I had to leave my last post and come back to it to finish it.
While I was gone, somebody (I cannot even begin to guess who) commented on my comments.
The comment was: Not important to you, but very important to those that lived through it. Be respectful to history, you can learn from it and don't be such a cynical hard-head. Apparently, Jesus is part of a history you care about. So quit raining on other people's parade.
To which I respond:
1. The history is important to me. Who "Deep Throat" was (read: who squealed) is not. (By the way, I did live
throught it.)
2. I learn from history that it both repeats itself and occasionally mumbles.
3. I am a cynical hard-head. And proud of it! (Tell me how wrong that is...I can hardly wait.)
I was once a member of S.W.I.N.E. (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything).
4. As a matter of fact, Jesus is the only part of history I ultimately care about.
5. People who do not want their parade rained on should carry umbrellas.
6. Who said it was their parade anyway?
7. Don't take me so seriously. I'm not worth it. Get a life. Get over it. Chill.
8. "Those" are "whos," not "thats."
9. Besides...it's my blog.
10. Love to all!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
My Right to Know?
Today we learned the "secret" of who "Deep Throat" is.
For those of you not well versed in the recent history of politics, check out the Nixon era.
The newscaster told me tonight that the answer to the question that had been on everybody's mind since the fall of the Nixon presidency had been answered.
I was a follower of the Watergate hearings. Rivited to the TV day after day, I wondered what would become of the President.
Nixon ultimately resigned.
I can honestly say that not once since then have I ever cared, wondered or even thought about who "Deep Throat" was (or is).
But the newscaster told me that it had been on my mind for years.
If he hadn't brought it up, I still would not be caring, wondering or thinking about it.
Now it is the lead story on every network, news magazine, gossip program and even the local news. How is that local?
So, if I understand the way it works, news departments decide what is on my mind and then tell me what I was wondering, even though I was neither wondering nor interested.
So is that reporting news or creating it?
And do I have the right to know what I did not know I wanted to know?
What happens if I am told what I wanted to know only to find out that I didn't really want to know it, but it is too late because they already told me?
This is getting really complicated! I think I will just go solve a mystery of quantum physics or something.
For those of you not well versed in the recent history of politics, check out the Nixon era.
The newscaster told me tonight that the answer to the question that had been on everybody's mind since the fall of the Nixon presidency had been answered.
I was a follower of the Watergate hearings. Rivited to the TV day after day, I wondered what would become of the President.
Nixon ultimately resigned.
I can honestly say that not once since then have I ever cared, wondered or even thought about who "Deep Throat" was (or is).
But the newscaster told me that it had been on my mind for years.
If he hadn't brought it up, I still would not be caring, wondering or thinking about it.
Now it is the lead story on every network, news magazine, gossip program and even the local news. How is that local?
So, if I understand the way it works, news departments decide what is on my mind and then tell me what I was wondering, even though I was neither wondering nor interested.
So is that reporting news or creating it?
And do I have the right to know what I did not know I wanted to know?
What happens if I am told what I wanted to know only to find out that I didn't really want to know it, but it is too late because they already told me?
This is getting really complicated! I think I will just go solve a mystery of quantum physics or something.
What are the Chances?
I am a radio announcer. More exactly, I am the Operations/Production Manager at WJYO and WBIY (91.5 fm and 88.3 fm) in Fort Myers, Florida.
One of my responsibilities is to announce the weather forcast each day.
The weather forecast comes to me each day from several sources: AOL's daily forecast; Weatherbug.com; nbc-2.com and others.
Each of them talks about the "chance of rain."
Science and technology are great, but there are some things they (science and technology) just can't get right. One of those things is the weather forecast.
There is never a "chance" of rain. That is superstition. There is a "probability" of rain. That is mathematics.
The word "chance" is used whenever we don't have enough information to draw a scientific conclusion.
Flip a coin. What are the "chances" it will come up heads? You might answer 50/50. You would be wrong. (I know, you've heard it all of your life...but it is still wrong.)
By using the same amount of pressure in my thumb, at the right point on the coin, I can greatly increase my "chances" of the coin coming up heads. Practice makes perfect. In fact, I can flip a quarter and make it come up heads almost every time.
If I knew the atmospheric pressure exerted on the coin at the time of its flippancy, the influence of the wind, where its center of gravity was, its mass and the energy exerted at the flipping point, I could theoretically predict with 100% accuracy how the coin would land.
Lack of information (read: data) reduces our ability to correctly predict weather.
"So what?" you may impatiently ask.
I don't know...it just seems that we draw many conclusions and make many predictions about things for which we have inadequate information.
There are people who make outlandish statements about the Bible, having never even read it. How inadequate is their information?
As I write this, it is raining.
There was an 80% chance.
One of my responsibilities is to announce the weather forcast each day.
The weather forecast comes to me each day from several sources: AOL's daily forecast; Weatherbug.com; nbc-2.com and others.
Each of them talks about the "chance of rain."
Science and technology are great, but there are some things they (science and technology) just can't get right. One of those things is the weather forecast.
There is never a "chance" of rain. That is superstition. There is a "probability" of rain. That is mathematics.
The word "chance" is used whenever we don't have enough information to draw a scientific conclusion.
Flip a coin. What are the "chances" it will come up heads? You might answer 50/50. You would be wrong. (I know, you've heard it all of your life...but it is still wrong.)
By using the same amount of pressure in my thumb, at the right point on the coin, I can greatly increase my "chances" of the coin coming up heads. Practice makes perfect. In fact, I can flip a quarter and make it come up heads almost every time.
If I knew the atmospheric pressure exerted on the coin at the time of its flippancy, the influence of the wind, where its center of gravity was, its mass and the energy exerted at the flipping point, I could theoretically predict with 100% accuracy how the coin would land.
Lack of information (read: data) reduces our ability to correctly predict weather.
"So what?" you may impatiently ask.
I don't know...it just seems that we draw many conclusions and make many predictions about things for which we have inadequate information.
There are people who make outlandish statements about the Bible, having never even read it. How inadequate is their information?
As I write this, it is raining.
There was an 80% chance.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Deep Thought
By now, if you are among the two or three people who regularly read my drivel, you know about my friend and co-worker, Parker.
