life with God begins?
3. And if so, how do you explain our future definitive transition from sinner to saint?

We don't freqently ponder the third question. We just "know" that some way, somehow, we will be miraculously transformed to reflect God's holiness. We won't only be sinless in a mere legal sense, but in the truest practical sense.

While no one knows exactly how it will happen, the Catholic Church gives this mysterious "spiritual makeover" a name: purgatory.

No matter whether you've defined it for yourself, most likely you believe in a "purgatory" of sorts -- a purging of the last traces of sin on your soul. However it happens. Whatever you call it.

The Catholic Church does not offer a detailed list of dogmatic declarations concerning this state of transition. Instead, the doctrine of purgatory, which she faithfully transmits, emphasizes the perfect mercy and perfect justice of God.

Is it perfect mercy for a person with an Adolph-Hitler lifestyle to spend eternity in God's presence if he makes a sincere deathbed repentance? No doubt.

Is it perfect justice for the same person to have it "just as easy" as the person whose worst sin in life was to receive ten cents' too much change from a Wal-Mart cashier and not return it? No way. Jesus says that the day of judgment will be "more bearable" for some than for others (Matthew 10:15).

These two attributes of God -- mercy and justice -- are perfectly showcased in purgatory.

Here is a simple explanation of purgatory, as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man." (paragraphs 1472-1473, emphasis mine)

The book of Revelation tells us what we already know -- that when the "New Jerusalem" arrives, "Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful" (21:27). Unless we die without the stains of sin on our soul, we'll have to achieve purity somehow.

The idea of purgatory is that God, in His mercy, will clean us up (spiritually speaking) before we can enter the glorified Kingdom. Even if we haven't turned our backs on God and gone the other direction, His holiness demands that we be cleansed of all sins -- even so-called "little sins." It's not enough for God to "cover" our sins, or pretend they're not there; His ultimate goal is to convert us from our sins, so that they suffer literal extinction.

The underlying principle of purgatory is explained in Hebrews 12:10-11:

Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

This kind of "discipline" happens here on earth, but can also apply -- no, must apply -- to purgatorial cleansing.

A child's buttocks may sting after a spanking, but it's a sting of love (cf. Prov. 23:13-14). Cleaning out a wound can be painful, but it is necessary if it is to heal. We can understand these everyday truths, but they should help us understand God's spiritual remedies for our disease of sin.

If Jesus "learned obedience from what he suffered" (Heb. 5:8), then surely we who sin must suffer in some way to achieve eternal righteousness.

Consider God's marvelous mercy! Purgatory is not a third destination for departed souls; it is the entry way to heaven. Without exception, all who enter purgatory will one day find themselves in heaven -- that is, face-to-face with God in eternity. They may temporarily have to endure the pain of waiting for that day, but be assured, it won't hurt like hell.

To avoid these purgatorial sufferings, we should strive for a more perfect bond with God in this lifetime. But just in case we don't reach a sinless state now, we can find comfort knowing that our infinitely merciful God will burn away the chaff of our sin with the fire of His love (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11-15), leaving behind the new man God created in us .

Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition

*

I received another email from a "a friend" who wishes to remain anonymous:

an intersting link concerning Roman Catholicism, the Bible,

and Tradition.

http://www.raptureready.us/catholicism.htm

a friend

Yes, it is an intersting link, particularly the first section of the article which "a friend" wants me to read: "Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition." It's a much more fair and reasonable treatment of the subject than what was sent to me before.)

The gist of the writer's view is well stated in these two paragraphs:

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. [Emphasis mine.]

Most Protestants, if they are honest, will admit to holding to some tradition. Why else would they observe Sunday as their day of community worship? There is no explicit statement in Scripture to do so. Neither does the Bible clearly state the Trinititarian dogmas (i.e., one God in three Persons, each of whom is fully God--with Jesus being one Person but having two natures, human and divine). The majority of Protestantism, however, still believes them.

Why?

