><
One quick way to start a fight, is to start discussing sexuality and what is right or wrong about it. Most people, accordingly, would decide to leave that subject be, but ignoring behavior with a moral value is not something Christians are taught to do. So, in discussing the moral aspects of sexual conduct, I also find it necessary to examine the place of the Church, and of Christians, in how we act towards others in a matter or sexual conduct.
In my earlier post concerning Sexuality, I made a point of noting that Scripture has been taken as support for positions condemning Homosexuality which, when examined closer and in context, is not the sum of their statements. Also, I have noted that the Gospel accounts do not show a single statement by Christ which indicts Homosexuals, or which indicates that sexual orientation is a sin. I decided to present my understanding of sexual morals as they apply to Christians.
Before going on, I should note my strong belief that Jesus not only was never married or had children, I am convinced He never had sex. Any claim to the contrary misses a critical part of Jesus’ promise to us; Jesus Christ made God accessible to anyone interested in the relationship, and to equal degree. If Jesus had a girlfriend, let alone a wife and children, that promise is destroyed. This absolute celibacy by Jesus is the motive for Paul’s suggestion that believers should not marry, if they have the self-control to maintain their virginity. It also has the unfortunate effect, of suggesting that only virginity would please God, which is simply not so.
God made every single human being on the planet, and Genesis makes clear that God intended for humans to have children, which has almost always involved sexual intercourse. But more, it is clear from even a superficial reading of Scripture, that God is pleased when a husband and wife love each other, the Song of Songs is pretty specific about the physical pleasures of a couple, and God’s approval.
If I stopped there, Roman Catholics and most of the traditional Protestants would be pretty pleased. But those same Scripures pose other stories, less obvious but no less significant. Jacob and the Lord wrestled at night (Genesis 32:22-25). David and Jonathan were best friends, and some of their contact indicates a more intimate relationship than even brotherhood (1 Samuel 20:3, 20:11, 20:15, for example) . Some of the most important figures in the Bible were prostitutes, like Rahab (Joshua 2:1-24) and many of the women Jesus addressed had been married more than once, were living with a man they were not married to, or otherwise engaging in activities fairly promiscuous for the times, and it is noteworthy to see how He spoke with compassion to them.
Abram had a child by Hagar before he did with his wife, Sarai. Lot was considered a righteous man, but both of his daughters had children with him (Genesis 19:30-36). Tamar disguised herself as a “shrine prostitute” in order to have children to continue the bloodline (Genesis 38:13-30) . The Roman Centurion whose faith Jesus praised (Luke 7:9), seemed to have an unusual personal interest in his servant, yet Jesus had nothing but praise for him.
So, from a Biblical perspective, it becomes clear to me that a lust-driven action offends God, and violence in any relationship is evil. Further, in any relationship, one member dominates, and so is responsible for whatever happens in that relationship. The moral value of any relationship, then, does not depend on its orientation, but on the character of its pursuit, and the commitment of the participants to the other’s well-being and happiness.
I need to say that I am a bit disappointed, that some who asked me by e-mail to post on this issue, have not said anything since I did so. I expect I posted a few things you didn’t expect, but whether or not you agreed with my take, I think it would be a good and desirable thing, for you to make your own thoughts and opinions known. The conversation is too important, for it to be merely a soliloquoy.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sexual Conduct
O
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Fiction As Truth
[]
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Bringing Fiction To Life
...
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Master On War
<.>
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Monday, May 16, 2005
Discussing Christ
*
Over at BeliefNet, I have noticed that the anti-Christian-Churchers have become agitated again. Now, I need to be careful here, because when I say “anti-Christian-Churchers”, I choose that clumsy term (which I will call ACC’s from this point going on) , because I most definitely do not mean to call them ‘Anti-Christ’; that term is for a real sort of people, but would be wrong in this case. The ACCss are people with a grievance, real or imagined, against the Church, and they are influenced by the emotion of that grievance. This leads to conflict on the BeliefNet site, sometimes instigated by the ACC’s, sometimes by the Christians, and sometimes it comes up through misunderstanding. At the moment, I would have to say that well over 80% of the threads on the main board discussing Christianity are contentious, and serve no purpose but bickering.
