The Prodigal Church

Church is a big business. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic church amassed an enormous wealth in land and artifacts. Many of today’s Christian leaders have done or are doing the same thing. Where the superstars go, plenty of mini-popes wish to follow.

Despite the recent depression and tighter spending, we continue to hear passionate pleas to give money in many churches and conferences across the United States. There is the building fund that needs to be filled, or missionaries who are to simply go. We can do these things because we have faith that God will provide the necessary funds for our grand visions. After all, God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, right?

It turns out that if you turn to Psalm 50, David is writing that God doesn’t want your sacrifices or offerings. He says that he has plenty… but this verse continues to be misused during instructions to donate more because “God will give it back to you.”

Maybe we are counting our chickens before they hatch, or being prodigal with our inheritance.

Due to the number of times that I have heard the “cattle on a thousand hills” phrase abused, I thought that it was time someone figured out exactly how much money God does have. Let us run some rough figures.

In order to learn how much God owns, we need two definitions. The first is how big a hill is, and the second is what “cattle” means.

Definitions of hills and mountains vary between individuals. Wikipedia has a partial list of mountains on the earth, which I tally at 903. It seems like there would be more hills than mountains in the world… and it turns out that Rwanda is known as the “Land of a Thousand Hills.” The country covers 10,169 square miles and the hills in it are described as “gently rolling” which tells us that the terrain is not overly soft or harsh. Nobody has counted the number of hills in Israel (that I have found), so I am going to extrapolate from Rwanda.

Dry land on our planet takes up roughly 57 million square miles. If we divide that by the 10,169 square miles covered by Rwanda, and then multiply by 1000 hills, we get 5.6 million hills on the surface of the earth.

Those of you who are good with logic will see several assumptions here, but you should also notice that all of my rounding is an attempt to be optimistic. You will see why at the end.

The second question above was about the definition of “cattle.” We tend to figure that “cattle” are cows, but dictionaries allow for a more broad definition (Webster’s 1913):

Quadrupeds of the Bovine family; sometimes, also, including all domestic quadrupeds, as sheep, goats, horses, mules, asses and swine.

Using this definition, let’s figure 1.3 billion cows, 1 billion sheep, ~700 million goats, 59 million horses, 44 million donkeys, ~1 billion pigs… and round up to 5 billion cattle.

Now come the calculations. 5 billion cattle divided by 5.6 million hills equals 893 cattle per hill, which means that God (optimistically) owns 893,000 cattle.

Depending on the types of animals, we could figure between $300 and $6000 for an average price. Because the animals used are both small animals and large, we will use $1000/ea to simplify the math. That makes God the proud owner of 893 million dollars worth of cattle.

Are you worried yet? You should be since there are an estimated 2.1 billion Christians in the world, and 893 million dollars divided across 2.1 billion people is $0.43/ea.

Next time that you hear a preacher tell you to do something and not think of the cost because “God owns the cattle on a thousand hills,” do yourself a favor. Remember this little piece of satire and Jesus’ words in Luke 14 (around verse 28) first.

God is plumb broke.

** Please note that I am not advocating that you be selfish with your money. Just be smarter.

When This World is Not Enough

Life has been very busy for the last month or two and, as you may have noticed, there have not been many posts here. The quotes section has gained several entries but those do not show up in the RSS feed or email notices.

Activity (especially lots of it) has a tendency to cause tunnel vision. We ignore everything except what has to be done. If that continues for too long, a sense of frustration often develops and I wonder if this isn’t what God was attempting to prevent when he commanded a rest on the Sabbath.

Yesterday required a small pause in the midst of everything. It is hard to ignore a friend who has died in an accident. Life here will go on. It must. But there are times when this life does not provide the answers that we want. We need something more.

Have you ever considered that? And why do we need more?

For those who have heard Christian truth proclaimed rightly, the answer is simple. We are sinners. Our sin has corrupted a perfect world, which is why bad things happen – to the good and the bad. The corruption requires a judgment that is unnatural in the way that we were designed. Only our total elimination would begin to pay for the effects of sin.

Did my friend die because of his sin? Yes and no. He has done wrong (and would freely admit it) but the rules of justice are not as easy to satisfy as many of us want them to be. Effects go too far for that.

God has worked out a scheme to repair our wrongs and, while it does not immediately make this world perfect, it does promise another one after this world that is not marred by sin.

It is hard to see through the effects of sin here, but I believe that there will be more sense on the other side. What isn’t answered here will be known there. With that knowledge, I can accept what must be in this world.

The Wife's Submission: More Disturbing Than Some Think

The topic of a wife’s full submission to her husband is a topic that I have posted on before, starting with the Patriarchy post. Due to the number of discussions that I run into on this topic, I am going to present a stronger argument from a secular point of view. Because I find it disturbing, I set this aside for a couple weeks. You may not wish to read on unless you believe that total submission is a good thing.

I was introduced to the ideas of a wife’s total submission to her husband about four years ago. Shortly afterward, I obtained a copy of Elizabeth Handford Rice’s book Me? Obey Him? and was convinced for a few weeks that submission to the husband was always right – both of kids and wives.

Then I started to use my brain and apply these ideas to non-standard situations, such as the death of a spouse. The “principles” did not make sense then and, worse, the proponents of this submission could not even agree with each other on the proper course of action for widows to take. Many of the vocal “Christians” on this topic contradicted Paul’s words in I Corinthians 7:39, while attempting to be uniform in their application, and demand that the woman return to her parents’ house.

The internet, as you know, has a wide range of information available on it. Here is an extract from a blog post made by a totally submissive “wife” (I’ll cite it at the end):

i just finished reading a blog post by someone who felt sorry for  people who labeled themselves as submissive. Her POV was that submission  shouldnt be one-sided and woe be to the misguided souls who portrayed  themselves in this manner. Even though her reasoning seemed to be a bit  skewed, i agree with the point that it shouldnt be one-sided.  And i  truly dont believe thats the case in a healthy [...] relationship.

She obviously wasnt seeing the entire picture.

Master S, being the intellectually-balanced being that He is, would probably agree that we give equally. We learn from each other, and grow from those experiences. We submit our own egos in deference to what will best make this relationship work.

Note that she calls him “Master.” This is virtually identical to the way that these leaders say Sarah called Abraham “Lord” (I Peter 3:6). From Webster’s 1913 for “Lord”:

1. One who has power and authority; a master; a ruler; a governor; a prince; a proprietor, as of a manor.

The early posts on the referenced blog chronicle how the woman gave over all of her possessions to her Master. There was a vast internal struggle to overcome her earlier life of control. Her knowledge of his thoughtful and caring personality allowed her to give over full control anyway.

The woman even dealt with the statement that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Many Patriarchalists would be proud of her rebuttal.

