From the Bottom of the Pit

>>>Remember, my "Darwinist hat" statements are NOT what I myself believe, but an application of my friend's reasoning!<<<

Continuing the discussion with my sincere, polite, online friend--

poster "Ashpenaz" offered a contorted argument, relying on alleged scientific discoveries to redefine the word "eunuch." I replied:

In spite of our mutual concern for the poor, I really doubt whether you believe in [the judgment of individuals and their sins], Ashpenaz. You said:
'Everything is permissible" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law." We each have to work out our own salvation by determining what our conscience tells us is the loving thing to do.'
.
.
Meaning everything, or practically everything, is permissible if you can rationalize it as "love." This tosses out everything Jesus and the Old Testament say about sexuality and poverty if you are creative enough, I mean "sincere enough" before your own unique conscience. Let me put my Darwinist hat back on and posit: I help the poor by advocating natural selection. Since many people "make it" in spite of poverty, those are the ones with good genes. They'll live, the rest will starve, and in the future all poor people will make it and be tough. So my neglect actually helps the poor. If I am sincere enough about this, will God let me into Heaven?They didn't understand Darwinism back then, either, so just like "eunuch" means what your argument from ignorance might suggest (an interesting argument, really, though I disagree) so the means of helping the poor in the 21st century must take on a global, evolutionary perspective. In the end we all win: My Darwinist alter ego needn't feel guilty, and the poor get better as quickly as Darwinism will make them tough and resilient. Builds character along the way, really!
Posted by: Witness for Peace December 21, 2007 3:06 PM

Saved by Strong's Concordance

In response to:

P.S. My definition of a eunuchcomes straight from Strong's concordance and Vine's dictionary--look it up.
Posted by: Ashpenaz December 20, 2007 1:33 AM

That settles it:
"A castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers)
by extension an impotent or unmarried man;
by implication a chamberlain (state-officer); eunuch.
Thanks for clarifying this. Strong’s says nothing whatsoever about homosexuals. God loves homosexuals so much that they are protected by the same good laws from God as everyone else, including Jesus’ ringing affirmation of Old Testament law (not even the smallest stroke will pass away), and his definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife. (Note that there is nothing generic anywhere in Matt. 19:5; the husband doesn’t leave his "parents" or just his father, but his father and mother.)
The relevance to poverty is this: those seeking to neglect almsgiving quote "The poor you will always have with you" as if that is anything other than the CONSEQUENCE of our sinful neglect.
Those seeking to accommodate the Bible to modern lifestyle choices apply their imagination to selected OT and NT passages.
Our choice is clear, but extremely difficult. Poverty is a huge, seemingly intractable problem, and chastity is not a simple matter for anyone, whatever their circumstances. But God’s grace is abundantly available to all. In it, I bless you and pray God’s best for all who read this.
(And see my comment above about "warm fuzzies")

Wait, wait it gets even better

Ashpenaz came up with some more creative twists of his gay theology[see post about King David below], including the unwarranted substitution of "homosexual" for "eunuch" in one of Jesus' sayings. My considered reply:
Ashpenaz, my friend: This is a discussion of helping the poor not about gay theology. But if the Bible isn’t true, if the Ten Commandments aren’t for today, why should we help the poor? If our science teachers get it right, the only logical conclusion is that the unfit and the poor are a drag on our evolutionary progress. Only if the Bible is true does each individual have value. If with perfectly pure scientific motives, I do triage on a global scale, who are you to judge me and my pals the Darwinists? On what basis? You can only judge if you believe in the one Jesus of Scripture, not the 6 billion personal Jesus’s that liberal Episcopalians such as yourself offer us. "I’m right, you’re right, we’re all right" and the poor die. But no, Mother Theresa and the Bible are right. That godly lady continued to obey the Bible even though she didn’t get the warm fuzzies we expect when we invite a lonely neighbor over for Christmas. I am humbled by the thought of my sister in Christ, now at the feet of the historical, biblical, flesh and blood Jesus she served so well.
And I admit it: I still want a few of the warm fuzzies. I’m weak, really weak…………
I posted the above, and then prepared this comeback:
You’ve garbled something Jesus said about eunuchs into a loophole that fits your purposes. Why can’t I garble "The poor you always have with you" into an excuse for inaction? The same Jesus that said plainly that marriage is between a man and a woman tells me to serve the poor. He calls me to obey him, even when I don’t feel like it. I’m sorry and without a good explanation as to why some people have a harder time with these two teachings of Jesus than others do. Why are there poor people in the first place? Why not manna every morning? Why can’t every boy grow up with a loving affirming father, committed for life to a godly woman? I don’t know. There is pain, sorrow and sin. But I will not twist Jesus’ words to make it easier on me, or you, or the rich people in that huge air conditioned house across the street with one SUV, one sports car, and who never seem to walk to any of the little shops around here. Jesus calls each of us to follow him. I don’t know their story, and I don’t really know yours. But I know that Jesus said about the law, and I lovingly invite you to follow that Jesus. To the cross, and to wholeness.