Parker is deep. But, then, so is the Atlantic Ocean.
The Atlantic Ocean and I have never had a conversation, but Parker and I have.
We had a great conversation today. It was all about Calvinism versus Armenianism, pews in church versus chairs, the emerging church versus mainline denominations, atomic bombs exploding in the middle of the ocean, wars and rumors of war, China, Korea, roller coasters and other things that either change the world or indicate that the world is changing, I can't remember which.
Point is, although he does not think of himself as one, Parker is a kid (by my standards, anyway, I'm 63 years old), yet, he carries on a meaningful conversation better that 93.786% (my actual count) of the adults I talk with. (OK, so Parker is a young adult.)
Most of the adults with whom I talk (see, I do know about prepositions and such), give you the old, "How are you?" "Did you see where so-and-so got tangled up with the law?" "How's the wife." (The wife has a name, thank you very much...why don't you ever use it?)
Then it's on to talk about work, where they ate, where they're going to eat, why I should not eat so much, etc.
An adult called me the other day. The conversation started out, "Are you feeling better?" (Nice of you to ask.) "We had some knockworst last night and it really stuck with me." (I needed to know that.) "So, will you let so-and-so know that we're planning to be there Wednesday night?" (I said I would.)
Wanting a little subtance to mentally chew on, I asked, "How do you think we can best help so-and-so understand the spiritual issue with which he is struggling?"
"Oh, I don't know," came the reply, "He's so pig-headed. Did you hear he bought a used car." "See you later. Have a good'un." (You, too.)
Grrrr.
So, if you don't mind, when I want some stimulating conversation, I'll just mosey on over to where Parker is and we can talk about Plato, Aristotle, and antidisestablishmentarianism, and their relationship to new-age consumerism. Maybe we'll even broach the subject of oceanic bi-valve conservation. (Notice the clever return to the earlier allusion to the ocean.)
Have a good'un. Y'all.
Parker is deep. But, then, so is the Atlantic Ocean.
The Atlantic Ocean and I have never had a conversation, but Parker and I have.
We had a great conversation today. It was all about Calvinism versus Armenianism, pews in church versus chairs, the emerging church versus mainline denominations, atomic bombs exploding in the middle of the ocean, wars and rumors of war, China, Korea, roller coasters and other things that either change the world or indicate that the world is changing, I can't remember which.
Point is, although he does not think of himself as one, Parker is a kid (by my standards, anyway, I'm 63 years old), yet, he carries on a meaningful conversation better that 93.786% (my actual count) of the adults I talk with. (OK, so Parker is a young adult.)
Most of the adults with whom I talk (see, I do know about prepositions and such), give you the old, "How are you?" "Did you see where so-and-so got tangled up with the law?" "How's the wife." (The wife has a name, thank you very much...why don't you ever use it?)
Then it's on to talk about work, where they ate, where they're going to eat, why I should not eat so much, etc.
An adult called me the other day. The conversation started out, "Are you feeling better?" (Nice of you to ask.) "We had some knockworst last night and it really stuck with me." (I needed to know that.) "So, will you let so-and-so know that we're planning to be there Wednesday night?" (I said I would.)
Wanting a little subtance to mentally chew on, I asked, "How do you think we can best help so-and-so understand the spiritual issue with which he is struggling?"
"Oh, I don't know," came the reply, "He's so pig-headed. Did you hear he bought a used car." "See you later. Have a good'un." (You, too.)
Grrrr.
So, if you don't mind, when I want some stimulating conversation, I'll just mosey on over to where Parker is and we can talk about Plato, Aristotle, and antidisestablishmentarianism, and their relationship to new-age consumerism. Maybe we'll even broach the subject of oceanic bi-valve conservation. (Notice the clever return to the earlier allusion to the ocean.)
Have a good'un. Y'all.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Embriotic Thinking (You Have to be Smart to Understand This One)
A "pro-choice" person, Howard Dean, was interviewed on "Meet the Press" a while ago. Here is a quote (shortened by leaving out the repititions):
"I think it is time now for pro-life Americans and pro-choice Americans or Americans who believe in individual freedom to get together, and we have common ground. The common ground is we'd all like to reduce the number of abortions...That's something we can agree on. ...let's see what common ground that we have. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility. I think we can work together. There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush." (Howard Dean)
If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is wrong. "Pro-lifers" don't want the number of abortions reduced. They want them eliminated. "Prop-choicers" may or may not care whether they are reduced. Where is this supposed "common ground?"
Notice the way Mr. Deans words are phrased.
Pro-choice Americans "believe in individual freedom." By implication, pro-life Americans don't.
Are there "pro-choice" Americans who believe the choice to stop or not to stop at a stop sign is a "belief in individual freedom" and "pro-stop" Americans who don't believe in "individual freedom" and that all stop sign running should be eliminated?
Notice that "there are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life."
Implication: There are also a lot of unreasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life.
It is also interesting that the reasonable pro-choice Americans "believe in individual choice and personal responsibility." (Italics mine)
I guess pro-lifers don't believe in either individual choice or personal responsibility.
Finally there is the incredibly outrageous statement, "There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush."
Forgive me for stating the obvious to you honest thinkers, but the words "abortion rate continue to go up" and "under President bush" don't belong in the same sentence.
The abortion rate has gone up ever since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v Wade decision, regardless of who has been in office. The fact is, the abortion rate of increase has slowed slightly during the Bush administration, but neither he, nor any member of Congress had anything to do with it.
The "under President Bush" phrase was nothing more than a mindless political slur.
Here is the line of thought followed by the less knee-jerky pro-lifers (There are plenty of knee jerkers on both sides of this issue):
1. The fertilized egg is human. Check its DNA.
2. The resulting "tissue mass" is alive. It takes on nourishment, multiplies and gives off waste.
3. The growing fetus (Latin for baby) quickly develops a specific and unique personality.
4. The babe in the womb is often named long before he/she is born. (I have never heard of
anyone naming a tissue mass. Look, here is a picture of my recently removed tonsils. I
named them George and Earline.)
5. A 3-deminsional ultra sound shows active hands, feet, heart, etc. at a very early period.
6. The infinitely small distance between the birth canal and the great outside does not change
the humanity or personhood of the baby at all.