So now I get to tell you that this is an excerpt from a blog dedicated to an NC-17 lifestyle (the one above “R,” which used to be called “X”). It chronicles a life of BDSM – Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism – where life is defined by sexual beatings (as a simple explanation).

As I already explained, her complete trust in the guy’s caring personality allowed her to give herself completely to him. The most recent posts (I skipped over quite a bit in the middle) explain how she caught him e-mailing his ex- in very explicit terms.

The last post, approximately 6 months after the beginning of the blog, contains these words:

In retrospect, I felt S was my hero…even with flaws and imperfections. I guess thats the toughest thing for me to reconcile, the loss of feeling that hed do the right thing, even when it was difficult.  I felt hed make decisions based on keeping our relationship in the highest regard. <sigh> .</sigh>

[...]

When it comes right down to it, I probably dont need a hero. Just a man who has his priorities straight and appreciates whats right in front of him. After this experience, S may step up and be that man.  That would be all the hero I need or want.

According to every rule that I have read in “Christian” books on submission (and for men to lead), this couple met all of the criteria. The wife relinquished all of her rights and focused on the husband. The husband took her strengths and weaknesses into consideration in his decisions.

Well, there is one deviance from the official criteria. The two people involved in this story were not legally married (the e-mails came out after their engagement was announced). They were not Christians but, according to Handford, submission even works on unsaved spouses. More recent popular books insist that complete submission will keep the husband from wandering.

With a couple exceptions, fixed rules do not make a marriage work. If Christians want to claim the Holy Spirit’s help, that is one thing. Extreme submission to make the “perfect marriage” is only so many rules.

You can claim that BDSM is warped or extreme. The common “Christian” teachings are that if the woman uses her appeals correctly, then she will never run into true abuse as she submits to her authority figure. I beg to differ. This is my second exhibit that submission is not a cure-all.

Excerpts were copied from here and here. Just so that you are warned, they are two of the milder posts.

While considering whether or not to post this, I talked to a friend who has extensive dealings with hyper-conservative circles. She told me that she knows several “Christian” individuals who practice Bondage in their bedrooms. While this is not as extreme as BDSM, it is a significant step in that direction. I don’t recall the story of Abraham and Isaac being sexual. Just sayin'.

You might want to reconsider…

Yet Another Blog Against the Body Scanner

With Thanksgiving last week and the TSA’s stepped-up usage of intrusive backscatter scanners, there has been a lot of chatter on blogs and tech websites.

Take Gizmodo for instance. They reported that the MythBuster’s Adam Savage walked through a backscatter scanner (while commenting on how small it made his penis feel), and the two 12" steel razor blades in his jacket were not detected.

Today they reported that a woman who is wheelchair-bound stripped to her lingerie and was still subjected to a 1-hour pat down and interrogation. She missed her flight.

Printed patterns are beginning to appear on clothing that will be visible to these scanners. There are reminders of the fourth amendment. Fig leaves. Even PETA is getting into gear with matching bras/panties that say “Be proud of your body scan. Go Vegan.” Unfortunately it seems like the fig leaf print (and possibly the others) will subject you to a pat down, if the woman in the wheel chair is any indication.

The worst part about all of this is that these scanners don’t work. In addition to the story above, there is an interesting quote that has been going around (to the Canadian Parliament):

"I dont know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747. Thats why we havent put them in our airport."<p style="text-align: right; "> Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, referring to Tel Avivs Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world

It appears that, as with many military or security deals, there have been a lot of folks traded between our government and the companies that are building these scanners.

You may also remember that the TSA has sworn that no pictures will be saved. They will grant you some privacy. Well, machine specs require that they be capable of storage and transmission (in real time) of scans. Their statements that this will not be used in production is what we are all banking on:

While TSA WBI Scanners technically have the capability to store and transmit images, the machines can only perform this function in Test Mode, a function not carried out in an Operation Area.  Placing a WBI Scanner into test mode is not something that can be in the field, at an airport where the units are deployed, and it cannot be done by anyone without Level Z authorization.

All the same, I will not soon forget the images stored from the Orlando courthouse. They were retrieved for review under the Freedom of Information Act and, while they are not as detailed as images from the airport scanners, they show the direction I think this is headed. Cell phone cameras can capture what the “authorization” can not, and there have already been stories of coworkers jostling each other after one walked through the scanner.

Some of my favorite parodies so far are a bit risque. I won’t embed the pictures, but you can click if your sense of humor is as warped as mine:

Statue of Liberty “New Procedures” – this began to circulate immediately after 9/11/01

PS. Please pardon the slightly bizarre wording of the title. I chose the words to get the attention of our wonderful Department of Homeland Security (pages 17,19 of this PDF). They should know that I do not favor them in any way.

Twilight; The Series Completed

After my last glowingreviews of Twilight: New Moon, I had planned to give the series a rest. Some of its fans insisted that all of my questions and accusations were fully explained in the third and fourth books (and a couple questions by Meyer’s website), so I read them.

The final half of the series was not as annoying as New Moon but, before I go any further, I would like to remind you of the origins of the word “pornography:”

1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie,  from Gk.pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion,probably of "female slave sold for prostitution;" related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root per-  "to traffic in, to sell," cf. L. pretium "price") + graphein "to write." Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious [lustful] writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality.

The original word dealt with written or drawn forms of prostitutes intended for lust, and the meaning has gradually dropped the “prostitute” implication in general usage. Given the detailed descriptions of Edward and Jacob’s bodies, and the descriptions of the effect on the main character, I have come to the conclusion that this series is pornographic. I will deal with it as such, so take warning if you are squeamish.

For the first three books (Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse), Bella is trying to have sex with Edward (she marries him in book four, Breaking Dawn). Her dad is worried about her and finally confronts the issue in Eclipse, where Bella is mortally embarrassed and says she is still a virgin and that there are no plans to change that. Only a few pages over she has tried to get his clothes off while kissing him and he stops her. The reason he gives is the same one that has existed through the first two books – that he is stronger and can not guarantee her safety.

In Eclipse, this issue is strained enough that a second point is made. Edward is concerned for Bella’s “virtue.” And all the conservative girls sigh happily because Edward wants to wait until marriage. This could be true except that Edward initiates several situates that stop just short of having the actual intercourse sans clothing. All the foreplay is there.

More of the story behind the “werewolves” (which turn out to be “shape shifters” instead during the final chapters of Breaking Dawn) begins to emerge, and we learn that it originally evolved as a defensive action in Jacob’s tribe.

There is also something akin to “love at first sight,” only stronger. This is called “imprinting,” and Jacob wants to “imprint on” Bella. This does not happen and they discuss the notion that if vampires did not exist then they would be perfect for each other, but since they do Bella is going to choose Edward.

