Loving my friend - is he right? Am I an insignificant particle of dust?

"If you're right, it doesn't matter. If you're wrong, it doesn't matter. You are an insignificant particle of cosmic dust in a universe that was here before you arrived and will be here when you've departed."

This was a response of a friend whom I reminded of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal said that the sensible position is to live a life devoted to God. If one is wrong, he or she has only lived a joyful life. If right, the bliss is endless for an eternity with God. Denying God, and being wrong, has staggering, eternal consequences as a most fiercely regretted separation from God.

Wow! My friend just might be onto something. I must admit, God's Word does say, "All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return." Ecclesiastes 3:20

Moreover, the Bible has a lot to say about God's using and uplifting  insignificant people.

Added to that are admonitions on humility, as in Micah 8:6 -

"No, O people, the Lord has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you:
to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

So I am exceedingly grateful to my friend for affirming the glorious, dynamic, living power of God's Word!

If he intended otherwise, this is HUGE. If he is right - apart from God - and I truly mean this: he could only be right without acknowledging the Bible if he were, in fact, GOD HIMSELF! If he is right, then I should worship him, because only a deity would have a complete grasp of the universe and beyond the boundaries of time to know this. Short of his deity, this simply is unknowable to a mere mortal, outside of what God has revealed of Himself and His creation in the Bible.

My friend, in deeming himself a deity, has little choice but to give sovereignty to his thoughts. Are they valid? Here's what C.S. Lewis says (whom my friend admires).

Let's assume that some deity named "Chance" created the universe, even though "Chance" has the power to do, well, nothing. But if Chance created the universe (and made us "insignificant," he committed a serious mistake: Chance created a longing in my friend - and in all of us - for significance. How cruel for Chance to develop a creature who (in my friend's perspective) is insignificant but who has a strong desire for significance. To paraphrase my friend, I can't believe in a god like that.

I'm afraid my friend (who admits to being offended by so-called Christians who weren't practicing what Jesus teaches) is more like a (inadequate parallel) flea trying to fight up the Niagra of evidence for a God who loves him. Scores of intellectuals (including lawyers) have tried to disprove the Bible and have become believers. Dr. Gary Habermas can get the most hardened skeptic to the plain, scientific fact of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Lest we look down our noses at such an assumption of deity, let the world know that Jesus thought of my friend before the beginning of time, knew him yet unborn, loves him supremely and longs for a relationship with him. See Psalm 139. And though he vigorously opposes me and denies the existence of God (I cannot for the life of me understand why he ducks the joy of a life in God - "exceedingly, abundantly above all we can ask or think"), I still love him. Some may think of him as unlovable, and it is the God who speaks to me and lives in me who enables me to love my friend.

For MLK: The incredible peacemaking, serene, unifying side of football

Years ago, when the Washington Huskies were bound again for the Rose Bowl, a huge caravan of fans drove down to Southern California. A local radio station sent a reporter to provide updates on the way down.

He was overwhelmed with what he observed: He said that this caravan was made up of Democrats, Republicans, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Arab Americans, Caucasians, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, agnostics, New Age, and multicultural fans.

They laughed, hugged, rejoiced, joked, and shouted in a fellowship of unity with just one thing in mind: love for football and the Huskies.

My prayer is that kind of unity (and I saw it in the conference championships last night), will spill over into our day-to-day discussions and gatherings.

We are all Americans.

How can we stop living our year over & over again and start setting achievable goals to get moving on progress?