7. Taking a human life pre-meditatively, when that life has not threatened the life of another, is
called murder.
8. Murdering unborn humans is not protected by The Constitution of the United States of
America, regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled. I've read it. (Have you?)
There's more, but if this much does not convince you, I guess you are one of those "very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility," not to mention the killing of the un-born for the sake of personal preference.
This is an I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, how I want it society. If I want abortion to be legal, so be it. I must get what I want.
I wonder where that thinking leads. Might we next allow otherwise healthy, not-on-life-support, brain damaged persons who are a "drain" on society die of starvation? Nah. That will never happen. In a Nazi society, maybe, but not in America.
"I think it is time now for pro-life Americans and pro-choice Americans or Americans who believe in individual freedom to get together, and we have common ground. The common ground is we'd all like to reduce the number of abortions...That's something we can agree on. ...let's see what common ground that we have. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility. I think we can work together. There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush." (Howard Dean)
If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is wrong. "Pro-lifers" don't want the number of abortions reduced. They want them eliminated. "Prop-choicers" may or may not care whether they are reduced. Where is this supposed "common ground?"
Notice the way Mr. Deans words are phrased.
Pro-choice Americans "believe in individual freedom." By implication, pro-life Americans don't.
Are there "pro-choice" Americans who believe the choice to stop or not to stop at a stop sign is a "belief in individual freedom" and "pro-stop" Americans who don't believe in "individual freedom" and that all stop sign running should be eliminated?
Notice that "there are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life."
Implication: There are also a lot of unreasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life.
It is also interesting that the reasonable pro-choice Americans "believe in individual choice and personal responsibility." (Italics mine)
I guess pro-lifers don't believe in either individual choice or personal responsibility.
Finally there is the incredibly outrageous statement, "There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush."
Forgive me for stating the obvious to you honest thinkers, but the words "abortion rate continue to go up" and "under President bush" don't belong in the same sentence.
The abortion rate has gone up ever since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v Wade decision, regardless of who has been in office. The fact is, the abortion rate of increase has slowed slightly during the Bush administration, but neither he, nor any member of Congress had anything to do with it.
The "under President Bush" phrase was nothing more than a mindless political slur.
Here is the line of thought followed by the less knee-jerky pro-lifers (There are plenty of knee jerkers on both sides of this issue):
1. The fertilized egg is human. Check its DNA.
2. The resulting "tissue mass" is alive. It takes on nourishment, multiplies and gives off waste.
3. The growing fetus (Latin for baby) quickly develops a specific and unique personality.
4. The babe in the womb is often named long before he/she is born. (I have never heard of
anyone naming a tissue mass. Look, here is a picture of my recently removed tonsils. I
named them George and Earline.)
5. A 3-deminsional ultra sound shows active hands, feet, heart, etc. at a very early period.
6. The infinitely small distance between the birth canal and the great outside does not change
the humanity or personhood of the baby at all.
7. Taking a human life pre-meditatively, when that life has not threatened the life of another, is
called murder.
8. Murdering unborn humans is not protected by The Constitution of the United States of
America, regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled. I've read it. (Have you?)
There's more, but if this much does not convince you, I guess you are one of those "very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility," not to mention the killing of the un-born for the sake of personal preference.
This is an I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, how I want it society. If I want abortion to be legal, so be it. I must get what I want.
I wonder where that thinking leads. Might we next allow otherwise healthy, not-on-life-support, brain damaged persons who are a "drain" on society die of starvation? Nah. That will never happen. In a Nazi society, maybe, but not in America.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
My Tireless Friend
A friend of mine, whom I've mentioned before, Parker, had a flat tire on the way home from work.
Parker is a very interesting person. He is wise beyond his years, but does not let it go to his head. He knows how to be serious and he knows how to have fun. He can be quiet and focused and he can be...wacky.
He is a computernaught extrodinaire. That adds to his value here around the radio station.
One of Parker's great "loves" is the software system we use here to automate the programming. It is a system called NexGen, and is built by a company in Nebraska called Prophet Systems Innovations. (Yes, Nebraska)
There is nothing like a system that is sturdy, dependable, easy to use and has few bugs. NexGen is nothing like a system that is sturdy, dependable, easy to use and has few bugs.
School is out for a while and Parker has more time to be here. That's a great help to me.
Few people have any idea how much work not directly related to what is presently on-air there is at a radio station.
He is a blogger and has a blog at insanityfarm.com. If you like movies, this is a good place to get a level-headed review.
All of that, and Parker can change a tire.
Parker is a very interesting person. He is wise beyond his years, but does not let it go to his head. He knows how to be serious and he knows how to have fun. He can be quiet and focused and he can be...wacky.
He is a computernaught extrodinaire. That adds to his value here around the radio station.
One of Parker's great "loves" is the software system we use here to automate the programming. It is a system called NexGen, and is built by a company in Nebraska called Prophet Systems Innovations. (Yes, Nebraska)
There is nothing like a system that is sturdy, dependable, easy to use and has few bugs. NexGen is nothing like a system that is sturdy, dependable, easy to use and has few bugs.
School is out for a while and Parker has more time to be here. That's a great help to me.
Few people have any idea how much work not directly related to what is presently on-air there is at a radio station.
He is a blogger and has a blog at insanityfarm.com. If you like movies, this is a good place to get a level-headed review.
All of that, and Parker can change a tire.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Where Never Is Heard
I have only been blogging a week or so. I really didn't expect anyone to actually read what I write, its intrinsic value notwithstanding.
What a surprise it was when I saw a comment on something in my blog!
So I eagerly clicked on it and began to read.
The first thing I noticed was that it was completely off subject. Maybe he/she just missed the point. So I read on.
The comment turned from just being off-point to being vile, vulgar and vicious! "Wow!" I shouted inside my head, "I'm attracting pea-brains!" Then I realized how insulting to vegetables that thought was.
This guy/gal had the same creative thought patterns as the paving stones in my garden. Only the paving stones serve a purpose.
Turns out that if you're going to engage in this blogging thing and allow comments, you have to take the good, the bad and the ugly.