This is one example of the sorts of non-sexual annoyances that I see. With sci-fi and/or fantasy novels, the common expectation is that you get one special allowance and then you try to bend the rest of the logical world around it. For this being a world filled with a sort of “magic,” the logical building blocks are horrible. If their “magic” did not exist, then Jacob’s tribe would have been run off long before and he still would not have a chance with Bella. The existence of vampires in the story is really a moot point for him, but he allows it to make him into a jerk anyway.

So Breaking Dawn comes along and Bella finally gets married, as though we totally could not see that coming from the first book. They go on their honeymoon and Bella gets pregnant the first night. This is not explicitly stated, but either Meyer really doesn’t know how women get pregnant or this is what transpired (I’ve read Dr. Billings).

Anyway, the baby is half-vampire and half-human. She can grow up with a beating heart but also has the vampire’s strength and a few other special features. That poses a problem for the expectant mother, who has to be turned into a vampire immediately post-partum as an attempt to keep her alive.

Edward gets extremely annoying in his quest to never turn Bella down for anything.

Bella is lauded for her ability to control herself better than other “new born vampires.” Somehow the idea is promoted that she has a gift for self-control. This is completely absent in every one of her interactions with Edward, which is half of the series.

The descriptions of the honeymoon is not quite so bad as what comes after Bella becomes a vampire. The picture given then is of not getting tired from their marital relationship (super-human strength and endurance).

Oh, but wait! The vampire “police” learn about the child and, since children-turned-vampire cannot be trained, they take this opportunity to attempt the destruction of Edward’s large family and to incorporate its strengths into their own coven.

During this confrontation Bella discovers that she is one of the most powerful “defensive” vampires alive. She can repel attacks on the mind – not just for herself, but for their entire army of vampires and shape shifters. This strikes fear into the no-longer-beating hearts of the attacking vampire lords, and she can’t help but antagonize the offensive fighters on the other side.

Between this and the requirement that the lords at least appear to uphold justice, the accusing side decides to retreat from the fight.

Bella goes back with Edward and lets him read her mind for the first time (even though she can’t read his). Curtains close. Finally.

There were a few loose ends from the series:

• Alice, the vampire that can see the future, does not foresee Bella becoming pregnant even though she plans part of the honeymoon. This will be passed off as her blindness to the infant (even post-birth), but that infant has a big effect on Bella’s life.

• A connection is never made for certain over whether Bella’s “self-control” is supposed to be the same as her mental block. Pardon the pun, and vampires are only allowed one special ability in Meyer’s world.

• Antagonizing the star fighters of an opposing army, and then letting them walk away is not such a smart ending for a series.

• Okay, so vampires know that they can stop breathing in order to avoid smelling the blood around them. Why didn’t Edward do this at the beginning?

• Every fluid created by the human body is turned into some sort of poison when they become a vampire, according to Meyer’s website. How is it that kissing, and more intimate actions, did not poison Bella? Or maybe they did and that explains her brainless reactions.

• Jacob imprinted on Bella’s baby. Yep, it was a bad case of puppy love. The pack now has two rules that are in conflict – they exist to kill human predators (of which the baby is one), and they are not to kill the object of a “brother’s imprinting.” How does the second cancel out their primary purpose for existence?

Speaking of Jacob imprinting on Bella’s infant, there is another shape shifter that does the same thing and we still have not seen an adequate explanation of the mental differences between Bella and Edward. Bella’s mom said her daughter was never a teenager mentally, so apparently Mom spaced out all of New Moon. It wasn’t a valid explanation. At least some people think that this is part of an apology, or explanation, for Meyer’s beliefs as a Mormon.

Incidentally, it occurred to me during book three that the last name “Cullen” comes from combining “cull” and “coven.” Meyer has shown an interest in combining words or names to make new ones.

Now can we exchange the X-Men characters back to their comic strip and get rid of all the growling wolves and hissing vamps?

Social Security... Security

Computer security firm McAfee has released a list of the most dangerous places to provide your social security number:

• Universities/Colleges
• Banking/Financial Institutions
• Hospitals
• State Governments
• Local Governments
• Federal Governments
• Medical Businesses (Please note: These are businesses that concentrate on services and products for the medical field such as distributors of diabetes or dialysis supplies, medical billing services, pharmaceutical companies, etc.)
• Non-Profit Organizations
• “ Technology Companies
• [tied]€“ Medical Insurance and Medical Offices/Clinics

Of course, I have been in rebellion for some time now.<ul>
* College doesn't require a social security number unless you want federal aid (I don't).

* Banks, although required to take a social security number for tax purposes (your account's interest), do allow illegals and foreign-nationals to get bank accounts. When you start to ask questions, it opens up a whole new understanding of the banking world.

* Hospitals, medical businesses - I try to treat myself. It is easier to do (and cheaper) than most people realize for _most_ (not all) situations.

* State, local, federal government - The IRS has happily taken my 1040 without a social security number on it so far (but then maybe they just looked it up). I could not get a driver's license without it, unless I had never been assigned a number (which I have, unfortunately).

* Non-profit organizations, technology companies - I leave blank or enter all 9's.

* Medical insurance - I don't have, don't want, and have explained it before [while discussing Obamacare](/node/139).
</ul>

And if you don't live on credit, you remove almost everyone else from the list of companies that require your social security number. Buy your own cell phone and prepay monthly (T-Mobile allows it; I'm sure others do also). Pay cash for your car.

A few years back, there was a study done about how secure people were with their social security numbers. Do you remember those "Enter to Win" centers in the mall? They set up several and found that a lot of people would write down their social security number in exchange for a _chance_ to win chocolate.

I can't find the news reports for that at the moment, but a more recent survey has been done involving passwords, birth dates, names, e-mail addresses, and chocolate. Even with the instruction on how to avoid identity theft, it is not a stretch to believe that people give their social security number away freely.

Our entire country is built on top of the Social Security program, but it is possible to live without it. I expect it to fail before I get old enough to withdraw anyway, so I consider it a Social Insecurity or additional tax.

A direct move to a national sales tax to replace the failing IRS tactics would cause an amusing panic. Maybe the [Flat Tax](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax) would be a good stepping stone in that direction, since it could be used to wean us off of our reliance on the social security number.

Ah, for dreams.

Geek Stuff: Hacking the Administrative Account without a Password

One of my customers had a custom interface built to group periodic posts (think blog categories, even though that is not exact). The former programmer never finished the functionality, and I inherited the project. After completing the required features, I have largely left it alone and that means that I did not perform a complete audit of the existing code.

I received an e-mail today that some “hacker” had learned the login details and was posting junk advertisements for cialis and the like. As any good system administrator would do, I dug out the log files to see what was happening. The bots that were posting (there were two IPs) never touched the login page, but accessed the posting page directly.

We have database entries for the most recent login time on each account, and only one account has been used within the last year. The password on that account is secure, so apart from theft (over an unsecure connection?) there is no way that somebody obtained it.