This raises the question, of how Christians should discuss the Christ. A great amount of confusion is out there, and worse, a lot of bad example. There can be no doubt that satan loves to get his claws into a church, and play it into his own purpose. Greed, lust, all manner of evil has shown up in these churches, and chased people away from the truth. What is to be done?
The first point, obviously, is to examine my own conduct and words. It’s so easy to see the error someone else makes, that one often ignores his own error. Also, a Christian needs to grow, and their work should reflect that growth in the fruit of his efforts. When someone stops to examine someone else, they must be careful to consider what effect they are sowing.
But what next?
Over at BeliefNet, I have noticed that the anti-Christian-Churchers have become agitated again. Now, I need to be careful here, because when I say “anti-Christian-Churchers”, I choose that clumsy term (which I will call ACC’s from this point going on) , because I most definitely do not mean to call them ‘Anti-Christ’; that term is for a real sort of people, but would be wrong in this case. The ACCss are people with a grievance, real or imagined, against the Church, and they are influenced by the emotion of that grievance. This leads to conflict on the BeliefNet site, sometimes instigated by the ACC’s, sometimes by the Christians, and sometimes it comes up through misunderstanding. At the moment, I would have to say that well over 80% of the threads on the main board discussing Christianity are contentious, and serve no purpose but bickering.
This raises the question, of how Christians should discuss the Christ. A great amount of confusion is out there, and worse, a lot of bad example. There can be no doubt that satan loves to get his claws into a church, and play it into his own purpose. Greed, lust, all manner of evil has shown up in these churches, and chased people away from the truth. What is to be done?
The first point, obviously, is to examine my own conduct and words. It’s so easy to see the error someone else makes, that one often ignores his own error. Also, a Christian needs to grow, and their work should reflect that growth in the fruit of his efforts. When someone stops to examine someone else, they must be careful to consider what effect they are sowing.
But what next?
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Qi
...
After the disaster which was my first attempt at home ownership, my wife and I decided not only to wait a little while before we considered buying another home (losing our life savings in repairing the old house also was a factor). We also agreed that we had not considered enough information before we bought our first house, and so decided to keep an open mind to anything which might help us make sure we get a good house next time.
Along the way of getting information for our next try at buying a house, we started with a clean sheet of paper. Old houses were considered, so were new. We quickly learned the obvious limits. We didn’t have the money to have a home custom built, and some of the more affordable homes were too far away to be practical as a choice. As we looked at the available choices, we realized that we really needed a new home, and one with good access to major roads, not too far from where we worked, and so on. And along the way, I discovered Feng Shui.
Westerners really misunderstand Feng Shui. Some on one side of the matter think Feng Shui is a simple art of balancing room set up, and some on the other side think it’s superstition, even sinful for attempting divination. I had to weigh the matter carefully; I am committed to serving the LORD, and not putitng Him behind anything. However, I also know that the LORD makes all manner of tools available to man. See how Solomon laid out the Temple, for example. In reading about Feng Shui, I quickly learned that there are two broad classes of thought. Essentially, the newer “Black Hat” or “Black Sect” practitioners talk and write a lot about applying Feng Shui “Cures”, and in addition to proffered charms and mantras recommended the placement of “household gods”. Yep, that crosses the line. If that had been the first thing I read, I would have thrown out the whole thing right there.
Fortunately, before I heard about the “Black Hat” practitioners, I had already studied the Classical Feng Shui, its history and the basic principles, and that is much different. Many Masters have no use for Feng Shui practitioners whose principal motive is to sell merchandise, or who think that a trinket hung on a wall can override powerful forces. Also, the discovery that Feng Shui goes back at least five centuries before the birth of Christ, indicates to me that there is something more substantive than just a few tales strung together. So, without dragging the matter out further, here’s what I have learned about Feng Shui.
It’s about Qi, pronouned “Chee”. There is a lot of argument and disagreement about what Qi is, exactly, which I found intriguing. The Chinese figured out long ago, for instance, that people are affected by magnetic waves and resonance. The Western world only began to discover that in the past 50 years. But there’s more, related to temperature, air circulation, water, and many other factors. It’s really complex in total, and it takes a lot of study to consider all the things involved.