So I thought, "Should I just abandon this thing and go peacefully on my way?"
While some of my brain shouted, "Yyyyyyessss!" the rest of it said, "Come on, Joe, you tell everybody to lighten up...take some of your own advice."
"Good thinking," said I. "You're a good brain after all."
So, go ahead. Comment.
Maybe someday, somehow, somebody who actually earned their way out of third grade will have something both intelligible and intelligent to add to my ramblings.
In the mean time, those of you who can't (add something both intelligible and intelligent), just confirm my "the glass is half empty" expectations.
And that's OK. I love being right.
What a surprise it was when I saw a comment on something in my blog!
So I eagerly clicked on it and began to read.
The first thing I noticed was that it was completely off subject. Maybe he/she just missed the point. So I read on.
The comment turned from just being off-point to being vile, vulgar and vicious! "Wow!" I shouted inside my head, "I'm attracting pea-brains!" Then I realized how insulting to vegetables that thought was.
This guy/gal had the same creative thought patterns as the paving stones in my garden. Only the paving stones serve a purpose.
Turns out that if you're going to engage in this blogging thing and allow comments, you have to take the good, the bad and the ugly.
So I thought, "Should I just abandon this thing and go peacefully on my way?"
While some of my brain shouted, "Yyyyyyessss!" the rest of it said, "Come on, Joe, you tell everybody to lighten up...take some of your own advice."
"Good thinking," said I. "You're a good brain after all."
So, go ahead. Comment.
Maybe someday, somehow, somebody who actually earned their way out of third grade will have something both intelligible and intelligent to add to my ramblings.
In the mean time, those of you who can't (add something both intelligible and intelligent), just confirm my "the glass is half empty" expectations.
And that's OK. I love being right.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
What's Your Opinion?
Someone once asked me, "May I get your opinion on something?"
I replied, "Of course! I have one on just about everything."
There are few things on which I have no opinion. That is probably true about most people.
What are your opinions like? How many opinions do you hold that you think are wrong, but you hold them anyway? If you think they are wrong, why do you hold them?
As a matter of fact, if you hold an opinion that you think is wrong, it is not your opinion.
If you say, "I may be wrong, but that's my opinion," you are being dishonest. You don't believe you may be wrong. If you did, you would hold a different opinion or you would not think you could be wrong.
In other words: It is wrong to say you may be wrong when, in fact, you don't think you could be wrong.
Have you ever accused another of being "opinionated?" What did you mean by that?
Did you mean that he or she held opinions? Perhaps you meant that he or she expressed an opinion. Maybe it was just the way the opinion was expressed. Could it be that the opinion contradicted yours, therefore you did not like it?
Some people pretend that they hold "loose" opinions in the interest of being "open minded."
An open mind lets truth out as easily as it lets it in.
For instance, I am very closed minded and opinionated about lightning. It is my opinion that I do not want to be struck by it. I express this opinion about lightning having never experienced being struck by it. I am very narrow minded about that.
My opinions are all humble. Humble but correct.
It is a fact that we are all opinionated.
That's my opinion.
I replied, "Of course! I have one on just about everything."
There are few things on which I have no opinion. That is probably true about most people.
What are your opinions like? How many opinions do you hold that you think are wrong, but you hold them anyway? If you think they are wrong, why do you hold them?
As a matter of fact, if you hold an opinion that you think is wrong, it is not your opinion.
If you say, "I may be wrong, but that's my opinion," you are being dishonest. You don't believe you may be wrong. If you did, you would hold a different opinion or you would not think you could be wrong.
In other words: It is wrong to say you may be wrong when, in fact, you don't think you could be wrong.
Have you ever accused another of being "opinionated?" What did you mean by that?
Did you mean that he or she held opinions? Perhaps you meant that he or she expressed an opinion. Maybe it was just the way the opinion was expressed. Could it be that the opinion contradicted yours, therefore you did not like it?
Some people pretend that they hold "loose" opinions in the interest of being "open minded."
An open mind lets truth out as easily as it lets it in.
For instance, I am very closed minded and opinionated about lightning. It is my opinion that I do not want to be struck by it. I express this opinion about lightning having never experienced being struck by it. I am very narrow minded about that.
My opinions are all humble. Humble but correct.
It is a fact that we are all opinionated.
That's my opinion.
Monday, May 23, 2005
"I" Trouble
In John 17:1-25 records the Lord's prayer. We usually think of, "Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be...." as the Lord's prayer. But in that prayer He was giving the disciples a model for prayer.
His prayer was selfless. He sought glory for the Father and unity for the disciples.
Unity. He prayed that we would be one, as the Father and He are one.
Are we?
In fact we are divided. We are divided philosophically, spiritually, doctrinally, physically, emotionally, musically, denominationally, and in just about every way we can imagine.
We are even divided within local churches. Red carpet, green carpet. Pipe organ, praise band. Hymns, "praise and worship." Saturday worship, Sunday worship. "Sunday School," "Bible Study." Count 'em every week, don't bother counting them at all. Long sermons, short sermons. Topical, verse-by-verse. Children in worship, Children's Worship. That is a sin but this isn't, this is a sin but that isn't. Minor sins, major sins.
Why are we so disjointed?
The answer is we all (myself included) suffer from "I" trouble. We believe that what we were taught, what we think, our personal interpretation and our personal opinion is what determines the truth of something.
People have said to me, "This is just my opinion, but....." Then, when I have expressed a differing opinion, they have gotten angry.
They really didn't think, "This is just my opinion..." They really thought, "This must be correct since it is my opinion."
Some people think that something is true just because they think it or say it.
Most people seem to think that they not only have a right to their opinion, they have a right to express it no matter who it hurts or what effect it has.
And so it has gone, resulting in the rampant divisions among us.
Each of us has the attitude: Why can't everybody else just think like me?
What can fix it? How do we achieve the unity that our Lord prayed for us?
The answer is to realize the Biblical solution of dying to self and entering a state of voluntary servitude to Christ.
The "What Would Jesus Do?" craze almost had it right. It should have asked, "What Would Jesus Have Me to Do?" (My new bracelet, soon to be on the market, will have the letters: WWJHMTD)
In other words, we need to focus our "I"s on Jesus. We need to make Him the in all, of all, by all and through all of everything we do and everything we are.