"The fellowship of the Beatitudes is the fellowship of the crucified" Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyr and signer of the Theological Declaration of Barmen.

Was King David a homosexual?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/12/being-poor-is-a-lot-of-work-by.html
An online friend made the assertion in the title, and then said this as further justification
"Everything is permissible" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law." We each have to work out our own salvation by determining what our conscience tells us is the loving thing to do. If you still believe in law, then you are among the foolish Galatians.
Lack of compassion for the poor, the sick, the homeless, the undocumented, and the gay is all the same lack of compassion--trying to impose a dead legalism where the law of love should be the foundation for our actions.
I wrote:
The law is not the means of righteousness, but it is still the measure, for it is not subjective and arbitrary like your utterly sentimental appeal to what you call "love." Love is the FULFILLMENT of the law. If you love someone, you WILL see their need and meet it. Whatever you feel like, whatever your motivation or lack thereof.
If my motives are good, and I still ignore the poor, does that get me off the hook? Of course not. If I have withheld wages, I am stealing. Even if I really, truly think ten cents an hour is all I can afford. Who says I’m not sincere? You can’t know my motives, nor I yours. But you can see my actions and judge rightly. Jesus said we are to judge all people the same, i.e. according to revelation, not our personal, internal, inaccessible whims.
Your appeal to Galatians ? 14When I [Paul] saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Peter was accommodating the Judiazers, who compelled circumcision and ritual observance of the law. These are the parts of the law which have been fulfilled. As for the rest—the shameless adultery and other breaking of the Ten Commandments you falsely accuse David, Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi of—not one jot or tittle will pass away. You quote King Saul as your authority: here is exactly the one who does as he pleases, offering sacrifices from a sincere, well-intentioned impatience. Later he claims to "love" David, then tries to murder him. The Law judges King Saul, the Law judges me, the Law judges us all. Without throwing ourselves on Christ’s mercy we all are lost. The standard has ever, only been this: are we as perfect as Jesus? Are you? I know I’m not. I rely on his perfect fulfillment of every part of the law as my only salvation. My motives are nothing. My sentimental appeals to "love" and pity are nothing. Jesus, as revealed in the Scriptures, is everything, my righteousness, my holiness, my redemption.

From a thread discussing Philip Pullman

Since no one reads my blog, I've become addicted to beliefnet.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/12/where-does-the-golden-compass.html
But I really like this response to a defense of Philip Pullman and the Anglican Bishop Spong, spiced with the bald assertion that Aquinas recanted on his deathbed by referring to "Summa Theologica" as "works of straw"