Because while the Trinity doctrine, for example, is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, the doctrine does not contradict it. There's no room for God to be anything else once you cancel out all the heretical views.

• He can't be two or three Gods, because Scripture, Tradition, and good philosophy say there can only be one.
• God can't be the Father alone, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are also called "God."
• God, in His essence, can't have length and width, because such physical dimensions presuppose a physical creation. Since He created all things seen and unseen, He cannot have bodily composition -- for He IS the Composer.

Anti-Trinitarians frequently say the doctrine is confused and contradictory. But they're wrong. If it was said that there were three Gods in one God, that would be a contradiction. But the Trinity teaches that there is ONE God Being (that which always existed, is omnicient, omnipresent, etc.). This state of Being -- that which eternally IS -- is shared by three who have relationship with each other. To borrow a phrase, you could say that God is "One What and Three Whos." That's how Jesus, while on earth, could pray to His Father. Both are Creator God, but there is a subject-object distinction here -- a relationship. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. They are all one in Being, but three in Persons that relate to one another.

The truth is, any other explanation contradicts Scripture and sound reasoning.

But guess what? This widely accepted, fundamental Christian teaching is plain, old-fashioned Tradition, with a capital "T" -- not to be confused with minor little-"t" traditions, such as praying with one's fingers interlaced, observing certain fast days, or crossing oneself. While belief in the Trinity is not derived from explicit declarative statements in the Bible (as if the Bible were written as an exhaustive theological treatise in topical format), it does not contradict Scripture. The consistent Tradition of the Church fills in the cracks. (Incidentally, the Bible itself is the product of Sacred Tradition.)

We see that the problem arises from people saying that the Church's Sacred Tradition opposes Scripture when in fact it does not. This is the same problem faced by the Church in the days of Acts 15 during the circumcision controversy. Some of the Christian believers were saying, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses [synonymous with the law of God, or Word of God]" (verse 5). Yet we all agree that the apostles' decision did not contradict Scripture, and that the decision was binding on all believers everywhere.

Another thought: Even in my own religious background, we observed the Lord's Supper by eating bread and drinking wine and washing each other's feet. With an incorrect understanding but with the best of intentions, we emphasized that not one jot or tittle would ever pass from the Law (Matt. 5:17); yet, compared to the Passover of the Old Testament, our service was on the wrong day, held at the wrong place, did not involve the killing of a literal lamb, etc. One could argue that Jesus never said we should stop observing the Passover laws when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Scripture never says that our bread-and-wine service is to replace the Passover observance. Can't we see that the Bible, while inspired and infallible, was not written as a comprehensive Handbook for the Complete Christian? We can't artificially divorce Scripture and Tradition.

The same Spirit that moved in Jerusalem during the first Church Council also moved in the Church throughout history -- to our time now. The early Church's understanding of Scripture and Tradition continues to serve as a model for us today.

_____________
* The Bible pictured above is identical to the one I use, minus the tabbed index. It's a Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, published by Sceptre Press.

Dear Anonymous Friend

A friend wrote me this email:

Darren  please read dear catholic friend at the like below.

I hope it helps

you.  a friend



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/dear_catholi



c_friend_john_rice.htm





------------------------------------------------------------

This email was sent through the free email service at

http://www.anonymous.to/

Sign up for your free account today!

The link goes to an online book called "Dear Catholic Friend," by Dr. John R. Rice, a self-professed fundamentalist Baptist. Interested in what my friend sent, I read it in one sitting.

I won't offer a full review of the why-you-shouldn't-be-Catholic book here (although it's tempting to do it one day), but for now I will offer just a few thoughts.

In so many words, Dr. Rice begins by saying that if you don't agree with his main views of what true Christianity is, then you don't have God's Spirit:

If in the heart you know Christ as Saviour, and if God's Spirit dwells in you, then God's Spirit will bear witness to you of the truth. And if there is no such witness, then I will conclude, of course, that you are in spiritual darkness. For we are told, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14). [Emphasis mine.]