The rest of Christianity is going to resist that idea. Why don't you lead the way?
His prayer was selfless. He sought glory for the Father and unity for the disciples.
Unity. He prayed that we would be one, as the Father and He are one.
Are we?
In fact we are divided. We are divided philosophically, spiritually, doctrinally, physically, emotionally, musically, denominationally, and in just about every way we can imagine.
We are even divided within local churches. Red carpet, green carpet. Pipe organ, praise band. Hymns, "praise and worship." Saturday worship, Sunday worship. "Sunday School," "Bible Study." Count 'em every week, don't bother counting them at all. Long sermons, short sermons. Topical, verse-by-verse. Children in worship, Children's Worship. That is a sin but this isn't, this is a sin but that isn't. Minor sins, major sins.
Why are we so disjointed?
The answer is we all (myself included) suffer from "I" trouble. We believe that what we were taught, what we think, our personal interpretation and our personal opinion is what determines the truth of something.
People have said to me, "This is just my opinion, but....." Then, when I have expressed a differing opinion, they have gotten angry.
They really didn't think, "This is just my opinion..." They really thought, "This must be correct since it is my opinion."
Some people think that something is true just because they think it or say it.
Most people seem to think that they not only have a right to their opinion, they have a right to express it no matter who it hurts or what effect it has.
And so it has gone, resulting in the rampant divisions among us.
Each of us has the attitude: Why can't everybody else just think like me?
What can fix it? How do we achieve the unity that our Lord prayed for us?
The answer is to realize the Biblical solution of dying to self and entering a state of voluntary servitude to Christ.
The "What Would Jesus Do?" craze almost had it right. It should have asked, "What Would Jesus Have Me to Do?" (My new bracelet, soon to be on the market, will have the letters: WWJHMTD)
In other words, we need to focus our "I"s on Jesus. We need to make Him the in all, of all, by all and through all of everything we do and everything we are.
The rest of Christianity is going to resist that idea. Why don't you lead the way?
Book pReview
I've been think about writing a book. Hasn't everybody?
My first book would be a layman's systematic theology.
With a background in psychology and sociology, what would qualify me to write such a book? Actually, nothing that I know of. Maybe that's the point.
I've been a Christian for forty some-odd years and study the Bible every day. I've actually read through it cover-to-cover at least five times and am in the process of doing so again.
I think I have a better than average feel for basic Biblical principles and view of God.
The book would avoid words that might sound unnecessarily lofty and elitist. Everything would be explained in language the average layman could understand.
So, be on the lookout. When I am either rich or famous, I will send you an autographed copy of my yet to be written book if you'll promise to read it.
Once you have read it, it will make a nice riser for those indoor plants you've been meaning to arrange in the corner of your room.
My first book would be a layman's systematic theology.
With a background in psychology and sociology, what would qualify me to write such a book? Actually, nothing that I know of. Maybe that's the point.
I've been a Christian for forty some-odd years and study the Bible every day. I've actually read through it cover-to-cover at least five times and am in the process of doing so again.
I think I have a better than average feel for basic Biblical principles and view of God.
The book would avoid words that might sound unnecessarily lofty and elitist. Everything would be explained in language the average layman could understand.
So, be on the lookout. When I am either rich or famous, I will send you an autographed copy of my yet to be written book if you'll promise to read it.
Once you have read it, it will make a nice riser for those indoor plants you've been meaning to arrange in the corner of your room.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The Heart of the Matter
On Saturday, May 7, 2002, at about 9:02 AM I had a heart attack. Then, about 20 minutes later, I had another. By Sunday afternoon, I had had nine. I went to work Monday and during the day I had 3 more.
I called my doctor who told me to get to the emergency room.
I went.
These were not the regular "pressure grips your chest while an elephant sits on you, full blown, pain radiates down your left arm and into your jaws" attacks. They felt as though a man had climed into my chest and lighted a blowtorch. Searing pain. Highly unrecommended.
My hospital experience is for another time, but it was the pits.
Now I take a "blood pressure lowering, blood vessel dialating" pill, an aspirin per day and carry nitroglycerin tablets with me. All the time.
My doctor says I have a 50% chance of having additional "events," and that each of them has a 50% chance of being "the big one."
Happily, I was able to do the week's work at the radio station (WJYO 91.5 FM), and lead worship in my church today. But I am exhausted and will have to rest this afternoon if I am to go to work tomorrow.
I say all of this to say that I was suddenly given the proverbial "wake-up call," a reminder that there never has been, is not now, nor will there ever be a guarantee of tomorrow in this world.
There is good news in all of this. When I was a 16 year old know-it-all, I was told by someone I trusted that the restlessness in my innermost being, the one that made me think my parents were old and knew little of the pressures of my teenage world, the one that made me rebel at any and all authority, the one that made me say, "I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it and I want it right now," the one that made me want to express myself with anti-establishment music and wierd experiences, and all sorts of other things, was caused by sin.
Sin! Me! The son of an officer in the United States Air Force. Sin? How utterly ridiculous!
But deep inside, where my being resides, I knew it was true.
The trusted one went on to tell me that the sin in my life would separate me from God forever and that there was nothing I could do about it.
That didn't sound like good news to me. But he wasn't finished.
He told me that God sent His son, Jesus, to die on a cross to pay the penalty for sin for me. He said that if I would turn in faith to Him, God would place in my heart the knowledge of His forgiveness and change my life forever. (There were a lot of theological thingys he told me about, too, as well as some great Bible verses, but that, too, is for another time.)
I did. God did. I have served Him ever since.
When I had my first heart attack, I really thought I was going to die. By the 12th, I was sure of it. I'm still here.
Let me tell you, I was concerned for my wife. I was concerned for the radio station. I was concerned for the sweet people at my church. Not for a minute was I concerned for myself. My future is totally secure. I was at peace with whatever was going to happen.
Money, cars, electronic goodies, houses...those are all good things. But they are all trumped by God's peace in the heart.
I wish everybody would do what it takes to have that peace in their heart. I especially wish you would, if you never have.
That's not "trying to force my religion" on you. It's just wishing for you the best thing that could ever happen, hands down, bar none.