None of us here at Beliefnet can predict one another's fate before the Throne of God. I, for one, have no wish to be such a judge.
. On the other hand, we can and must judge statements of humans against what God has said. When one says vaguer and vaguer things about God, and vehemently(though eloquently and politely, as Ashpenaz and perhaps even Spong have done), it seems to me and many others that they have moved beyond the God of the Bible, revealed uniquely and definitively in Jesus, and are creating one of their own devising. As Pullman clearly has done in his book-promoting deception["The Golden Compass" movie.] Enjoy it if you wish, but beware! Violence exerted on behalf of individualism is indeed the only response available in the world he has created, devoid of God and good.
"Christian" can mean "one who self-identifies with the mass of Christians as a whole" or one who, forsaking all others, is following the Jesus depicted in the Scriptures the Church has recognized through the ages. From postings here, it seems to this weak and fallible soul that Spong and the poster screenamed Ashpenaz are the former but not the latter. If Ashpenaz is the equally polite poster who is defending the Mormon golden tablets under the "Mitt Romney speech" thread,
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/12/mitt-romneys-defining-moment-b.html
add that to my dossier of evidence. Which I submit with my own nod to humility, much as Aquinas did in dismissing--but not really--his Summa as "straw."

CRY JUSTICE

He has showed you what is good, and what does YHWH require of you?
To DO JUSTICE
LOVE MERCY
WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR God.
So, what does justice look like? It's NOT asleep, unaware or detached; it's NOT guilt ridden.
It IS pulsating with the compassion (and sometimes the anger) of God's loving heart
It IS aware of human capabilities and limitations, and
It IS full of faith and the belief that GOD is capable of doing all this. Sorry, Rabbi Kushner, but God is not weak! Even while using His weak and imperfect servants,
He is able to deliver the poor, lift them up, and establish justice.
AND HE WILL!
Thanks to Garret Smith, whose thoughts I am summarizing here!

"...To depict man in all his misery is to
Unmask the abyss opened, in the modern world, by God's absence....."
Francois Mauriac 1885-1970
And, sad to say, things haven't gotten better in the last 37 years. So why is this blog entitled joyful REALity? Because God is REAL and is still here! The abyss of which Mauriac speaks is what one sees upon turning away from God.
Still in denial of reality? OK, he's speaking of the abyss you enter with your eyes shut. Is that better?
Still wondering where the joy is? How about this from Desmond Tutu:
"Thinking of God makes me happy" Now you know where that HUGE smile comes from. Or Mother Theresa. OK, according to her recently published diaries nothing made her happy--but she still did the right thing 'til the day she died. And oh, the joy in Heaven!

Oh no, not another letter to the Globe

Yup, here it is. I'm also working on a column on something I know very little about, humble astrophysicists. Stay tuned!
Here's the link. Don't blame me for anyone who decides Cornel West should be read outside of the hip-hop media! http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/25/fabricated_fears_about_hate_crime_legislation/

To all but the most credulous reader, Cornel West's column defending "thought crime" legislation ought to be anything but comforting. Intentionally, or by inexcusable neglect, West and Sylvia Rhue have dismissed a wide body of literature on gay politics and theology that is anything but hateful. This literature, full of thoughtful criticism, and not shying away from difficult question such as "Well,what if people really are born gay?" comes from a wide variety of traditions, including Judaism, Catholicism,conservative Protestantism (Walter A. Elwell:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology), mainstream Protestantism, (Robert A. J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1496179-4277215?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190846077&sr=8-1 ), and psychotherapists working in secular settings.By baldly and indiscriminately labeling opinions he personally hates as "condemning and dehumanizing"Prof. West signals to lovers of liberty his intent to eventually allow their prosecution as "hate crimes." If not West and his sort, leave it to those the mere thickness of a condom farther left to fabricate a connection between a sermon one day and a fight in a nearby bar the next. For all his faults, Larry Summers' wisdom in allowing Harvard to "lose" CornelWest and his shoddy lack of scholarly inquiry to Princeton has been vindicated.

Can't let go of it

Well, one of my favorite "freebie" papers still keeps publishing articles and letters on the torpedoed Marriage Amendment, so I keep writing letters in reply!

