Been Awhile

I'm guessing that quite possibly this is my most common tittle. Its been a rough day (s). Girlfriend got sick last night at 12, then we spent 5 hours in the ER to have them tell us what the problem might be. Then we tried to fill the prescription but Wallgreens was updating thier servers. We finaly go the prescription filled at four and I took her back to her apartment. Then I get to try to get her to take it. Didn't happen. We did get a generic version of her prescription last night and it helped a little, so I convinced her to take that again. Thank the lord for having had a childhood that forced me to take meddicines I had not desire to take. It comes in handy every now and again. That being sad I'm going to bed.

High Facebook Drama- Or the whole shebang

My Friends Note that started it All....

I've been pondering God's love recently.
Now, granted, I'm studying Bible at Oklahoma Christian University, so this isn't rare at all for me.
For years, I've paralleled God's love to that between two people in love with each other.
The idea goes something like this: when two people fall in love; when they first start dating, they'll do crazy, silly, sometimes stupid things just to prove it. I've watched the most educated men and women make complete fools out of themselves for the sake of love. I can speak from experience as a male: we buy flowers, cards, dish out compliments like they're going out of style, the whole nine yards. When two people are falling for each other, they'll do whatever it takes to make the other person happy.No one told them to do it, they just DO it. They act in ridiculous ways simply to please someone else.
Our relationship with God is very much the same: when you find yourself in a deep, loving relationship with God; the very same relationship that God has with all his children, you find yourself doing crazy things just to please God. You start to turn your life around and everything falls into place. No one told you to stop acting like a tool and give yourself to Him, you just DO it.
In the same way, this is the very reason that people were not made just automatically loving God.
COULD God have forced us to love him? I believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-caring. He could have very easily made us God-loving robots if he wanted to, but forced love is hardly love at all. If you don't know any better, then how can it be love. Love is a constant decision, not some passing emotion.
As I was pondering this idea, a new thought came to me: what about the people that don't know God?
I picture a person, aching for someone far away. They want more than anything to be with their significant other, but they can't. It's impossible. They long for this person, they ache for them, their body is physically wracked with pain because they love someone they can't have.
I hate quoting cliche Bible verses, but here it's the most appropriate verse. God loved his creation so much that he killed a part of himself to give us the chance to love him back. And as wonderful and caring and compassionate as he is, I think there must be some eternal, infinite painful longing that God has for his wayward sons and daughters. It is because He wants his lost sheep to come home more than anything else in the world that all creation throws the universe's biggest party for each person that returns to God's side. To call Him father is the greatest joy a person could experience. To be called father is the greatest joy a creator could ever know.

The Response- This is a very thoughtful and moving reflection. Although, I would modify one thing. In my opinion, God didn't "kill a part of himself" for us. God allowed us to "kill a part of himself" as a demonstration both of our depravity and God's love. Jesus' death wasn't a suicide, it was a sacrifice. God didn't demand Jesus' death, we did. Jesus' wasn't the victim of a bloodthirsty, but benevolent God that demanded a sacrifice for sin. He was the victim of an ungrateful and bloodthirsty creation. We were the agents of destruction and madness. Jesus was the agent of reconciliation. I believe that distinction is extremely important, especially as we proclaim this story to others.

My response to the response- God made the marines. Wait thats a t-shirt, not the bible. However, I am pretty sure that " God GAVE His only son", and that humanity did not demand a sacrifice of a perfect person for humanity's sin. Also I've notticed while reading the old testament that blood seems to be really important, also Romans seems to indicate blood was pretty important to God. I'm a believer in ( kinda) in free will, but I belive the tent ( if I may get all analogous ) of salvation stands on the tension between free will and Gods grace ( i.e. God counting us righteous just because). It was God's plan and could not have occured had he not spent a good deal ( all) of history planning Jesus's death. Man was mostly a bystander

@my friend- I like the marriage metaphor just a hair better,but your analogy is wonderful for your audiance ( Youth ministry major and all that). I have come to think that it is Gods love that drives us, not our love of God ( splitting hairs I know, pistis of Christos)

the clever repartee to my response- So, you've taken a theology course. Take more.

My clever repartee- Romans 3:19-26

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=3&v=1&t=ESV
propitiate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propitiate
1 John 4:10
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=ESV&x=0&y=0&b=1Jo&c=4&v=10
Colosians 2: 13-14
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=ESV&x=0&y=0&b=Col&c=2&v=13

How the Clever Reparteer respons- I wish we could sit down and discuss this over a cup of coffee. We could express ourselves so much more effectively that way. It's obvious to me that you have been well trained in the Church of Christ. I spent over 40 years in the C of C and over 30 of them preaching. So I'm quite familiar with the response of simply offering Bible verses, glibly assuming that the theology behind them is self-evident. The proclamation of God's "plan of salvation" as a mere "morality play" that God acted out in the cross was my primary response when I first began preaching. But after a few years I found it to be a rather inadequate portrayal of the most pivotal event in human history. Paul's theology was much deeper and more nuanced than that. For example, to refer to humanity as "mostly bystanders" in that event is to trivialize our relationship to God and to each other. Well, that's enough for now. Perhaps we could continue this over the phone or, even better, in person.