My first inclination was that they were using stored login cookies, and I took immediate action to limit the length of all login sessions (including the automatic cancelation of any existing session cookies). This was a programatic change since I do not have root access to the server.

Another ten advertisements were posted this evening, so I examined the login requirements again for the posting page. The basic layout of the original code looked like this:

<?php
session_start();
if (!$_SESSION['logged_in']) {
    header('Location: login.php');
}
?>

I had beefed it up with session time limiters but overlooked the basic program flow. After the “Location” header, the page continues to build!

In other words, if a bot were to disregard the redirect then it would have a copy of the article submission form to fill in. Submit that back and the PHP page will happily store the information in the database while spewing out another “Location” header for the bot to ignore.

As you might have guessed by now, we had a public link to the posting page.

Always, always, always exit after a redirect.

The Overpopulation Myth

Here is an entertaining video that covers the myth of overpopulation:

The Food Pyramid

While I do not blindly trust what my own (or any other) government produces, I found this 2007 graph interesting. On the right is the recommended amounts of various food groups for a healthy life. On the left is where the United States government spends its money in food subsidies:

The article behind it is available on the website for the “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.”

In this case, “subsidy” means that the government taxes you and then pays part of the price for something. In other words, the government is buying half (or some percentage) of each Big Mac in your name whether you eat at McDonald’s or not. The same goes for Whataburger and White Castle.

This is why I dislike government’s redistribution of wealth. It moves work and production around in an unnatural manner. As a slight tangent, the ethynol (corn alcohol) in your gas tank is also subsidized in order to make it appear to cost less than standard fossil fuels.

Another Review of Courtship

Someone recently asked for a concise explanation of what I believed concerning courtship, and what should be used in place of it. Why don’t we start from the beginning of the Biblical “examples” provided?

Principle: Adam was “Asleep”

Because Adam and Eve were created and joined in the first marriage, their story lays the ground work of what is expected in future marriages. For this reason, Adam and Eve are selected as the earliest courtship story. Many courtship enthusiasts insist that the man should be “asleep” because Adam was sleeping while Eve was prepared. Genesis 2:21-23:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

That is all great and good, but they should back up a little and remember the context. Genesis 2:18-20:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

God said it was not good for the man to be alone, brought a bunch of animals to Adam, and none was found suitable. So Adam was put to sleep for a surgical operation and Eve was made.

The emphasis in this passage is that Adam knew why the animals of the field were not suitable mates for him. The woman was not formed apart from man, and certainly not from anything beneath or above him. To keep the man from becoming haughty, reproduction was given to the woman. Paul made it a point to show that each sex relies on the other (I Corinthians 11, especially verse 11).

Conclusion: False.

Principle: Woman should be “Asleep”

The Song of Solomon is the next favorite passage, because it addresses the woman’s need to be “asleep.” Chapter 2, verse 7:

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

Michael Pearl said in Holy Sex that this was the woman attempting to fend off anyone who would wake her husband. I will agree that this seems to be the best understanding of the KJV (due to context), even though I disagreed with him about virtually everything else he said about the Song of Solomon.

The copy of the NASB that I currently have access to does not have all the section headings that my copy has. It seems that the NASB has changed this statement to originate from the husband, concerning the wife.

The ESV, NIV, NET, and a few others render it along the lines of “do not awake love until it pleases.” Very courtship friendly.

People are likely to believe this means different things based on the translation they read. Due to my weak understanding of Hebrew, I assume that the KJV and NASB are bad attempts to say what the other translations have said.

Conclusion: Maybe.

Principle: Let God Awaken You

It has been pointed out that the word for “findeth” in Proverbs 18:22 is a passive word:

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

If this is the case, then the verse would be better translated “Whoever stumbles across a wife has come upon a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord.” The Hebrew word that is rendered both times as “findeth” is “Matsa.” If you perform a search for it, some interesting passages are presented for study. Here is Genesis 31:33,34:

And Laban went into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's tent, and into the two maidservants' tents; but he found [_matsa_] them [his idols] not. Then went he out of Leah's tent, and entered into Rachel's tent. Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found [_matsa_] them not.

My understanding of Hebrew stinks, but I do have to wonder why Laban would chase Jacob down with armed men and then passively hope to come across his family idols in an active search of every tent that Jacob owned.

Conclusion: Unlikely.

Notes On Inconsistent Teachings

The examples that are chosen are very useful, but not always for the reasons that they were chosen. Ruth and Naomi did not have a “covering,” but operated with what they had access to. Jacob was not home to have his parents negotiate the marriage, and also arranged it himself.

To make the courtship game even more bizarre, some folks believe that Ruth should have gone back to her parents’ house, and Naomi should have also. Maybe they have not connected the dots to realize this disagreement with the events that transpired; maybe they have. They teach that the woman must always be under a covering, despite the example of Ruth and Naomi along with the words of Paul in I Corinthians 7:39:

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

This seems to indicate that the widow has free rein in choosing her next husband, so long as he is of the Christian faith as well. Oddly enough, some do not believe that the woman should be given this much liberty, and then press men toward military service which removes them from the home. How can these two points of view be reconciled?

When the courtship family agrees with Paul, why does a 22 year old widow have more “rights” concerning marriage than a 22 year old virgin? We have duplicity here also, which smells of legalism.

Closing

Due to the way that Scriptures are taken from context to make points that are not in the original passage, I have had to question a lot of Courtship “principles” (not all are listed here). Some do have merits, but I am not willing to commit to them completely without more study.

Until then, I am not inclined to restrict the possible options. So long as the couple intends to marry, and do not violate each other before the marriage, they can even “date.”

What Makes a Man?

This next Sunday (the last one of September) is “Gold Star Mother’s Day.” On it, we are supposed to remember the mothers who have lost a son or daughter who was serving in the military.

A couple friends took me to an Infantry museum yesterday. There was a lot to look at and plenty of interesting information. To my surprise, the organizers had even admitted that the high casualties in the First World War caused most of the “Western World” to fear another such war, which is not so much fun to admit. We were also showered with constant reminders that the infantrymen had “matured” or “become men” because of their combat experience.

One poem (by Keo R. Gathman, 2006) says this:

When he first saw them in dress blues
The heart within her little boy knew,
That nothing short of becoming one of them would do.
[...]
She often took the time to pray,
"Lord be with my boy today."
"Help him clearly see the man I know that he can be, [...]" 

Why is war the mark of a man? What makes a uniform worth wearing? Germany, Italy, Russia, China – these countries have all been proud of their uniforms too. Where we saw empire growth from communists and fascists, they saw empire growth from the capitalists**.

Several videos at the museum explained that the men no longer took time with their family (or good food) for granted. Are boys incapable of seeing this, without the military to “make them men?” In other words, do we have to attack (or be attacked by) another nation to appreciate what we do have?

That is a lousy reason for war. The ascetics appreciate what they have too.