Citizen petitions are not mob rule. The Constitutional Convention wasted valuable legislative time because the Governor and legislative leaders refused to allow the Marriage Amendment to come to a vote. They only acted when forced to by the Supreme Judicial Court, and even then they kept delaying the vote until enough arms were twisted to achieve the Governor's favored outcome. Consequently, they allowed public swimming pools to remain unrepaired and unopened during the hottest days of summer, consistent with their general neglect of thornier problems like our bridges. As Wendell Woodman pointed out yesterday, these same legislators are trying to blame their egregious mismanagement of the Big Dig on a glue manufacturer for not demanding to know exactly how a customer was using a small order for a general purpose adhesive. So while I understand how it seems odd to today's letter writer that the legislature is being asked to cut itself out of the amendment process, that may be the only way they can discipline themselves to focus on their real job: serving the voters in practical ways instead of rewarding the Governor's campaign donors.

Things I love

Summer!

Music (See post entitled "Kairos v. Chronos)

http://www.ebtrr.com/ A living museum. Yes, you've heard this phrase before, but this is a WWI era shortline preserved in situ for decades.

Which of these posts do you love? Hate? Comments pleezzzzzz!

Sad but true

This week the Boston Globe smugly called for defunding of "abstinence only" sex ed. Maybe they have a tiny point, but here's my response:

Teaching a 14 year old girl how to become "My First Sexual Conquest" for an immature football player is hardly conducive to anyone’s health, mental or otherwise. Yet this is the flagship accomplishment of "scientific" sex education. I’m sure proponents of abstinence are more genuinely disappointed in "abstinence only" programs than activists like Julie F. Kay. But what is $200 million compared to the budget of even one teen movie that teaches boys that to "become a man" is to ask a girl for sex without promising anything—much less lifelong commitment—in return? A few micrometers of latex fail to turn this utterly selfish male act into anything remotely approaching responsible human sexuality. As a wide variety of authors have noted, from Mary Pipher to Wendy Shalit, the real beneficiaries of sexual "freedom" are not girls who give in to pressure, but rather boys who can’t handle the obligation of controlling their sexuality (except with the occasional condom). In fact they, and their enablers such as Ms. Kay, have become slaves to our basest instincts: conquest and domination. And Ms. Kay calls her resignation in the face of this horror "science"?

Refs: for Pipher: http://www.committment.com/ophelia.html
for Wendy Shalit, my hero: http://blogs.modestlyyours.net/modestly_yours/wendy_shalit/index.html

D's Dictionary

....to be continued

Precisely the opposite is true

To the editor, Boston Metro:
It couldn’t be more obvious that your editorial bias is shared with your owner, the New York Times. First there was the one sided article about lobbying via ice cream socials. Following yesterday’s less biased article, you published an interesting but very one sided letter, caricaturing the arguments for restoring marriage to its constitutional, pre-Goodridge state. Choosing the sex of one’s marriage partners is a new right, period. One voted into existence in 2003 by only four Massachusetts citizens— all of them unelected, unaccountable judges. This action is intolerable in a democracy. Your letter writer claims some sort of religious problem, perhaps insinuating that those who disagree with her think that God hates gays. Precisely the opposite is true (try John 3:16 and hundreds of other verses of universal love and acceptance). Sadly, macho types have done shameful and cruel things, in particular to gay men. That is utterly inexcusable, as are the cruel things that gays sometimes do to one another. But what does that have to do with the Constitution of a democracy? All citizens, not just four, are empowered to determine which values society will honor. The exclusion of values that are linked to morality from Sinai, and God’s universal love, is the worst sort of religious discrimination, aided and abetted in the pages of Metro this week.