He emphasizes that the reader doesn't have to agree with him in every detail, but only "the truth as it is in the Word of God, simple and plain, on major matters." I presume that, in his own authority, he decides what are the simple, plain, and major matters. So already we're led to follow his own rules.

Dr. Rice continues later:

You pretend to be for the Bible, to accept its authority. You even claim that you accept the authority of the church on the authority of the Bible. Then you must accept what Jesus said on the matter or accept His brand as a hypocrite on certain matters.

Again, the implication is that if we don't accept Dr. Rice's interpretation of "what Jesus said on the matter," then we're hypocrites. It is noble-sounding to say we should "accept what Jesus said" (who would argue against that?), but what if I think Dr. Rice is misunderstanding Jesus' words, "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16)?

Citizens of our country dispute the meaning of important sections of the clearly written Constitution, and it was written much more recently than any book of the Bible. It was even originally composed in English, and we have the original manuscript!

How can anyone claim that the essential teachings of Scripture are so plain to any honest seeker when so many honest seekers offer so many contradictory teachings?

The all-important, agreed-upon question in this matter is this: What is your authority? Basically there are two possible answers for the Christian:

1. I am my own interpretive authority. With the Spirit's guidance, I interpret (fallibly) the books that the Church in history has preserved and collated--the Bible. I will accept no one else's exposition of the Bible unless it agrees with my own interpretation (i.e., the explanation of its meaning), lest I be deceived. If I am wrong, the Spirit will correct me.
   
2. I believe in the divinely established teaching authority of the Church, whose teachings uphold and complement those certain books for which she claims divine inspiration and infallibility--the Bible. Her teachings are safeguarded and preserved by the Spirit, and are thus binding. This follows the pattern recorded in the Bible itself.

I'm not going to get involved in the sola Scriptura ("Bible alone") argument tonight, but I will refer the reader to a well-written, concise article by Catholic Answers on this subject entitled "Scripture and Tradition."

The most authoritative official document of the Catholic Church on divine revelation is entitled, simply, "Divine Revelation," or "Dei Verbum." You can read it here. It, especially, is well worth the read if you are to understand the Church's view of Scripture.

Dr. Rice may not realize the inherent practical difficulties of his Bible-alone stance, but he ought to know that his accusation of hypocrisy can just as easily be turned against him when he has to reason around (i.e., "receiveth not") all the "plain" Catholic-sounding verses of Scripture.

The Double-Minded Man

There have been times when I prayed variously for strength against temptation, for renewed love for God, for unshakable commitment to a spiritual discipline--any number of things--but I was fooling myself.

No, it was not so much "fooling" myself as it was lying to myself, and to God. These are the stupidest of all lies, because God is never fooled about my true intentions, and neither am I when I submit to an honest examination of conscience.

I reread the epistle of James the other night and could see myself in it. This passage is found in the first chapter:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. (James 1:5-8)

The lesson I drew from this is not that, in order to humbly come to the Lord in prayer, I must first have perfect, rock-solid faith. Such faith is a worthy goal, but it's not a realistic expectation for every stage of our spiritual development. If it were, spiritual "development" would have no meaning; we would already be fully developed.

No, what we need to do is open our hearts fully--truthfully--to God. We should peel back the layers of distraction and deceit to uncover our true intentions.

The double-minded man is not the same as the man who prayed,

I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief! (Mark 9:24)

The difference between the two men is a matter of the will.

The first man is dishonest. He's seeking God's intervention while feigning a desire to please him. He's really saying, "Lord, help me to stop my abusive drinking habit. May your Spirit guide me in my thoughts, and strengthen me against the temptation to -- oops! Hold on. My whiskey bottle just tipped over and I don't want it spilling here in the car."

The second man is sincere. His will is set to please God, not to indulge his vices. He says, "Lord, help me to stop my abusive drinking habit. I have poured all my liquor down the drain, I've disassociated myself from my drinking buddies, and I'm quitting my job as a wine taster. I know I can't do it on my own. I am weak, but you are strong. Please give me the strength to live a sober life."