Recommended Reading (in The bible): Romans 3:23; Roman 6:23; Romans 10: 9-13 and John 3:16.
In Christian Love
Joe
I called my doctor who told me to get to the emergency room.
I went.
These were not the regular "pressure grips your chest while an elephant sits on you, full blown, pain radiates down your left arm and into your jaws" attacks. They felt as though a man had climed into my chest and lighted a blowtorch. Searing pain. Highly unrecommended.
My hospital experience is for another time, but it was the pits.
Now I take a "blood pressure lowering, blood vessel dialating" pill, an aspirin per day and carry nitroglycerin tablets with me. All the time.
My doctor says I have a 50% chance of having additional "events," and that each of them has a 50% chance of being "the big one."
Happily, I was able to do the week's work at the radio station (WJYO 91.5 FM), and lead worship in my church today. But I am exhausted and will have to rest this afternoon if I am to go to work tomorrow.
I say all of this to say that I was suddenly given the proverbial "wake-up call," a reminder that there never has been, is not now, nor will there ever be a guarantee of tomorrow in this world.
There is good news in all of this. When I was a 16 year old know-it-all, I was told by someone I trusted that the restlessness in my innermost being, the one that made me think my parents were old and knew little of the pressures of my teenage world, the one that made me rebel at any and all authority, the one that made me say, "I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it and I want it right now," the one that made me want to express myself with anti-establishment music and wierd experiences, and all sorts of other things, was caused by sin.
Sin! Me! The son of an officer in the United States Air Force. Sin? How utterly ridiculous!
But deep inside, where my being resides, I knew it was true.
The trusted one went on to tell me that the sin in my life would separate me from God forever and that there was nothing I could do about it.
That didn't sound like good news to me. But he wasn't finished.
He told me that God sent His son, Jesus, to die on a cross to pay the penalty for sin for me. He said that if I would turn in faith to Him, God would place in my heart the knowledge of His forgiveness and change my life forever. (There were a lot of theological thingys he told me about, too, as well as some great Bible verses, but that, too, is for another time.)
I did. God did. I have served Him ever since.
When I had my first heart attack, I really thought I was going to die. By the 12th, I was sure of it. I'm still here.
Let me tell you, I was concerned for my wife. I was concerned for the radio station. I was concerned for the sweet people at my church. Not for a minute was I concerned for myself. My future is totally secure. I was at peace with whatever was going to happen.
Money, cars, electronic goodies, houses...those are all good things. But they are all trumped by God's peace in the heart.
I wish everybody would do what it takes to have that peace in their heart. I especially wish you would, if you never have.
That's not "trying to force my religion" on you. It's just wishing for you the best thing that could ever happen, hands down, bar none.
Recommended Reading (in The bible): Romans 3:23; Roman 6:23; Romans 10: 9-13 and John 3:16.
In Christian Love
Joe
Thursday, May 19, 2005
A Tough Constitution
Question: What constitutes the United States of America?
Answer: The Constitution of the United States of America (Hereinafter to be referred to as: The Constitution).
The Constitution is the document drawn up by a contingent of men known as "The Founders."
I'm not so sure about The Founders. There were so many things they did not know.
The Founders did not know that Christian faith was not to be an influence upon the government. They included specific references to Christian faith and its importance to the decision making process in their speeches and writitngs.
They did not know that The Holy Bible did not belong in the classroom. They had the audacity to use it as a textbook in their schools.
Little did The Founders realize that references to Scripture should not be allowed in courts of law.
Knowing so little about the meaning of the document they had just written and ratified, The Founders did not know that The Constitution forbade them from mentioning God in their speaches and addresses.
The happless Founders had the pecular belief that government should commit itself to uniting the country, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the welfare of the people, providing the country's defense, and securing the blessings of liberty now and forever.
Although The Founders believed The Constitution to be a living, breathing document, they thought it should breathe deeply and slowly, according to the will of the people through an ammendment process. They seemed not to realize that it was to rush forward huffing and puffing by judicial decree and discovery.
Those silly men did not get it. They provided for a fifty-one percent vote to stop a fillibuster. Those who were in power 15 years ago suddenly realized that the percentage needed to be sixty-one. How honorable they are.
Sure, they are all honorable men and women.
The farther in time we get from the drafting of The Constitution, the more we seem to think that The Founders did not know what they were doing.
It is as though, in the middle of a Super Bowl, the Commisioner of the NFL yelled out, "Stop the game! We're changing the rules. No more forward passes and no hogging the ball when you run. You must share with others around you. " (We'd pay premium ticket prices for that game, wouldn't we?) Before long the game would no longer be football.
If we keep changing The Constitution without its self-described process, before long we will no longer be constituted as The United States of America.
Joe
Answer: The Constitution of the United States of America (Hereinafter to be referred to as: The Constitution).
The Constitution is the document drawn up by a contingent of men known as "The Founders."
I'm not so sure about The Founders. There were so many things they did not know.
The Founders did not know that Christian faith was not to be an influence upon the government. They included specific references to Christian faith and its importance to the decision making process in their speeches and writitngs.
They did not know that The Holy Bible did not belong in the classroom. They had the audacity to use it as a textbook in their schools.
Little did The Founders realize that references to Scripture should not be allowed in courts of law.
Knowing so little about the meaning of the document they had just written and ratified, The Founders did not know that The Constitution forbade them from mentioning God in their speaches and addresses.
The happless Founders had the pecular belief that government should commit itself to uniting the country, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the welfare of the people, providing the country's defense, and securing the blessings of liberty now and forever.
Although The Founders believed The Constitution to be a living, breathing document, they thought it should breathe deeply and slowly, according to the will of the people through an ammendment process. They seemed not to realize that it was to rush forward huffing and puffing by judicial decree and discovery.
Those silly men did not get it. They provided for a fifty-one percent vote to stop a fillibuster. Those who were in power 15 years ago suddenly realized that the percentage needed to be sixty-one. How honorable they are.
Sure, they are all honorable men and women.
The farther in time we get from the drafting of The Constitution, the more we seem to think that The Founders did not know what they were doing.