Kairos or Chronos

I just heard another excellent sermon--this one about the gift of the Sabbath rest. Among other points, our pastor captured the distinction between "passing time" chronos and "the right time" kairos.
Do you LOVE music? Are there pieces you find painfully beautiful? I once heard a woman preach a sermon where Bach’s Air on the G String was used as an [excellent] illustration preceding her insights on beauty. The week before, she asked a conductor who attended church for help in arranging the music. Later, he and I shared other pieces that rose to the heights of searing, heart rending beauty. He suggested some of the Shostakovich quartets; my choice was the slow moment of Faure’s last piano trio. But today, in snowy Boston, is a "Sibelius Day. " Even the few short minutes of "Andante Festivo" moved me to tears. Does that happen to you? Maybe when the trumpets enter in the last movement of his Symphony No. 2? What about the English horn at the beginning of the 6th Symphony? Can you listen to "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein" (Make, O Lord, my heart pure and clean) from Bach's "St. Matthew Passion" without weeping? Has the first note of "Aus Liebe" --- For Love [My Savior Died]--- ever made your eyes moist? That even surprised me, but I knew the soloist, and I knew she was singing of love that had transformed her. Do you have a favorite piece you can only hear in Heaven? The last duet from Turandot? I remember a dream about Heaven, where giant angels, looking like tall gray statues, were singing Bruckner’s "Te Deum. " That’s sometimes used as the finale to his 9th Symphony, once thought incomplete. I want to hear him conduct it, complete and perfect, in Heaven! Anton Bruckner will be there, he who dedicated his symphonies "To God, should He choose to accept them. " So, I was thinking that maybe I’d missed the heavenly premiere–but I don’t think I missed it at all. How’s that? Time only exists on earth. I think every moment in Heaven will be the first moment, when we see God face to face, and know as we are known. "You can’t subdivide infinity. " How can there be time without the sun? Heaven has no need of it, for the Lord Himself is the light, eternal and beyond time.

What’s not worth preserving, and what must be preserved

See this link about Boston's City Hall, praised at its unveiling in the 1960's by the American Institue of Architects (AIA) and hardly anyone else:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%2520city%2520hall/01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%2520city%2520hall/bostoncityhall.htm&amp;h=617&w=890&sz=67&hl=en&sig2=t1wIvCejx5qE74ALbecjPQ&start=10&amp;tbnid=pdZf2iwxFxDCLM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=146&ei=GoIjRsOzD4OshQSz8vGRBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Boston%2Bcity%2Bhall%2522%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
I understand that some may want City Hall to stand as a tribute to the 1960’s. I beg to differ. Yale might be prudent in keeping a visually similar building on a university campus, but City Hall simply fails to serve the governed. As a compromise, perhaps the building can be preserved—if the AIA will purchase it—while we fill the lonely, impersonal expanse of City Hall Plaza with a functional and beautiful structure.
But a few blocks away, on Beacon Hill, is much that is far more worthy of preservation. Not just Chas. Bullfinch’s magnificent gold domed edifice, but the constitution enshrined therein, which each member of our government is sworn to uphold. Each is a servant of the same reluctant taxpayers that bought Scollay Square and built a concrete monstrosity in 1962. Forty-two years later, without the consent of the citizens, four members of the Supreme Judicial Court amended our constitution by fiat in the Goodridge decision. It is now up to the Legislature to permit the citizens to vote to undo that change via the Marriage Protection Amendment. I join the Legislature in wishing the best to my homosexual neighbors. My gay and straight friends would agree that I’m a quiet and gentle person myself. But marriage as an enduring union between one man and one women has been explicitly embraced by democratic societies for centuries. The thousands of citizens who have remained committed to their wives and husbands are an imperfect yet compelling reminder of the laws which unite us—and of the consent of the GOVERNed, not the GOVERNors, that protects us.

Gender autarky

or "Post a comment, save a life"
or "You heard it first here"
PARENTAL ADVISORY:
This is about as angry as I get, at least in print. Put the wee ones to bed--with lots of kisses--and read on:

"Hey, who you callin' nappy headed?" or
This emperor doesn't have any clothes, either:

To the Editor: Good riddance to Mr. Imus. I never knew who he was until "The Incident" and I'll bet I'm not the only one. His humorless slur has been repeated more times than it ought to have been.
But will Imus' firing help young, black women? Rap "artists"chant worse lyrics every day. And unlike Mr. Imus' "comedy" show, young black women actually LISTEN to these viler than vile lyrics. And some even date the men who threaten them with violence via the airwaves.
So why don't we take them off the air, too? If msnbc can afford to lose the $15 million that Imus brings in, what's a few hundred million more, right? Or could it be that Imus is being thrown to the wolves so the rap-rapists can continue to jump for their greedy radio station masters and do as they please with their prey?
D_______ H_________
Newton
__________
So what's with all the titles? And what the heck is "gender autarky" (generates no hits on Google if you use quotes). Is there any connection to the letter? Well, it seems that rappist, as a synonym for rapper, is occasionally being spelled "rapist." Is there irony here, or just a sad accuracy?
Rape is such a hideous crime that I hesitate to write about it. (Only 1% of the victims are men, but I'll bet being less numerous doesn't make them feel any better.) Nonetheless, I can see that, for a female rape survivor, perhaps cutting herself off from men might be some sort of survival skill. But beyond this tragic case, I find the idea that women can live without men illogical and deeply sad. Women are supposed to be nurturing; liberals are supposed to be into multiculturalism(with only half of the world?). So autarky (not to be confused with autarchy) means cutting women off from the evil corrupting world of men, at least at the emotional and intellectual level. Doing so at the practical level would mean allowing men to exist only to provide sperm and tax dollars so liberal feminists can make the world a better place for themselves. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can rewrite Huxley so that all the alphas and betas are women, and the men are just artisans and slaves.
And, getting back to the rappers, yeah, I know all their tough talk is just a "cry for help." Marching in the streets and voting is SOOOO 1960's, and doesn't pay very well, either. But "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" will still be read by my grandchildren, while no one will know who shot Tupac.

So, to my faithful readers, (if I have any) my "cry for help" is: Should I send this letter off today while the Imus story is hot? Or should I hunker down in my apartment and shut up, lest someone find my address and burn down my house if this is published? (3 of my last 4 or five have been, so....) Vote now; "Yes" voters: be sure to use the anonymous option or my landlady might sue you if this computer survives the fire. OK, that's not very funny, but...........

Quiz time

If you've been directed here from a dating site, Google on "Marry not an Engineer" and read the poem. Of course, just reading this quiz might give you the same info, though in much less eloquent form....
What sound is a measure of a material's stiffness (or rigidity, ore even "Modulus" for you techies out there)?
Post your one word answers under "Comments" please

Happy 15th Birthday

Dear K_____
. Inspired by Jeff Jacoby, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/28/messages_to_my_son/I’m going to try and write a yearly birthday letter. Something smaller but more lasting than the presents you’ve already gotten.
. As fondly as I remember holding you and cuddling you, I don’t want those times to last!! Even if I recreate them briefly with a noisy kiss on your cheek, that’s all it is—a moment in the life of a wonderful young woman who is growing fast, just as her Loving Father intended. In this case, that’s God, who programmed your brain to be always changing—hopefully for the better!
Part of this change is the painful but necessary questioning of everything. You won’t really know what you believe until you’ve imagined what it would like not to have the Ten Commandments, for example. Many around you have decided they are old fashioned. You should think about this, too, really. Maybe they ARE out of date…
. What if people thought we were the only beings in the universe (No. 1)? I’d go crazy; what do you think?
. What if we never rested (#4)?
. What if we didn’t respect our parents (#5)? I know you and I disagree about chores and a few other things, but at night when we’re reading books we both adore, I know that I have your respect and that you are trying really, really hard to obey God in this and everywhere else.
. What if people had sex whenever and with whomever they pleased (#7)?
. What if people didn’t keep their promises(#9)?
. What if our lives were ruled by Lord Stuff(#10 and #1)?
. A while back, someone was feeding you the idea that Christianity is sexist. I think you should consider this seriously! [see Boring Footnote #1] I don’t have an answer as to why there aren’t more women in the Bible, or more of those "A hen shielding her chicks under-wing" images that help us understand God as both male and female. But imagine a world without Christians. No Ruth, no Joan of Arc, no Susan B. Anthony, no Condoleeza Rice[see B. F. #2]. Think of Pakistan—true, the daughter of a former Prime Minister ruled there for a while. But do any women want to live there just for that reason? No! Thousands of Muslims come here for our freedoms, based in large part on the dignity of each human, created male AND FEMALE "in God’s image" according to the Hebrew Bible. So there is enough of the female in God for all women everywhere. Don’t believe this ‘cause I said it, but think about it. Don’t just accept the images from TV & movies, and perhaps even from some of your teachers. Yep, Christians, or those calling themselves such, have done most of the horrible things done by Western nations. But Western nations have never had Muslim or Hindu leaders. So how could it have been otherwise??? Hitler is one exception, because he was not a Christian, but forcibly took over the State Church in Germany. After that, "Christians" were bad, and only "German Christians"—his code name for pagans—were free to practice their religion.[B.F. #3]
Well, I’m playing catch up here, almost 15 years’ worth—sorry my letter’s so long. But remember, I’m totally pleased that you’re smart enough to read and understand what I’m saying.
I want you to grow up to be a good person. Not a person like your Mommy or Daddy, whatever our strengths and faults, but a person like Jesus, who loves you an awful lot.
And I love you too,