I think that the better indicator of manhood (or womanhood) is what that person is willing to stand for. When we are young, we learn to avoid what causes pain. When we mature, we learn to do what is right despite the pain.

Men who go to war should do so because they are men, not to become men. A uniform does not guarantee that transition has taken place.

I feel bad for those who have lost family and friends in combat. The same goes for those who were attacked in a provocation to war. It still needs to be thought through. Like the rest of our life, there is a lot of emotion poured into military duty that may or may not be justified.

** Capitalism does have some faults and problems. I think that those problems persist even in Communist and Fascist societies, despite their best efforts, and that it is not due to corruption from the Capitalists. Human nature goes wherever humans are found.

It is Time to Stop Evacuations

Kiplinger, known for its advice to business owners, has a write-up of Federal changes to automobile regulations for how many miles your car must get per gallon of gas:

<span class="embaArticle">[The automobile manufacturers] also effectively face a mandate to rev up  development of ultra-high-mpg electric plug-in cars and hybrids such as  the Chevy Volt, which is set to roll out by December and uses a small  gasoline-fueled motor to recharge an onboard battery. Advanced hybrids  getting the equivalent of 100 mpg or more will be a must for automakers  to reach a minimum fleet average of 60 mpg by 2025. Just to meet the  35.5 mpg standard for 2015, automakers likely will be producing around 1  million gasoline-electric and plug-in cars a year by 2015.</span>

There are a few things that need to be pointed out.

• Obama has increased the taxes of the people who “can” afford a new car every year, which means fewer cars will sell.

• Warren Buffet believes the recession/depression will get worse again.

• What will hurricane evacuations look like with a charge time of an hour (traditional charges require several hours)?

• The Federal Government is bailing out our primary (government-created) flood insurer.

The world is complex and even our elected officials can not keep up with everything. We think we are smarter than we really are.

EDIT: Not MPH, MPG. One would think that I could read straight with English as my first language. Oops.

Mangled Scriptures

As I drove down the interstate today, I put on a CD that I had purchased over three years ago but had not listened to. At the time, I had believed in the dispensational belief of a pre-tribulation rapture and that was the topic of the speaker. As I listened, I was reminded of a blog post that I had read a few days ago called “5 Classic Bible Twists.”

The author of that blog post wrote about the misuse of Jeremiah 29:11, John 10:10, Revelation 3:20, Matthew 22:36-40 and Proverbs 29:18. He makes excellent points. Anyone who has been around me much in discussions of courtship has heard me laugh at Joshua Harris for using Jeremiah 29:11 as a reason to “wait to date” (see verse 6). John 10:10 was quoted in my blog entry the other day.

Because of the speaker’s focus on the “end times,” he started in Matthew 24 with the disciples’ discussion about the splendor of the temple. Jesus’ statement that the temple would not last much longer shocked them. Then the speaker read verse 4:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Nevermind that the next verses explain this, ie:

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

He stopped at verse 4 and said that intellectuals in the church easily mislead people because they can twist the scriptures. That is a strange statement since Daniel is one of the most-quoted for end times prophesy and he was an intellectual who advised three world rulers.

Even if you believe that Scripture has to entirely define itself, Daniel spoke from an early age that knowledge and wisdom go together (Daniel 2:21):

And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

The person who compiled Solomon’s Proverbs believed a similar thing (see the first 9 verses of Proverbs). It might be better to learn how to answer people than to take a verse out of context to say they are just wrong because they know how to twist scripture passages. The use of a verse out of context, even from ignorance, is a twist as well.

As the lecture progressed, the twists became even worse. The speaker whipped out another verse that is just as common as the ones in the blog post above – at least if you are in the right circles. He quoted II Peter 3:8:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You see, the “Last Days” started when Jesus walked on the earth 2,000 years ago (or at least by Acts 2:17). How can this be the “Last Days”? That is easy! A thousand years in God’s presence is as one day! This means it has only been two days since Jesus walked the earth!

If he is really going to apply that, he may as well give up on the idea of a rapture any time soon. We have another 5,000 years to go before time has to be measured in “weeks.”

Peter’s point was that time does not matter to God. Read the verses around the one quoted above and you will see what I mean. God is longsuffering and does not want anyone to be sent to hell for eternity. This is why the years seem to drag by. It is a shame that so many of us condemn ourselves to the fate God desires to save us from.

The “Last Days” means that these are different from the former. They are headed toward a known end. As the blood of the martyrs cries, Maranatha. Until that time, teach the church wisdom and the proper handling of the Scriptures.

EDIT: My apologies to those of you who have received more than one alert. Twitter has changed their authentication scheme and I had to make it work again.

Why Did Jesus Come?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about why Jesus came into this world. Here are some of the statements in Scripture, for your perusal:

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. <p style="text-align: right;">Jesus, Matthew 9:13

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them,  They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, Mark 2:17

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan [a winnowing fork] is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.<p style="text-align: right;"> John the baptist, Luke 3:16,17

<font face="none" size="+0"><font color="red"></font></font>For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, Luke 19:10

And Jesus said,  For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, John 9:39

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, John 10:10

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, John 12:47,48

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,  Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.<p style="text-align: right;"> Jesus, John 18:37

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.<p style="text-align: right;"> Paul, I Timothy 1:15

Flood Insurance Management -- Your Future in Health Insurance?

USA Today reported… er… Yesterday that:

FEMA's  National Flood Insurance Program is the nation's main flood insurer,  created by law in 1968 as private companies stopped covering flood  damage. The program insures 5.6 million properties nationwide and aims  to be self-sustaining by paying claims from premiums it collects.<p class="inside-copy">Instead it's running deeply in the red. A major  reason, a USA TODAY review finds, is that the program has paid people to  rebuild over and over in the nation's worst flood zones while also  discounting insurance rates by up to $1 billion a year for flood-prone  properties.

What do they mean that FEMA has paid people to rebuild over and over? I’m so glad you asked.

In Fairhope, Ala., the owner of a $153,000 house has received $2.3 million in claims. A $116,000 Houston home has received $1.6 million.  The payments are for damage to homes and what's inside.

The discount applies on second homes and properties that are rented out to others:

USA TODAY also found that the owners of 370,000 second homes and rental  houses get huge insurance discounts. Wealthy resort areas such as Hilton  Head Island, S.C., and Longboat Key, Naples and Sanibel, Fla., have  some of the largest numbers of second homes and rentals getting the  discounts.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual deficit [this means they spend more than they earn, or steal] could be completely closed by doing away with the discount on second homes and rentals.

The reporter, Thomas Frank, points to an interesting problem:

Flooding is the most costly and lethal type of  natural disaster, causing about $6 billion a year in damage and killing  roughly 140 people annually, federal figures show. Roughly 97% of the  U.S. population lives in a county that has experienced a flood disaster  since 1980, a 2007 congressional report found.<p class="inside-copy">FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate says the debt  results partly from Congress restraining insurance rates to encourage  the purchase of coverage, which is required for property owners with a  federally backed mortgage. Homeowners can buy up to $350,000 of  coverage, more than 10 times FEMA's maximum post-disaster grant.  Insurance reduces the need for disaster aid, paid for by taxpayers.