Continued in two posts- My telephone number is (I don't know you creeper) if you would like to continue this conversation that way, since we probably can't discuss it over a cup of coffee right now. That would be my favorite option.

The Coup de grace- First, I would like to compliment you on your 30 years amongst our beloved misguided moralistic elder brother saints.You probably have the scars to prove it.

However, you replied my to my argument with condescending sarcasm. Funny, but avoiding answering any of the objections I raised. You replied to my glib assumption that you would see the scripture passages as a bibliography for my argument, with a condescending restatement of your own argument. So you can understand how I'm a little confused as to how continuing this argument has any value.I will glibly leave you with (interpret as you may) John 10: 17-18 "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

His response-

If someone could figgure out if he at all even moderatly touchs on any of the objections I raised to his argument, I'd love to hear it.

Older pompous person- I wish we could sit down and discuss this over a cup of coffee. We could express ourselves so much more effectively that way. It's obvious to me that you have been well trained in the Church of Christ. I spent over 40 years in the C of C and over 30 of them preaching. So I'm quite familiar with the response of simply offering Bible verses, glibly assuming that the theology behind them is self-evident. The proclamation of God's "plan of salvation" as a mere "morality play" that God acted out in the cross was my primary response when I first began preaching. But after a few years I found it to be a rather inadequate portrayal of the most pivotal event in human history. Paul's theology was much deeper and more nuanced than that. For example, to refer to humanity as "mostly bystanders" in that event is to trivialize our relationship to God and to each other. Well, that's enough for now. Perhaps we could continue this over the phone or, even better, in person.

Facebook argument

Older Pompous person- This is a very thoughtful and moving reflection. Although, I would modify one thing. In my opinion, God didn't "kill a part of himself" for us. God allowed us to "kill a part of himself" as a demonstration both of our depravity and God's love. Jesus' death wasn't a suicide, it was a sacrifice. God didn't demand Jesus' death, we did. Jesus' wasn't the victim of a bloodthirsty, but benevolent God that demanded a sacrifice for sin. He was the victim of an ungrateful and bloodthirsty creation. We were the agents of destruction and madness. Jesus was the agent of reconciliation. I believe that distinction is extremely important, especially as we proclaim this story to others.

( note title of the post was _ And on the eigth day God...)

Younger Pompous Person ( me)- God made the marines. Wait thats a t-shirt, not the bible. However, I am pretty sure that " God GAVE His only son", and that humanity did not demand a sacrifice of a perfect person for humanity's sin. Also I've notticed while reading the old testament that blood seems to be really important, also Romans seems to indicate blood was pretty important to God. I'm a believer in ( kinda) in free will, but I belive the tent ( if I may get all analogous ) of salvation stands on the tension between free will and Gods grace ( i.e. God counting us righteous just because). It was God's plan and could not have occured had he not spent a good deal ( all) of history planning Jesus's death. Man was mostly a bystander

@Araon- I like the marriage metaphor just a hair better,but your analogy is wonderful for your audiance ( Youth ministry major and all that). I have come to think that it is Gods love that drives us, not our love of God ( splitting hairs I know, pistis of Christos)

OPP- So, you've taken a theology course. Take more.

After I read some Piper-

YPP (ME)-ll

Romans 3:19-26

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=3&v=1&t=ESV
propitiate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propitiate
1 John 4:10
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=ESV&x=0&y=0&b=1Jo&c=4&v=10
Colosians 2: 13-14
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=ESV&x=0&y=0&b=Col&c=2&v=13

I believe what we have hear is- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I think I'm going to post that next.

Twitter conversation

person 1- It is my firm belief that the vast majority of the world's problems could be solved if people would simply stop being jerks to one another.

me-@person1 and here I thought it was Jesus. Thanks for the heads up

He's a bible major, he should know better. I am axiously awaiting his reply. ( chuckles)

A Short Theology of Elders

So the church were I'm going is looking to get them some of them there elders. Anywho, Oklahoma-isms aside, they seem to have the notion that most people do about elders, that you find people, train them, then you ellect them to a term of office. 

I will spare you the long monlogue, so, short and sweet. You do not create elders, you do not train elders, instead you find and reconize the people that are already doing elder things and give them the title.  If you do not have these people, your church is in serious trouble. These people are a product of the christian way of living. Paul could find elders from  churches that didn't have the new testament in any shape or form and most of the people were new christians.  I mean think about it, what can you teach a person who is supposed to be more spiritualy mature than everyone esle? Hmmm???