Signed, Daddy

Really, really boring footnotes:
#1 I suspect the person who said that practices another religion, either "Secularism" or perhaps "Feminism without God."
#2 Technically speaking, Ruth was a Moabite and not Jewish or Christian! And I don’t know the others well enough to know how faithfully they practice(d) Christianity. But I know that their lives arose out of a Judeo-Christian culture, which is why they are good examples of feminists who DON’T hate Christianity in general or men in particular.
#3 As you may have noticed ;-) your daddy reads WAY too much about Hitler. Most of the above is from a book about Martin Niemoeller, a hero from the FIRST World War who dared to oppose Hitler. However, unlike Dietrich Bonhoeffer, he didn’t become a martyr.
OK, now go back and read the "I love you" part!

STEAL THIS BOOK

Well, actually I mean "Buy Rickshaw Girl at Amazon or that cute little bookstore around the corner"
Here's my review:

This is a fun and engaging story. Your kids will love it.
You might love it, too. It's a subtle and heart warming story of women’s empowerment. Without an angry word, or a whiff of ideology, this story tells what poor families can do by enlisting the gifts of all their members. These women don’t wait for someone to act for them, but take risks. And everyone wins—there is no zero sum game here.
But my imagination is soaring—this is a kid’s story, and you’ll just have to enjoy it on that level!

The book can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Rickshaw-Girl-Mitali-Perkins/dp/1580893082/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3583902-2518431?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175480576&sr=1-1

"Es ist Vollbracht!"

For those of you who like to memorize things, or just reflect on the Passion during Lent,here's a thought about the 7 words from the cross:
Three sayings were for his friends and enemies,
Two were to His Father,
One was for himself, but
"It is finished"
...............is for everyone

Oh no, a MISSION STATEMENT

I used to think that mission statements were best done via the Dilbert "Mission Statement Generator" (C'mon, you know the website...)
But today I was at an introductory meeting for Christian small business owners/entrepreneurs, and they asked for one as part of the meeting feedback and contact info. Since my PDA isn't currently able to connect to the Internet (long story), I had to write my own, and I think it came out well. What do you think?
"To glorify God by providing innovative tools to doctors for the human side of healing"

How to leave comments, criticisms, rave reviews, maps to buried treasure

I am trying to be profoundly SIMPLE here. To leave a comment. Click on "Comments(0)" at the end of each post. I think it's that simple. Nothing is THAT simple. To my longsuffering friends--I have changed settings to allow ANYONE--even my friends(!)--to post without registering.

Do music and dating mix? You decide

Here's a list of the worst pieces to take a classical music novice to see:
Benjamin Britten: War Requiem [death and destruction set to really loud, really LONG music, with words by a poet killed during World War One]
Igor Stravinsky: Oedipus Rex [eyes gouged out--you wish it was your ears instead]
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 [the slow movement can be compared to prayer or even sex--but not for those who fall asleep halfway through an uninterrupted 27 minute crescendo of astonishing intensity]
This is more or less a listing of pieces to which I took my wife before and during our now-terminated marriage. She actually enjoyed Prokofiev Pf. Concerto No. 3, but I can't claim credit--Dave's parent's couldn't use their tickets. My ex-wife had other issues, but perhaps you sympathize with her, and even admire her patience.....
More recent mistakes:
Wagner: Mild und Leise (Mild and Soft)Simple title, intense piece...where have I heard thatbefore.... So, I listen to it with a woman I just met,and later, in my casual ignorance, call it "Our Song." Are you laughing yet? This is more commonly known as"Liebestod" or "Death by Love" where Isolde pours out her soul before dying from the intensity of her love for Tristan. Not recommended as first date listening.
Yes, a human being (that would be me) has actually made all these mistakes. Never a dull moment, eh? Oh, the list should also include a piece neither my ex nor I ever heard in concert:
Bela Bartok "Bluebeard's Castle"
Why is this a masterpiece? And why do I have TWO recordings of it? Please leave your comments below. It's getting lonely around here... even though I really like the Bruckner 8th on iTunes