It is as though, in the middle of a Super Bowl, the Commisioner of the NFL yelled out, "Stop the game! We're changing the rules. No more forward passes and no hogging the ball when you run. You must share with others around you. " (We'd pay premium ticket prices for that game, wouldn't we?) Before long the game would no longer be football.
If we keep changing The Constitution without its self-described process, before long we will no longer be constituted as The United States of America.
Joe
If the Pieces Don't Fit
I used to love to work puzzles. My cousin and I would buy those thousand piece puzzles and spend days or even weeks putting them together.
We had a puzzle rule. After the puzzle pieces were laid out on the table, we could not touch a piece unless we knew where it belonged. Believe me, we learned to know how pieces fit together.
The order of things Universal is such that things that naturally go together seem to fit together.
Scientists tell us that at one time the continents were once one great land mass. If you look at a flat map of the earth, that seems quite reasonable. The pieces fit.
Have you ever tried to push a bolt through a bolt? It doesn't work. The pieces don't fit.
Now a bolt through a nut...that's a different matter. The peices fit as though they were made for each other.
Take gloves, for example. They are not made for elbows. Even toes don't fill the bill. They are made for, and only for, hands. As every good Italian knows, "If the glove don't fit, you musta quit."
Men and women are made for each other. They go together like a horse and carraige. The pieces fit.
Men and Men? The pieces don't fit.
And if the pieces don't fit, you musta quit!
We had a puzzle rule. After the puzzle pieces were laid out on the table, we could not touch a piece unless we knew where it belonged. Believe me, we learned to know how pieces fit together.
The order of things Universal is such that things that naturally go together seem to fit together.
Scientists tell us that at one time the continents were once one great land mass. If you look at a flat map of the earth, that seems quite reasonable. The pieces fit.
Have you ever tried to push a bolt through a bolt? It doesn't work. The pieces don't fit.
Now a bolt through a nut...that's a different matter. The peices fit as though they were made for each other.
Take gloves, for example. They are not made for elbows. Even toes don't fill the bill. They are made for, and only for, hands. As every good Italian knows, "If the glove don't fit, you musta quit."
Men and women are made for each other. They go together like a horse and carraige. The pieces fit.
Men and Men? The pieces don't fit.
And if the pieces don't fit, you musta quit!
More Frequent Up-dates
I have a friend and co-worker, Parker Smith, who believes I should up-date my posts more often, so here goes.
This entry represents an up-date to my blog. I have undertaken this minor project early in the morning, which may explain its lack of continuity and subject matter.
I've never been a blogger, but I'm playing one on this site.
Until a week ago, I didn't even know what a blog was, let alone how to obtain one or what to do with it when I got it.
Thanks to Parker, and another friend, Jeff, who showed me his blog, I not only know what one is, I now have one and contribute to it on a simi-regular basis.
Not regular enough, according to some, and probably more often than needed, according to others.
Since I like both serious subjects and nonsense, there will be some of both on this blog.
This, in case you have not previously noticed, is a nonsense entry.
For those who like nonsense, this entry will be a welcome respite from the previous two, which were of a serious nature. For those who do not like nonsense, this entry will probably be irritating.
Get over it.
Life is too short.
In and of itself, life makes no sense. We are here for a moment and then, poof, we are gone. The stats are perfect. It happens to 100% of us. What's up with that?
Actually, I know the answer to that, but in a nonsense blog entry it would make no sense to try to make sense of it.
I don't know whether or not you can tell either my age or my generational persuasion by the way I write, but this I know: I would be a lot older than I am if I had gotten started earlier.
So, have a nice day. It will be a better day if it is a Christ-filled day. I'll see you here for another entry. But if I don't see you here...I'll see you over there. (If you're not sure about that, let me know and I'll fill you in.)
Joe
This entry represents an up-date to my blog. I have undertaken this minor project early in the morning, which may explain its lack of continuity and subject matter.
I've never been a blogger, but I'm playing one on this site.
Until a week ago, I didn't even know what a blog was, let alone how to obtain one or what to do with it when I got it.
Thanks to Parker, and another friend, Jeff, who showed me his blog, I not only know what one is, I now have one and contribute to it on a simi-regular basis.
Not regular enough, according to some, and probably more often than needed, according to others.
Since I like both serious subjects and nonsense, there will be some of both on this blog.
This, in case you have not previously noticed, is a nonsense entry.
For those who like nonsense, this entry will be a welcome respite from the previous two, which were of a serious nature. For those who do not like nonsense, this entry will probably be irritating.
Get over it.
Life is too short.
In and of itself, life makes no sense. We are here for a moment and then, poof, we are gone. The stats are perfect. It happens to 100% of us. What's up with that?
Actually, I know the answer to that, but in a nonsense blog entry it would make no sense to try to make sense of it.
I don't know whether or not you can tell either my age or my generational persuasion by the way I write, but this I know: I would be a lot older than I am if I had gotten started earlier.
So, have a nice day. It will be a better day if it is a Christ-filled day. I'll see you here for another entry. But if I don't see you here...I'll see you over there. (If you're not sure about that, let me know and I'll fill you in.)
Joe
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Interpreting Scripture
Have you ever had someone try to prove their "theological" point of view by quoting a verse of scripture? Did it leave you confused and doubting your position on a particular doctrine?
Interpreting Scripture can be tricky, especially when "proof-texting" is used. "Proof-texting" is using a single verse or group of verses to "prove" a spiritual point.
The most popular illustration of "proof-texting" might be the following use of actual Scriptures: "Judas went and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5); "Go thou and do likewise" (Luke 10:37) and "What thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27).
Another is to read the book, "Gone with the Wind," and report that it is a book about fires in Atlanta during the Civil War because an account of such is contained therein.
OK, so how are we to properly interpret Scripture?
The first rule is to read it...all of it. Get a feel for its flow through history. Learn how it reveals the character and nature of God.
Everything you need to know about God is in the Word of God. Nothing you need to know about God is not in the Word of God. Everything you think you know about God that is not in the Word of God, you just made up.
The second rule is to discover what it is. The Bible is God's revelation of His love for His creations and His plan for its redemption. While it contains good history, science, sociology, psychology, guidlines for living and other fine attributes, those are not its reason for being.