If you pray for wisdom or anything else, but have "secret" plans for foolishness, God cannot grant your request. Until you change your mind about sin, until you truly desire to be God-oriented, you will be double-minded and unstable in all your ways.

Pray that God will root out all your hidden sins, so that you will find "truth in the inner parts" (Psalm 51:6).

What's Wrong With Being "Religious"?

Have you ever heard Christians boast that they're not "religious"? Christianity is not a "religion," they say; it's a "relationship."

If you use "religion" in the sense of meaningless motions, pointless prayers, and wearisome works, then it would be right to distance yourself from religion. Outward ritual, devoid of substance, is futile.

On the other hand, if you define "religion" as rendering to God the respect, adoration, and worship that is due to Him, then you should want to be immersed in it.

Baptismal water, for instance, is one thing into which we should want to be immersed. Outwardly, baptism is a purely physical, mechanical act of ritual. Yet it is commanded (not just recommended) of us. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter didn't say to just get wet; he said,

Repent AND be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Baptism is a physical act with spiritual effects.

The same is true of the Eucharist. Jesus said,

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

No doubt about it--the Lord's Supper is imperative to the Christian life. But its rewards are not attained simply by chewing and swallowing.

Paul warned,

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment (1 Cor. 11:26-31).

We, as Christians, must never separate form from substance. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:26). We mustn't eat the Body of Christ without doing so "worthily," but also we can't simply be worthy and not eat the Body of Christ. They go together.

Unfortunately, people tend to denigrate the formal "religion" of the Old Testament, yet that is where we first find the commandments to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourself (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). The Jewish religion's bad reputation came from the hypocrisy of its professed adherents, not from their careful obedience.

It is right along with all the animal sacrifices, priestly duties, and statutes in the Old Testament that we find the idea of relationship: "I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people" (Lev. 26:12).

This relationship continues, and is deepened, for New Testament believers. Christianity is not an overthrow of the religion of the Jews; it is the fulfillment, the perfection, of it. We have Jesus as our ultimate once-for-all sacrifice. We still have specially appointed men who perform the priestly duties of teaching and administering the sacraments. We still have disciplines and holy days to keep us focused on Christ, such as fasting, prayers, convocations, Christmas, Easter, and so on.

As for whether we should consider Christianity a "religion," Scripture sets a precedent:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27).

Relationship should be the basis of our religion, composed of body and spirit to form the whole.

Bush Audio: "Need Some Wood?"

"Need some wood?"--George W. Bush (in second debate with John Kerry).

Click the above quote to hear the MP3 clip. Hilarious . . . in an endearing way.

State-Imposed Morality?

NOTE:
A friend of mine posted a comment in response to my previous post. (Click here to see his point of view and to put this in context.) I'm not yet sure how to reply to a comment without creating a new post--unless I'm supposed to submit a comment of my own under my own post while discussing someone else's comment. I'll figure it out. In the meantime, here are my thoughts.


I sharply criticized what John Kerry had to say about abortion when he said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."

My friend Terry commented:

While I in [no] way support Senator Kerry for President, I find this a little absolutist. Yes, we need moral fortitude in a President (which Kerry doesn't have.) However, where is the seperation of church and state? What sort of things should be left to individuals and what sort should be left to the lawmakers?

The "wall of separation between Church and State" protected a church from being run by the state, and vice versa. This does not mean that reasonable, traditional, time-honored morals shouldn't be enforced by our government.

We have laws against murder and theft, and even adultery. True, these laws coincide with directly stated laws of God (according to those of us who believe in God), but at the same time they can be deduced by reasoning. They are part of the natural moral law that can be found within all people in all cultures.

This natural law that we possess always needs some polishing, some defining from without. Christians accept divine revelation as the ultimate expession of moral truth. But even the non-religious see the need for civil governments to draw moral boundaries if their society is to prosper--or even survive. It simply isn't enough to say, "Do that which is good" and let everyone run amuck.