That is an interesting revelation. I used to live near Hilton Head Island, SC. In the old days, plantation owners knew that the low land on the coast was only good for crops (especially tomatoes), because of the hurricane and flood risks. With these artificial insurance rates, there is no need to follow this conventional wisdom. In fact, if you insure now, you can get more coverage than if your house were flooded a little farther inland. It’s almost safer to live on the coast. Insurance rates are not based on risk.

Aren’t the current advocates of these policies and discounts many of the same lawmakers who have decided that we need a self-sufficient health insurance program? That have pushed through government regulation of insurance rates?

I do not trust their business knowledge. Do you think they will regulate safe boundaries? Read the full USA Today article. There are federal laws that are supposed to prevent some of the problems we are facing anyway.

So now…

Along with the huge losses from Hurricane Katrina, the generous benefits  have forced [FEMA] to seek an unprecedented $19 billion taxpayer  bailout.

Geek Stuff: Debugging JS Arrays

While I can be a glutton for punishment, verifying Javascript arrays can be more than I want to deal with. If you print an array:

<script type="text/javascript">
  var testarray = new Array(
    new Array(1, 2, 3, new Array(4, 5)),
    new Array(6, 7, 8, new Array(9, 10)),
    new Array(1, 2)
  );
  
  alert(testarray);
</script>

This creates a popup that says “1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2.” In order to test for items in the sub-arrays, the quick and dirty method would involve typing commands into the browser’s address bar:

javascript:alert(testarray[0])

This would pop up with “1,2,3,4,5.” Firebug can help significantly with its DOM tab and JavaScript console. Still, I have found myself wanting a function similar to PHP’s print_r() while changing global arrays in functions. Here is my little hack:

Array.prototype.pretty = function(spacer, prefix) {
  var first = true, afterarray = false, type, ret = '', x;
}

if (spacer == undefined) {
  spacer = '';
}
if (prefix == undefined) {
  prefix = '';
} else {
  prefix += ' => ';
}

ret += spacer+prefix+'Array(';
for (x in this) {
  // Don't show this function prototype... or any others.
  type = typeof(ret[x]);
  if ((type != 'string') && (type != 'number') && (type != 'boolean')) {
    continue;
  }

  // Don't place commas before the first item.
  if (first) {
    first = false;
  } else {
    // If we are following an array with an array, don't add a newline
    if (this[x] instanceof Array) {
      afterarray = false;
    }
    // Place a newline after child arrays
    ret += ','+(afterarray ? "\n" : ' ');
    afterarray = false;
  }

  // Call ourselves recursively when an array is encountered.
  if (this[x] instanceof Array) {
    ret += "\n"+this[x].pretty(spacer+'    ', x);
    afterarray = true;
  } else {
    ret += this[x];
  }

  // Close arrays
  ret += (afterarray ? "\n"+spacer : '')+')';
  return ret;
}

Now you can use:

<script type="text/javascript">
  var testarray = new Array(
    new Array(1, 2, 3, new Array(4, 5)),
    new Array(6, 7, 8, new Array(9, 10)),
    new Array(1, 2)
  );
  
  alert(testarray.pretty());
</script>

Which will create:

Array(
    0 => Array(1, 2, 3,
      3 => Array(4, 5)
    ),
    1 => Array(6, 7, 8,
      3 => Array(9, 10)
    ),
    2 => Array(1, 2)
)

Arrays will be indented to an infinite depth so that more than three levels can be displayed. I specifically needed this for a situation that involved three-dimensional arrays.

Drawback: If you are using for (var x in testarray), this function prototype will appear as one of the x items. You will either have to convert this to a standard function or check the datatype of x.

Happy debugging.

Geek Stuff: MySQL Dump of PayPal Countries and States/Provinces.

So you need to know what country a user is from because you deal with PayPal. How do you make sure you have the right information to pass on? PayPal offers:

• Country codes
• State/province codes
• A COUNTRYCODE parameter
• A STATE parameter

The country and state codes are in HTML tables, which means you can copy and paste directly to your favorite spreadsheet software (OpenOffice.org Calc, right?). The two problems with this are that:

• PayPal put extra spaces in the table

• PayPal capitalized every letter in the country names

A guy named Joe Zack created a MySQL procedure that would capitalize the first letter of each word and transform all the other letters to lower-case.

I saved the country and state codes as separate CSV files (using double quotes and commas as delimiters) and then opened them in another text editor to replace ’ “’ with just ‘”’. This solved problem #1 and I could import them into their own tables. Joe’s stored procedure solved problem #2:

UPDATE countries SET name = CAP_FIRST(name);

After IDing each table, I also decided that it was a good idea to link the states/provinces with their respective countries. That was accomplished with a similar UPDATE query that used state IDs in the database (Canada has the first 13, the United States have the rest). This allows me to query states/provinces by country in order to create optgroups for the end user.

I’ll leave you to figure out the other details of how to use this information but will include a dump of my current database tables. Hope it is useful.

Geek Stuff: Pull Files from a Raw Disk Dump

Suppose that you clone a harddrive to a file on another harddrive (dd if=/dev/sda of=/home/user/dump.img). All of the partitions on the drive are in the dump file. How do you access a file on one of the partitions?

I’ve had to do this several times in the last two months. Today, my image is 50GB (not an exact harddrive image because I took a round-about way to pull the data):

ls -lh recovered.img 

-rw-r--r-- 1 chris root 50G Jul  9 15:48 recovered.img

sfdisk (probably as root) will show where the partitions are at:

sfdisk -l -uS recovered.img
Disk recovered.img: cannot get geometry
Disk recovered.img: 6527 cylinders, 255 heads, 63 sectors/track
Units = sectors of 512 bytes, counting from 0
   Device Boot    Start       End   #sectors  Id  System
recovered.img1          2048  93114367   93112320   7  HPFS/NTFS
recovered.img2             0         -          0   0  Empty
recovered.img3             0         -          0   0  Empty
recovered.img4             0         -          0   0  Empty

This indicates one NTFS partition at sector 2048. In order to turn that number into a byte offset, you have to multiply it by the number of cylinders on the drive (despite what sfdisk claims it knows about the file). That number has always been 512 for my data operations, which means 2048 * 512 = 1048576. With this magic number, we should be able to mount the partition as root:

mount -t ntfs-3g -o loop,offset=1048576 recovered.img /mnt/hd

The “loop” option tells “mount” that we are mounting a file instead of a literal device. If you can’t figure out the rest, go read the man page for mount.

Childbirth: Have We Made It Too Hard?