Its central theme, from Genesis to Revelation is wrapped up in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Suppose you had the formula: 4 + a = b. Underneath that you placed the formula: c + 2 = b. Finally you had: b + b = 14. What are the values of the unknowns?
Only one set of whole, positive intergers will solve the formula. If a = 3 and c = 5, then b is 7 and 7 + 7 = 14.
Only one set of truths will solve all of the so-called "mysteries" of Biblical interpretation: the truths found in John 3:16.
So, to interpret Scripture correctly, one must apply a coat of John 3:16 to every verse. Do that and your interpretation will be correct. Fail to do that and your interpretation will probably be tainted with personal opinion, bias and other problems.
Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning God created..." John 3:16 tells us that God loves His creation.
Genesis 3:1-6 tells us that mankind disobeyed God. John 3:16 tells us that God loves us, His creation, so much that He, Himself, was willing to die for us.
When you discover that Jesus is the subject of the whole Bible, you will be on your way to interpreting any portion of it correctly.
May I recommend the lyrics of the song, "He Is," sung by the father/son team called Aaron/Jeffery. It will illustrate the point very well.
Interpreting Scripture can be tricky, especially when "proof-texting" is used. "Proof-texting" is using a single verse or group of verses to "prove" a spiritual point.
The most popular illustration of "proof-texting" might be the following use of actual Scriptures: "Judas went and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5); "Go thou and do likewise" (Luke 10:37) and "What thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27).
Another is to read the book, "Gone with the Wind," and report that it is a book about fires in Atlanta during the Civil War because an account of such is contained therein.
OK, so how are we to properly interpret Scripture?
The first rule is to read it...all of it. Get a feel for its flow through history. Learn how it reveals the character and nature of God.
Everything you need to know about God is in the Word of God. Nothing you need to know about God is not in the Word of God. Everything you think you know about God that is not in the Word of God, you just made up.
The second rule is to discover what it is. The Bible is God's revelation of His love for His creations and His plan for its redemption. While it contains good history, science, sociology, psychology, guidlines for living and other fine attributes, those are not its reason for being.
Its central theme, from Genesis to Revelation is wrapped up in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Suppose you had the formula: 4 + a = b. Underneath that you placed the formula: c + 2 = b. Finally you had: b + b = 14. What are the values of the unknowns?
Only one set of whole, positive intergers will solve the formula. If a = 3 and c = 5, then b is 7 and 7 + 7 = 14.
Only one set of truths will solve all of the so-called "mysteries" of Biblical interpretation: the truths found in John 3:16.
So, to interpret Scripture correctly, one must apply a coat of John 3:16 to every verse. Do that and your interpretation will be correct. Fail to do that and your interpretation will probably be tainted with personal opinion, bias and other problems.
Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning God created..." John 3:16 tells us that God loves His creation.
Genesis 3:1-6 tells us that mankind disobeyed God. John 3:16 tells us that God loves us, His creation, so much that He, Himself, was willing to die for us.
When you discover that Jesus is the subject of the whole Bible, you will be on your way to interpreting any portion of it correctly.
May I recommend the lyrics of the song, "He Is," sung by the father/son team called Aaron/Jeffery. It will illustrate the point very well.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
A Discussion of Prayer
There was an article in Reader's Digest recently about prayer. The conclusion of the article: perhaps prayer works.
The idea that "prayer works" is a kind of Christian Voodooism that seems to attribute to prayer some kind of magic power.
To really understand the Biblical concept of prayer, one must begin with a definition of God.
For the Christian, God, properly defined, is the sovereign creator of all that ever has been, is now or ever will be. "In the beginning God created..." is the eternal assumption of the Bible found in Genesis 1:1.
God is sovereign. That means He gets to make the rules. Period.
I don't always like that attribute of God. Sometimes I want a chance to make some rules of my own that all of creation must follow. That is not going to happen. Not if I'm not God...and I am not.
There are many attributes of God. The primary ones, after His sovereignty, are: He is immutable (He never changes); He is omnicient (He knows everything); He is omnipotent (He is all powerful) and He is Omnipresent (He is everywhere at once).
If these are real attributes of God, then when we pray to Him, we need not ask Him to violate any of them. He will not.
James 4:2 & 3 puts it clearly: we are to ask God for our needs but we must ask with the right motives. That means we must first be in an attitude of servitude to the sovereign God, find out what He wants for us and ask for that. He will always give it to us.
If we pray in an attempt to get God to do what we want Him to do, and if that thing we want Him to do is outside of His sovereign will for us, we are asking Him to violate His attributes.
Real joy in prayer comes in seeking His will, and only His will, and being very happy that He will provide that for us.
So prayer does not "work," it brings us into submission to His will and allows us to communicate with Him on His terms (which, by the way, are the only important terms there are).
Joe
The idea that "prayer works" is a kind of Christian Voodooism that seems to attribute to prayer some kind of magic power.
To really understand the Biblical concept of prayer, one must begin with a definition of God.
For the Christian, God, properly defined, is the sovereign creator of all that ever has been, is now or ever will be. "In the beginning God created..." is the eternal assumption of the Bible found in Genesis 1:1.
God is sovereign. That means He gets to make the rules. Period.
I don't always like that attribute of God. Sometimes I want a chance to make some rules of my own that all of creation must follow. That is not going to happen. Not if I'm not God...and I am not.
There are many attributes of God. The primary ones, after His sovereignty, are: He is immutable (He never changes); He is omnicient (He knows everything); He is omnipotent (He is all powerful) and He is Omnipresent (He is everywhere at once).
If these are real attributes of God, then when we pray to Him, we need not ask Him to violate any of them. He will not.
James 4:2 & 3 puts it clearly: we are to ask God for our needs but we must ask with the right motives. That means we must first be in an attitude of servitude to the sovereign God, find out what He wants for us and ask for that. He will always give it to us.
If we pray in an attempt to get God to do what we want Him to do, and if that thing we want Him to do is outside of His sovereign will for us, we are asking Him to violate His attributes.
Real joy in prayer comes in seeking His will, and only His will, and being very happy that He will provide that for us.
So prayer does not "work," it brings us into submission to His will and allows us to communicate with Him on His terms (which, by the way, are the only important terms there are).
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