TOP 20 STEPS TO ACHIEVING YOUR GOALS & DREAMS
Adapted from Michael Hyatt
1. Start here  <<(click on the link).
2. Be intentional about your goals upfront.
3. Break goals down into small bites.
4. Schedule 2-3 tasks a week to make progress on your goals. Set deadlines. If it's on the calendar, it gets done.
5. Give yourself permission to dream.
6. Set both milestone and habit goals - it takes more than 21 days; research shows it takes 66 days to build a habit.
7. Learn to say no in order to say yes to something greater.
8. If you can focus on a consuming goal that you are passionate about, learn to say no to just about everything. --Warren Buffett
9. Keep it simple. Over-planning results in procrastination.
10. Identify your limiting beliefs. Look at them from another direction, as opportunities.
11. The future doesn't equal your past.
12. Make your goals specific and measurable. "I will lose 30 pounds by June 30."
13. Stagger deadlines. Don't make every deadline December 31.
14. Establish the "why" for each goal and revisit it. Lose your "why" and you lose your way.
15. Beat procrastination. You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.
16. Keep your motion going toward your goals. Do something now.
17. Choose goals NOT in your comfort zone, but in your discomfort zone. If you go beyond that to the delusional zone, crank it back a couple clicks until you're in the discomfort zone.
18. Make yourself do something you don't want to do in order to achieve something great.
19. Bigger goals are more likely achieved than smaller goals.
20. Start with goals you want the most - those that excite you.

End of Year Blessing...
May you shake off the dust of regret and disappointment and walk boldly into the New Year. May you raise your arms in praise and open your hands in faith. May God give you a fresh anointing and impart to you a clearer vision for your life. May you make every moment count in the days ahead. God appointed you to life a significant life. May you lay hold of it this year! --S. Larson

Trying to engage the Dones and Nones

A thought-provoking article talks about active, giving Christians dropping out of church. While others don't have an identifiable belief and are called the Nones, those committed Christians who drop out are called Dones. This may be disturbing to some or at least must-read and thought-provoking: Read about the Dones

My missionary-training classmate at the Navigators, Ruth Knutson, wrote Reflections from an Imperfect Beloved One that addresses some of these problems, namely, as stated in the article I cited, that the Dones don't like to be lectured and are tired of "plop, pray and pay."

Some remedies from Ruth's insightful book:

"Research has shown than after twenty-four hours, most people forget 90 percent of what they've heard."

"Wise facilitators will share their knowledge in bite-size pieces so that people in the group are absorbing and personalizing the information. Less really is more. Less knowledge that is personally and deeply understood and applied is more powerful and useful than too much knowledge that is not remembered, understood, or applied."

"In church services, the 'movement' goal might be accomplished by having people stand for a song or prayer at appropriate places in a sermon."

"God created us in His image as relational, communicative beings, not only as listeners."

Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?

Angered by her computer being hacked and about to lose her chairmanship, Senator Dianne Feinstein released a report on the CIA that is political, biased and devoid of interviews of key people. It implies that killing non-combatants with drones is morally superior to capturing terrorists to for needed intelligence. It throws under the bus sincere, hard-working people who love their country.

Put it in perspective. Some 3,000 people had just been murdered by terrorist - some jumping from windows to avoid being burned to death. That's torture.

Let me say that from the beginning, I advocated banning torture in order to deprive the enemy of an excuse to torture American captives.

The problem is in defining what torture is. The left and right can shop for lawyers who will support either side.

Albert Einstein had joined an international group that tried to devise a moral code independent of Judeo-Christian ethics. They gave up in despair.

Professors teach relative truth - that there are no objective truths, and that what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me (how does that work at a bank?). Interestingly, the professors expect you to accept what they say about truth as objective truth!

In such a moral cesspool, there can be no consensus on what is torture. The report, thus, is meaningless.

I have a solution. It is based on "What would Jesus do?"

Clearly there were abuses, acts that went beyond the 12 authorized enhanced techniques.

I'm not sure what Jesus would do in each case, but we can infer from what he said ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and put in place a policy that might make sense: Whoever practices one of the techniques must first experience the technique in training themselves. Navy Seals must undergo water-boarding and sleep deprivation. Such a policy should be applied to all involved in using such measures. Ironically, this proposed policy can only be considered academic, since such techniques have been banned for the better part of a decade.

Next, we should ponder what Jesus meant by loving your enemies. How do you love someone who, more than life itself, wants to behead you and your daughter? Perhaps you can suggest a way. Praying for them is a start. "An eye for an eye" provides a clue about proportion: if my enemy destroys my house, I'm not to nuke his city.