On the Jesus thing

Today in Seekers Chapel, a refreshing smaller thursday chapel more interested in God than anouncements,  we were talking about hell. This occured to me, God has already saved mankind. Jesus came, lived, and died for everybody's sin. There is no acceptance or denial of the fact that salvation has come. Its more like the sheep and goats or the talents. Its what we do with what we've been givin'. To put it more buzzwordy, its how we live out Gods shalom here on earth. This occured to me mostly because hell was talked about not to scare people, but to promise people justice. Hell was were justice would be served on the persecuters and Heaven were the persicuted would get there reward.  I will NOT say that these places do not exist, but they are not the focus. God is really a God of the here and now rather than the latter , someday. We ( chrisitians) are caleld to participate in our salvation and to be the tools God uses to redeem all creation. This frankly makes much more sense to me than the all powerful God of the universe died for all creation whipping out for all time, all sins ever committed , but this only works if you accdept it, what happened to the allpowerful part? Hmmm????? This also destroys any Calvinist types in my very small audiance arguments for predestination, mankind was predetermined to be saved, and is saved. The free will part is that Man still must chose to use that salvation wisely or perhaps better put to allow God to bring about shalom thruogh them.  Oh, and this is also founded on the notion that no ones going to get to heaven through a really good work ethic, we say being good isn't good enough, yet I've found very few people who actualy believe that. 

For those Astronomy Fans

Ones that used to drag certain children out of their nice arm beds at 2 am. One of my skeptic podcasts recomended this teloscope.  https://www.galileoscope.org/gs/

Carb Cycling- A diet that makes sense

So I've been listening to The Fitcast ( http://thefitcast.com/) for a while, and the people on the show keep talking about Carb Cycling. This can be used for either weight loss or body building. The notion is that you cycle your carbs, depending on the diet, you have high carb, low carb, no carb days.  Again it seems like it would make sense, My parants always had  very good results when they went on the Atkins Diet, dropping weight like crazy.  However, I never quite grasped the notion that its bad to eat fruits and veggies. Frankly, most diets work, just because your watching what you eat. I immagine , and its recomended by the guys ( men of GIRTH, both have goal weights over 200 pounds) over at Fat2Fit ( http://www.fat2fitradio.com/ ) that if you just wrote down everything you ate, you'd quite possible lose weight because you were paying attention, i.e notticing the fifteen reeces pieces cups you snatched randomly through out the day and probably you'd cut back.  Carb cycling makes sense because Carbs are the prefered energy source for your body. You cut back on these and your going to lose weight, problem is, you also need carbs like fruits and veggies not only to enjoy , but to have a normal ( or regular) life. So if you have your normal carb days when you exercize so you have energy, then do low to no carb days on your rest days there should be some weight loss. Anywho, here's some good info and links- 

Excert from- http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/metabolism-myths.aspx

Going into power-saving mode

 

The first goes like this: your body, when deprived of food for a period of time, will go into “starvation mode.”   This is when the body burns fewer calories in order to conserve energy, just in case the food shortage continues. During a famine, you’d need to live on your stored fat. Down-regulating your metabolism is a way to make those fat stores go a bit further.

 

It’s similar to the way your laptop adjusts its energy usage when it’s running on batteries, by making the screen a little dimmer, for example. When food is plentiful again, your metabolism goes back to normal, just the way your screen gets brighter when you plug your laptop back in.

 

If there were actually a famine, you’d be glad that your body is designed this way. But, if you’re trying to lose weight, the last thing you want is increased fuel efficiency. You wantto be burning through stored fat like an Escalade burns through a tank of gas. So, the trick is to reassure your body that there is no shortage of food by eating every few hours. Your body will oblige you by continuing to burn calories with reckless metabolic abandon. Or so the story goes.

 

It makes sense, doesn’t it? And, it’s sort of true. Your body does respond to a prolonged fast by slowing your metabolism to conserve energy. Here’s the thing, though: your body doesn’t go into starvation mode if you go four hours without food. In fact, it takes about three days of fasting or serious caloric restriction for your body to respond with any sort of metabolic adjustment.

 

http://www.squidoo.com/CarbRotationDietReview

 

I like this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_8_20/ai_98539290/ ) program, but its geared more toward someone working out very hard. So, adjustment should take place. Use this ( http://www.healthcalculators.org/calculators/carbohydrate.asp ) to figure out how many you should eat on days of moderate exercize ( walking, biking, kayaking for instance). 