Buried in Controversy

Being too cheap to subscribe to the Boston Glob, and being nearly buried in paper anyway, I read the freebie "METRO" that I pick up at the Newton Corner bus stop. Having heard that a certain prof. Tabor [sic] thought Christians shouldn't worry if the "husk" of Jesus' body was left behind while his spirit soared to the skies, I was inspired as follows[emphasis as published in METRO the next day]:
NEWTON . Regarding“Buried in controversy”(Feb. 27): Thanks for news about the ossuaries, but I must differ with prof. Tabor: If Jesus’ bones were in that box until a few months ago, Christianity is toast, washed up, nonsense. But what are the chances those bones lay for years a few meters from the people who had the most to gain, and lose,from their discovery? The Romans had shovels,and could’ve found the bones if they were there. Ditto for the local religious leaders whose status was threatened by Jesus and his followers. As for those with a lot to lose: Do you really believe articulate, sensible first century people such as Peter and Paul let themselves be executed for something they knew to be a lie? Crazy, right?No, warts and all, Christianity was founded by people with more sense and integrity than that. Their early enemies would’ve never allowed such a deadly secret to lie under a few inches of earth.Thanks, but it’s all too incredible, coming on the heels of those nifty Dan Brown novels. But I’ll expect Metro to keep me posted, since my TV’s broken!
Think I'm kidding about this being published? Check this out; if it's on the Web it's got to be real, right? http://metropoint.metro.lu/20070228_Boston.pdf

"Sibelius in the Snow" or "You can't subdivide Infinity"
I would like to share with you some thoughts about music, written during a snowstorm last year.Do you LOVE music? Are there pieces you find painfully beautiful? I once heard a woman preach a sermon where Bach’s Air on the G String was used as an [excellent] illustration preceding her insights on beauty. The week before, she asked a conductor who attended church for help in arranging the music. Later, he and I shared other pieces that rose to the heights of searing, heart rending beauty. He suggested some of the Shostakovich quartets; my choice was the slow moment of Faure’s last piano trio. But today, in snowy Boston, is a "Sibelius Day. " Even the few short minutes of "Andante Festivo" moved me to tears. Does that happen to you? Maybe when the trumpets enter in the last movement of his Symphony No. 2? What about the English horn at the beginning of the 6th Symphony? Can you listen to "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein" (Make, O Lord, my heart pure and clean) from Bach's "St. Matthew Passion" without weeping? Has the first note of "Aus Liebe" --- For Love [My Savior Died]--- ever made your eyes moist? That even surprised me, but I knew the soloist, and I knew she was singing of love that had transformed her. Do you have a favorite piece you can only hear in Heaven? The last duet from Turandot? I remember a dream about Heaven, where giant angels, looking like tall gray statues, were singing Bruckner’s "Te Deum. " That’s sometimes used as the finale to his 9th Symphony, once thought incomplete. I want to hear him conduct it, complete and perfect, in Heaven! Anton Bruckner will be there, he who dedicated his symphonies "To God, should He choose to accept them. " So, I was thinking that maybe I’d missed the heavenly premiere–but I don’t think I missed it at all. How’s that? Time only exists on earth. I think every moment in Heaven will be the first moment, when we see God face to face, and know as we are known. "You can’t subdivide infinity. " How can there be time without the sun? Heaven has no need of it, for the Lord Himself is the light, eternal and beyond time. Well, that’s an engineer-who-loves-music’s view of Heaven. And now, back to earth!