It is vital to understand this concept: Religious doctrine can define morals for believers, but the codified teachings themselves are not the source or substance of morality. In other words, you could say there's a separation of Church and Morals. There's a definite distinction. Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many different religions upholding so many of the same morals.

This distinction is important because it shows that a society can legislate certain morals for the common good without enforcing a particular religion, or even an express belief in a timeless Creator at all.

There are sincere agnostics who abhor cruelty and murder. They fiercely defend the family's integrity and its role in society. They believe in freedom. While these are also "Christian teachings," they don't belong in the same category as the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Resurrection, or the Trinity. There is a natural law and a divine law.

Now what about abortion? It can be clearly reasoned and deduced that abortion is the termination of human life. The Bible nowhere says explicitly, "Abortion is a sin," but historic Christianity upholds this moral teaching nonetheless. I'm no expert on world religions, but I strongly suspect that Judaism and Islam teach the same.

Therefore, for a politician to vote his conscience against abortion is not to advocate Islam or Christianity; it is to promote life, and is consistent with the opening sentence of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These shared priorities (which are not distinctly "Christian") apply to all of us, no matter what stage of development we find our minds and bodies in--whether we are in the first few days of formation or in the last few days of life.

I say that protecting human life--even if we were to err on the side of caution--trumps the right to "reproductive health care" any day. And that belief doesn't arise only from my religious convictions, but also from my reasonable sense of morality instilled in me naturally as a human being.

One would expect John Kerry, a professed "Catholic," to feel the same when it comes to abortion.

What I Don't Like About "Christmas"

I grew up without Christmas. It wasn't until maybe four years ago when I officially celebrated my first Christmas, because until that time I viewed its observance as a vain "tradition of men" that arose from ancient Babylonian paganism.

I actually detested the decor, sights, and sounds of Christmas festivities, the kind that many others make special trips to see and hear. Out of conscience, I even refused to help set up a Christmas tree at the restaurant I worked for after high school. I wasn't going to participate in "the ways of the heathen."

Perhaps later I'll explain why I changed from seeing Christmas as a day of pagan worship to embracing it as a day worthy of angelic celebration. But there are still a couple of things popularly associated with Christmas that make me uncomfortable.

Santa Claus
There was never a day when I believed in the Santa Claus of folklore. I credit my parents for not fooling me into believing in a Santa, the Easter Bunny, or even the tooth fairy. Since my earliest memories, I've always understood the concept of fictional characters. Parents don't lead their children to believe that Batman or Daffy Duck are real-life characters; why, then, make an exception with Santa Claus, who is supposed to be associated with a religion--no, THE religion--of truth?

I have no problem with the idea of Santa himself (I'm not going to pounce on him with a flying sleeper-hold headlock next time I see him at the mall), but I'm not comfortable with those who would have a make-believe character be the main attraction of a festival central to the Christian faith.

The Spirit of "Gift-Getting"
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Jesus was born to give His life for us. This greatest Gift, this self-sacrificing love and concern for others, can be imitated (to an infinitely smaller degree) by our giving gifts to others at Christmastime. But when the practice of gift-giving is turned upside down, it becomes gift-getting. And the quality and quantity of gifts received become the criteria for how one answers the question, "So how was your Christmas?"

Prepare Now
Christmas is over two months away. But, believe it or not, now is the time to begin preparing for it--that is, if you want don't want this year's Christmas to be an unfulfilling and even unpleasant experience.

1. Stash some cash. Don't be foolish and go into debt just to give greedy credit-card companies a Christmas bonus. Save now and spend only what you have stored up for gifts. Don't make material goods the focus of the festivity, but make reasonable efforts to garnish the season with thoughtful gifts and decorations.
   