Finally, why isn't this administration pursuing prosecution of CIA operatives? Because they want to avoid prosecution by the next administration.

Profanity, humor & Mother Teresa

I grew up around Catholics who told me their religion is very difficult. I never understood that. My Catholic friends could do all the things I was taught not to do.

One stark difference was profanity. They pointed out that profanity was OK if used properly - that is, to damn an object and not a person. They could even invoke God to condemn an object.

I know a devout Catholic who carries a reputation - waitresses won't serve him because of his verbal abuse. Other drivers are subject to his obscene gestures and filthy talk. Every other word, even in normal conversation is the "F"-word.

And yet he is one of the most charitable, giving people I know.

Unfortunately, few if any people are persuaded by his language to consider a life of faith if he is an example.

Wait a minute! Is profanity one of those gray areas that are not prohibited in the Bible? Are the faithful making themselves out to be Pharisees by requesting that profanity be curtailed?

Someone said, "Profanity is ignorance made audible." Is it? Yes, I've heard it from dunces. But I've also heard it from some of the best-educated people.

I wonder why the devil insists they all use the same words, as lemmings? Why not something different, such as "fungus-faced toad-sucker"? Something original? Nope. The devil won't allow it. Do profane people have no choice but to use the devil's very selective language and none other?

So what does God's Word say? I've heard some try to find a translation to suit their biases, prohibiting any form of joking or silliness. That's why it's important to compare several translations:

Ephesians 5:4

For a contextual discussion, I found this: Definitions

As for being a good, charitable person with a filthy mouth, consider this: James 3:10-11

Let me say this: unwholesome and unhelpful talk isn't confined to Catholics. We are all guilty at sometime or other.

Will Catholics be in Heaven? I'm convinced and met Catholics who trust in Jesus.

Someone had the audacity to say "Mother Teresa wasn't born-again."

In the Rome airport in 1980 I saw someone who looked like Mother Teresa. It was she! Some in our party got to talk to this humble woman whose clothes were tattered. I observed her for some time. If she's not in Heaven, we are all in trouble!

Surprise in Heaven

Anonymous
I dreamt death came the other night
And Heaven’s gate swung wide.
An angel with a halo bright
Ushered me inside.And there! To my astonishment
Stood folks I’d judged and labeled
As “quite unfit”, “of little worth”,
And “spiritually disabled”.
Indignant words rose to my lips
But never were set free,
For every face showed stunned surprise --
Not one expected me!

Bogus or legitimate?

A friend pointed out to me recently that a warning I posted about the dangers of terrorism, allegedly from an Israeli agent, was improperly attributed and that the cited "agent" was a fraud, as pointed out in snopes.com

As a journalist, I should have checked the source more carefully, and I should have attributed the piece clearly.

But here we have something of a dilemma. Dr. Gary Habermas defines a scholarly expert as someone who has a terminal degree in a specific field of study. But is wisdom confined to the experts? Can a layperson come up with profound insight that could change the world for the better? I think so.

In recent years authors, scholars in specific fields (e.g., biology), have feigned expertise in theology, for example. It is almost as if their theology cannot be challenged except by another scholar (in biology). They find no problem in attempting to discuss Someone immaterial in material terms.

Sometimes a so-called expert is too close to his or her chosen field to see the challenges. The expert may have too much at stake to challenge one's peers.

Accordingly, we find parents with high-school educations challenging a school's curriculum chosen by a panel of PhD's who missed the blatant revisionism.

The friend who pointed out my problems with attribution hops freely from history to science to theology. He brings to bear a lifetime of education in a number of fields. He suggests that we don't see matters in terms of right or left but, rather, wise or unwise.

And so my "bogus" source poses concerns:

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. (i.e. The government will shut off the cellular network in an attack!)

Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel.

OK, perhaps he isn't an agent. But he offers wise advice. Whether our government shuts down cell phones is immaterial, if I see foreign governments adept in cyber attacks targeting our electrical grid. Thus, a family formulating a plan demonstrates wisdom. 

Yes, challenge sources. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.