From Pushed by Jenifer Block (chapter 1, paperback pages 24-25):

Forceps are nearly museum relics, but the second stage of labor - the pushing part - is still actively managed by what's called directed pushing, or "purple pushing." For decades, women who weren't completely numb have been told to hold their breath and _Push!_ for ten full seconds, usually while a nurse counts out loud, a process that is repeated until the baby is out. In 1957, Constance L. Beynon, a British obstetrician, began doubting the ritual after observing a woman who birthed without incantation. It was accidental; she was attending a first-time mother for a colleague and tried to stall the delivery so he would arrive in time. "We ignored the patient's early straining efforts and when finally the head reached the pelvic floor, just allowed it to emerge slowly on minimal pushing, hoping every minute that her doctor would walk in," wrote Beynon. "The baby (8 pounds, 3 ounces) was born before the doctor arrived but with practically no effort on the part of the patient and an intanct vagina and perineum. The peacefulness and obvious ease of the birth were most impressive."

Further research revealed to Beynon that in women with physical disabilities or heart conditions, who were physically unable to push, "easy labor is remarkably common." Beynon then carried out a trial at Sussex Maternity Hospital with 100 first-time mothers and compared them to nearly 400 who were typically managed. For the study, the caregivers were not to suggest that the mother push; if they had to say the P-word, the case was recorded a failure. Of the 100 women, 83 delivered spontaneously within an hour and 98 within 2 hours, without any suggestion of what to do. Beynon wrote, "For many years now I have adopted the practice of allowing my patients to follow their own inclination in the second stage, forbidding all mention of pushing by those in attendance."

The female reporter who wrote this 300-page book has never been pregnant but she has read and talked to an impressive number of people. Her book is documented extensively. The statistics have an obvious slant, which is easy for a skeptic to notice (or someone who has read How To Lie With Statistics) but, overall, I think the author may be on to something.

Does God Speak to Individuals?

This is a big subject and it has caused a lot of disagreement in Christian circles. I will try to make this as clear and comprehensive as possible. If I fail, by all means, ask questions.

Three years ago, I sat in a church and heard the pastor list all the various ways that God speaks to us. The pastor and elders of the church topped the list (you might be able to determine the type of church this was), then came your parents and the Word of God. I think there was another one, but it would have merged into one of the other three categories.

In any case, with my pentecostal upbrining, there was one glaring omission. How does one recognize God’s voice when He speaks directly to an individual?

John MacArthur preached a great sermon in 1991, entitled “Charismatic Chaos.” He was (and continues to be) very concerned with the growing emphasis on “manifestations of the spirit,” which include direct revelation and miracles, all around the world:

An associate of mine attended a Charismatic Businessmen's meeting in Chicago, where a Catholic Priest testified that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had given him the gift of tongues while he was saying his rosary.  Then the Charismatic pastor, leading the meeting, rose and said, and I quote, "What an amazing testimony that is.  Aren't you glad that God isn't bound by any ideas by what's doctrinally acceptable?  Some people would try to dismiss this brother's testimony just because it doesn't jibe with their doctrinal system, but how you get filled with the Holy Ghost doesn't matter, as long as you know that you have got the Baptism.  Even if you got it from Mary while saying your rosary, it has to be legitimate."  The audience, by the way, numbering in the hundreds, broke into wild affirmation and applause.

I was talking to a man in our church this morning who had for a number of years worshiped here and then had returned to his native Scotland, living just out of Edinburgh.  And I said, "Have you found a church?"  And he said, "Well, yes we have."  And I said, "Is it one of the Scottish Baptist Churches (knowing that most of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches are long gone liberal, with of course some exceptions)?"  He said, "No, it is not a Baptist Church.  For the most part, most of the Baptist Churches have moved into the Charismatic Movement." Scotland.

MacArthur also adequately describes the attitude of so many in the Charistmatic movement. I’ve seen it and read it – even in biographies covering the mid- to late-1800s with men like Smith Wigglesworth.

There is the ploy they use, "Well, we would expect you to be against it since you haven't had the experience."  That is Gnosticism.  That is believing that you have been elevated to a higher level of comprehension which the uninitiated have no understanding.  Rodman Williams, who has written a number of books and who was once the president of a local Charismatic school, and I quote said, "Any vital information concerning the Gifts of the Spirit, the Pneumatic Charismata, predisposes a participation in them.  Without such a participation, whatever is said about the Gifts may only result in confusion and error."  If you haven't had it, you have no right to talk about it.  One pastor said to me, "You talk exactly like one who never had the experience. You are speaking out of ignorance."  I wonder if they feel that way talking about Heaven, Hell, murder, adultery, homosexuality, and numerous other subjects.  Do we have to have that experience too?

And Rodman Williams, on the tape said, "Well I'll tell you one thing, I don't know who this man [MacArthur] is but God will never bless his life or his ministry."  And there was a moment of silence, to which Walter Martin simply replied, because he knew me and he knew the ministry, "I think you have gone too far in saying that!"

I have to agree with Walter Martin there. Someone repeated a conversation that they overheard in a book store, where one woman cautioned another that A.W. Tozer “didn’t have the annointing!”

The Mormons have had whole congregations speak in tongues at their temple dedications, and they think Jesus was just one of God’s sons (similar to Satan). They claim this gift for their missionaries as well, such that they learn new languages more easily.

As I pointed out in my post on what a “Calling” means, a claim of direct or special revelation is often a trump card. It is very difficult to discern or argue against.

Paul and the other apostles never claimed that everyone else should just “shut up” because that person did not know what they were talking about. They argued, explained, expounded. Acts 17:10-12:

And  the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:  who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more  noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with  all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those  things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable  women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

This is not specifically about the “manifestations of the spirit” but they would have been a part of what Paul taught. Those who verified everything were called “noble,” and this was not an isolated incident.

Apollos had searched out what John the Baptist preached and argued forcefully for it, from the scriptures (Acts 18:24-). Aquila and Priscilla, with whom Paul had lived and worked, took him aside and expounded even more to him. None of these people took what was said without the ability to back it up in the Old Testament. Apollos lived and breathed the OT and Aquila and Priscilla used it to further his understanding. The New Testament had not been written down yet.

If Paul was not above questioning, why do people today think that they are? I have heard a recording of someone in a well-known church “speak in tongues” from behind the pulpit. Right in the middle, in plain English, the person said “come lord Satan.” I won’t name the church because I can’t find my copy of the recording right now, but shouldn’t that give you plenty of reason to pause and judge what is going on?

There is more, of course. Luke and Paul both wrote about speaking in “tongues” – languages that had not been learned. Mark even included a statement about them in his record of the Great Comission.

If everything is subject to the Scriptures, and speaking in other languages is accepted in them, what do we do with everything that claims to be spiritual but fails the Scripture test?