2. Make plans to avoid too many plans. If it's to be a merry Christmas, there's no sense in overextending yourself to the point of misery in order to make yourself and everyone else "happy." Learn to say no when too many demands are requested of your Christmastime schedule. Sit back and enjoy the entire season of Advent to the fullest.
3. Be reconciled to God. Most of us should know from experience that Christmas, or any other important Christian celebration, just isn't complete without a right relationship with our Maker. We all fall into patterns of sin. Take some quiet time to evaluate yourself and seek out all indicators of pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth. Historically, these are called the "capital" sins because they engender most all other sins. You may be surprised, upon careful self-examination, how far we let ourselves slip spiritually. Once you identify your sins, confess them and trust in God's forgiveness to overshadow you, and in His grace to transform you. Only then can you reap the full benefits of this most joyous of all Christian celebrations. One more thought: Why not try something novel and actually attend church on Christmas? It's the best way to stay focused on the meaning of the day.
   

I hope you're looking forward to Advent as I am. Just don't look for me at Wal-Mart on the morning after Thanksgiving. That's one of the things I don't like about Christmas.

How to Write Award-Winning Poetry

I've studied published poems that have earned their writers prestige and even scholarships. Never have I "understood" poetry, but I know what it takes to be a successful poet. You, too, can craft an award-winning poem if you follow these seven simple guidelines:

1. Never complete a sentence.
2. Forget ever punctuating with a period.
   
3. Don't worry about anything rhyming. If you insist on a rhyme, be sure to make it only a close match, but certainly never a perfect rhyme.
4. Iambic pentameter is no good either.
   
5. Avoid logical, sequential thoughts. Keep it loose.
6. Heavy on the adjectives.
7. Conceal the poem's meaning so every reader can come away with his own novel interpretation.

To help you further, I will now write a potentially publishable poem of my own for your careful study.

Dubya
Dubya
Big, old, white house--four years;
Tax cuts, Osama, no child left behind
The world hears you
Honor, dignity, no cigars allowed
Justice, freedom, liberty
Cruelty, bondage, oppression
Kerry and his "global test"
But we need no permission
George, never let 'em heckle ya,
because you're our favorite Dubya
Dubya

Attention generous grant-givers: You may leave your contact information in the comments section. I will consider allowing you to reprint my poem for a handsome fee.

Naaaah . . . Can't Be TOO Addicting!

Crap. Only minutes have gone by and I'm already thinking about how cool a blog can be. I even added my blog site to the signature of my outgoing emails.

It's already late and I need to get to bed. But I'll confide to my dear reader something I'm looking forward to. (Do I have to revise that to read "something to which I'm looking forward"? Nah. It's my blog and I'll write as I want to.)

The first Bush-Kerry debate is on TV tomorrow evening. And since the next day is payday, I can safely write a hot check after work for snacks and drinks to enhance my viewing and listening pleasure. I would hold or attend a Presidential Debate Party with friends of like mind, but it's a work night, and no one else I know would be that interested anyway. Except maybe for Vance, a good friend and former coworker, who's out of town for a week or so.

Compared to Kerry, Dubya has an easy job ahead of him. He simply needs to communicate his true beliefs and convictions, and let "Joe American Voter" decide. If Dubya loses, he loses. If he wins, Allelujah! He's not consumed with a lust for power--or interns for that matter. I believe he's a good man who wants to serve God and country. I also believe he wants to serve all agents of terrorism a hefty, heaping helping of whoop-butt.

Our form of democracy is the best kind of government known to man, and since God Himself sets up rulers and brings them down, it's exciting to be a participant in this all-important election. God uses us to choose our leaders, so hopefully we'll all vote our conscience and elect someone God would be pleased with.

It shouldn't take too much mental straining to cast our vote for Decision 2004. But if you don't know whether we should protect our homeland from outside threats or protect our people's "right" to kill their unborn, you have some serious soul-searching to do first.

First-Time Blog

I'm tired of hearing about "blogging," so I thought I'd try it and see how addictive it is.

So far, I'm not experiencing a high or a rush of any kind. What's the big deal?

Maybe we'll find out soon. Stay tuned.

--DMC