Derek Web says

He's an acoustic christian artist even my parents could stand. Anywho, he's got this song called a King & a Kingdom. I'd be lieing if I said I don't listen to a significant amount of political podcast, and enjoying egaging in political debate, but I like this song, a lot. 
Lyrics to A King & A Kingdom :
(v(vs. 1) 
who's your brother, who's your sister 
you just walked passed him 
i think you missed her 
as we're all migrating to the place where our father lives 
'cause we married in to a family of immigrants 

(chorus) 
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man 
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood 
it's to a king & a kingdom 

(vs. 2) 
there are two great lies that i’ve heard: 
“the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die” 
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican 
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him 

(chorus) 

(bridge) 
but nothing unifies like a common enemy 
and we’ve got one, sure as hell 
but he may be living in your house 
he may be raising up your kids 
he may be sleeping with your wife 
oh no, he may not look like you thinks. 1)

o

Thought from my bible class

If we are not suffering, we are not counted worthy. 

Common Sense Podcast: Show 148 - Of Torches and Pitchforks

Common Sense Podcast: Show 148 - Of Torches and Pitchforks

Posted using ShareThis

Towards a Christian Ethic

So, just a thought from my bible class. Christ/Pauls ministry / Christian ethics are not based on upon avoidance of sin, but living like like God is in control and cares about the universe, living as if the Kingdom of God has come and we are living in it. 

The Change-o-Meter

A post my parents should love

So, a decent discusion on the advantages of eating more protein, esentialy the Atikens Diet. Problem is most of my family is alergic to whey. Note to, that a snack is not a can of nuts, but a handfull of nuts. Anywho, its the second podcast down, easey to find by the title, Try Protien for Weightloss. Oh and no one, AHEM, NO ONE only needs only 1400 calories a day unless you are in acoma. 

http://www.susanmitchell.org/listenlive-archives.htm

Theological Ramblings on Biblical Detail

Ok, so its time to talk about the inspiration of scripture. Which is a bit ironic because its the running joke in my family that I believe the thing was pretty much made up. Anywho, onto my thoughts.  A short synopsis of my belief on inspiration is that not everything happened the way its recorded but the way its recorded is inspired. Ok so what does that mean? To give you an example, today in class ( Joshua through Nehemiah) our teacher put forth the notion that it is possible that Jericho very well could have not been occupied by anyone at the time of the conquest. Ok, don't really care, but what I do care about is this, why then was Jericho picked to be the first place conquered in the narrative? What is the theological significance of putting Jericho as the first place? Obviously it has one, thats why it was picked to be first ( wether God picked it to be conquered, or God told the writer to pick it out of a random hat of names) place conquered? I asked the question and He didn't know quite what to do with it, and all my class mates gave a vague ( and very bad, as an slight enthusiast on the subject can attest, moi) defense of why Jericho was actually occupied. Frankly I don't care wether it was or wasn't , what I want to know is why it was chosen. Why did God say ok, Jericho's going to be the first town ( in my book or in an actual conquest) in a book that is rife with "theological geography". We've got those two mountains, ones blessings, ones cursing, and somehow the towns they take and the lists of the land is just fluff? Of no significance? Excuse me, however you believe it happened, it was put in there for a purpose, selected if you will because it was important, much the way John selected certain miracles of Jesus to record. You can't tell about every city you conquer, so your going to list the significant ones, and if it is a theological history, then your only going to list the ones that are theologically significant. For example, Ai is not a great battle. But its listed because of Aikan. God gives no extraneus details, everything has some significance to theology. anywho, I've had my rant and I shall now go do other things on the internets.

The First of the New Year

So it's been awhile, I'm trying to decide if I was just burned out blogging or didn't have anything to say, I'm guessing it was the latter. A little technical update for all of you who enjoy my spelling, I figured out (clever little me) to post from word, which should be a significant improvement over both Mozilla and safari's spell checking abilities. So perhaps the Cave just became a little bit more readable. Anywho, onto my amazing content. First and foremost I'd like to comment on the upcoming inauguration. Today in church some dude got up and read something from Romans (I think it was chapter 13) about respecting the law of the government and leaders and blah blah blah. I think the clan may be attendee's at my church. It is Oklahoma. Frankly, I don't get it. This is not the first time a president will be sworn into office, nor the last. Obama has yet to do anything, other than talk very articulately about what he's going to do (which may be the shock after the last 8 years). The content of his character has yet to be truly shown. He did little in the senate, which is what junior senators tend to do. Before that he taught and "community organized". I have teachers like that; great guys, but I don't know what they'd do in charge of the most powerful nation in the world. He could be really good, or really bad, I'm kind of hoping for mediocre. But at least give the man a chance to be whatever he's going to be. I feel half the press is trying to cover him so he's a messiah and the other half is warming up the tar and feathers. Ok, that's all I got. In future posts, I might do some fitness stuff. Mostly because that encompasses about half my podcast listening and most of my online reading. Who knows? It's a new year. Now for spell check! Da de dad um!