There are several schools of thought. MacArthur and many others are of the opinion that these spiritual gifts have ceased. The Charismatic movement refuses to allow these manifestations to be reigned in. I guess those called “Pentecostal” fit somewhere in the middle, where their guiding doctrine is not appreciated by either side. And sometimes it is wrong.

I have, I hope, already demonstrated that there must be some guiding doctrine. The question that remains is whether MacArthur is right that these manifestations have ceased.

In order to answer this question, some look to I Corinthians 13:8-10 for their proof:

Charity  never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;  whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge,  it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But  when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be  done away.

Prophesy and knowledge will cease. When the New Testament is complete, all of the partial things that went into making it will stop.

This is bolstered by teachings that the Bible is complete and that it is unnecessary to have anything more than what is already in it. Revelation 22:19 is often taken to encompass it and the 65 books preceding it:

And  if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,  God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the  holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

That is a strong warning, regardless of whether you believe that John is speaking about a loss of salvation (as I do) or that the person will be a minimalist in heaven.

It is further argued that God will not give a specific mission to an individual or church because the church (as a whole) has already been given her mission – one that is focused on Jesus. Since the focus is on Jesus, it cannot be centered around us. Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,  All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go  ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe  all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you  alway, even unto the end of the world.  Amen. 

The weak point of this argument is that it was given before Paul had even been converted, but he was told to specifically go to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

One could possibly say that Paul was told where to go in order to teach a principle to those that would come after him, but there is a problem with that claim as well. Not every instance of God speaking to someone is recorded in the Bible, which would indicate that there is personal instruction.

There are some really strange stories if all of them teach principles we are to follow without direct instruction from God. Why don’t we start with a well-known story? Acts 8:26-31:

And the angel of the Lord spake unto  Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth  down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went:  and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under  Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure,  and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in  his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip,  Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to  him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou  what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide  me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Philip was one of the men who had been selected by the apostles to ensure that the widows of the church were taken care of (Acts 6:5). By Acts 21:8, he was called an evangelist. What principle could be taught from this passage if we cut out God’s direct intervention? Should we stand on the side of the highway all day, looking for illegal immigrants in the back of pickups?

He was directed to someone who was trying desperately to understand the writings of Isaiah. If you continue to read, you find that Philip starts to expound at the very place that the eunuch was reading. That is very impressive. Dare I ask how many Pentecostals can do that now?

Let me turn to another story. In Acts 2, we are told the events of the “Day of Pentecost.” Pentecost was the day when Israel celebrated the giving of the law to Moses – 50 days after the passover. On this day, the Holy Spirit was given because of the slain passover lamb.

Peter made the claim that God’s spirit was being poured out as the prophet Joel had declared would happen in the “last days” (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21). This “spirit” was poured out on 120 people that were gathered together in prayer. How many of those men and women did you hear about later? This was a sign for the people who were there. We are told about it because that was when the Holy Spirit was first given in this capacity.

The Holy Spirit did fulfill a slightly different role before this. I hope you are familiar with Hebrews 1; how God’s spirit moved on the writers of old to inspire them. It was possible for God’s spirit to leave or stay. Samson did not even know God’s spirit had left him (Judges 16:20). Saul was detained while David fled (I Samuel 19:22-24). David worried God’s spirit would be withdrawn from him as king (Psalm 51:11). Men and Women who sought God were still granted to know God better. Simeon and Anna in Luke 2 are examples of this.

Perhaps one of the greatest Biblical proofs, to my mind, that God has spoken extra-biblically (outside, not contradicting what is written) is Jonah. There is only one place in the Bible where he was spoken about in a positive way. Every other reference is, at best, neutral. II Kings 14:25:

He [Jeroboam] restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher.

Can someone be called a prophet for one prophesy? Was Saul a prophet? Where does Anna fit in? Here is someone that was well-known for his prophesies in his day while most of them are forgotten in the Christian world. Josephus records a little more:

IN the fifteenth year of the reign of Amaziah, Jeroboam the son of Joash reigned over Israel in Samaria forty years. This king was guilty of contumely against God, and became very wicked in worshipping of idols, and in many undertakings that were absurd and foreign. He was also the cause of ten thousand misfortunes to the people of Israel. Now one Jonah, a prophet, foretold to him that he should make war with the Syrians, and conquer their army, and enlarge the bounds of his kingdom on the northern parts to the city Hamath, and on the southern to the lake Asphaltitis; for the bounds of the Canaanites originally were these, as Joshua their general had determined them. So Jeroboam made an expedition against the Syrians, and overran all their country, as Jonah had foretold.

These prophesies were very clearly for that time, yet his words were not deemed to be important enough to pass on. All we see is a quick reference to this prophet. This same thing happened in a number of other places but those passages are easy to generalize away. The tale of Jonah is very difficult to do that with.

I think a lot of people say that these “manifestations of the spirit” – including direct revelation – have stopped because they are too dangerous in the hands of the untrained. I do agree to some extent, but what of the other ways that God reveals himself?

If you are reading this, there is a very good chance that you know pastors are capable of and have abused their authority. Cults misconstrue the words of Scripture. No matter what method of revelation we feel “safe” with, there are those who abuse it. We hope that submitting every facet to the scrutiny of Scripture is enough to unbrainwash people after a while. We rely on God’s Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the blind.

How is this different from direct revelation, where God speaks something unique to an individual? Remember the story of Philip above? There was no general command. It was for that time and place.

Discernment is still a necessity. I John 4:1-3:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Of course, I Corinthians 14 governs any public, corporate “manifestation” (ie. verses 11-16):

Therefore if I know non the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

As a general rule, you should not sing or pray anything you don’t know you are singing or praying, and don’t confuse other people. If you use “tongues” publicly, interpret it too. If you don’t, there is every reason to rebuke you. Acts 2 was a slight exception because they were speaking in the native languages of the people around them.

One more story: Someone that I know and trust told about a young man who visited his church when he was younger. During the service there was someone who said something in “tongues” that no one else understood. They waited a little while for an interpretation and none was given. After the service, this person’s parents had the young man go to their house for lunch. Over the meal, the young man told what it meant – it had been in his native language.

We may not know everything that is happening. The world is bigger than any of us can completely understand (even if a few of us try). With our limitations, we really need to seek discernment. It is necessary regardless of who we listen to, and the only way that I know to learn discernment is to spend time with God. Study his Word, pray.

I’ll close with one more quote from John MacArthur:

[Paul] was explaining the Scripture, he was delineating the Scripture.  He had an experience.  He went to Heaven!  But God said, "You are not allowed to," what?  "You're not allowed to talk about it!"  "I don't want anybody basing anything on your interpretation, on your experience."  Paul never built his ministry on his visions, his experiences. He built it on what he knew was the revealed truth of God, and he called into question any experience that violated Scripture.

And that is exactly right.

• «
• <
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• >
• »