With that in mind, Feng Shui makes a whole lot more sense. Where you live is obviously going to affect your life, and it’s just reasonable to consider things which affect how much light your house gets, how much heat, whether the air moves freely in the house, and so on. Also, one must consider Yang and Yin, or balance. For example, a house which is too dark is not going to be right, but bright lights all the time would be stressful. Feng Shui considers the balance of all the factors in your home life. And from that, the principles of balance and energy are not only reasonable, but a critical reminder to consider in so major a choice as buying a house.
Now, there’s more to Feng Shui, but for here I will leave that to your own investigation, should you find it worth your time and attention. I would remind you, though, that when He prayed, Jesus went to a private place appropriate for his purpose. So also, Jesus preached in locations correct to the purpose. If you pay close attention, the practice is clear. And the flow of Qi, I would also submit, is a thing God wishes us to understand, for our own benefit.
After the disaster which was my first attempt at home ownership, my wife and I decided not only to wait a little while before we considered buying another home (losing our life savings in repairing the old house also was a factor). We also agreed that we had not considered enough information before we bought our first house, and so decided to keep an open mind to anything which might help us make sure we get a good house next time.
Along the way of getting information for our next try at buying a house, we started with a clean sheet of paper. Old houses were considered, so were new. We quickly learned the obvious limits. We didn’t have the money to have a home custom built, and some of the more affordable homes were too far away to be practical as a choice. As we looked at the available choices, we realized that we really needed a new home, and one with good access to major roads, not too far from where we worked, and so on. And along the way, I discovered Feng Shui.
Westerners really misunderstand Feng Shui. Some on one side of the matter think Feng Shui is a simple art of balancing room set up, and some on the other side think it’s superstition, even sinful for attempting divination. I had to weigh the matter carefully; I am committed to serving the LORD, and not putitng Him behind anything. However, I also know that the LORD makes all manner of tools available to man. See how Solomon laid out the Temple, for example. In reading about Feng Shui, I quickly learned that there are two broad classes of thought. Essentially, the newer “Black Hat” or “Black Sect” practitioners talk and write a lot about applying Feng Shui “Cures”, and in addition to proffered charms and mantras recommended the placement of “household gods”. Yep, that crosses the line. If that had been the first thing I read, I would have thrown out the whole thing right there.
Fortunately, before I heard about the “Black Hat” practitioners, I had already studied the Classical Feng Shui, its history and the basic principles, and that is much different. Many Masters have no use for Feng Shui practitioners whose principal motive is to sell merchandise, or who think that a trinket hung on a wall can override powerful forces. Also, the discovery that Feng Shui goes back at least five centuries before the birth of Christ, indicates to me that there is something more substantive than just a few tales strung together. So, without dragging the matter out further, here’s what I have learned about Feng Shui.
It’s about Qi, pronouned “Chee”. There is a lot of argument and disagreement about what Qi is, exactly, which I found intriguing. The Chinese figured out long ago, for instance, that people are affected by magnetic waves and resonance. The Western world only began to discover that in the past 50 years. But there’s more, related to temperature, air circulation, water, and many other factors. It’s really complex in total, and it takes a lot of study to consider all the things involved.
With that in mind, Feng Shui makes a whole lot more sense. Where you live is obviously going to affect your life, and it’s just reasonable to consider things which affect how much light your house gets, how much heat, whether the air moves freely in the house, and so on. Also, one must consider Yang and Yin, or balance. For example, a house which is too dark is not going to be right, but bright lights all the time would be stressful. Feng Shui considers the balance of all the factors in your home life. And from that, the principles of balance and energy are not only reasonable, but a critical reminder to consider in so major a choice as buying a house.
Now, there’s more to Feng Shui, but for here I will leave that to your own investigation, should you find it worth your time and attention. I would remind you, though, that when He prayed, Jesus went to a private place appropriate for his purpose. So also, Jesus preached in locations correct to the purpose. If you pay close attention, the practice is clear. And the flow of Qi, I would also submit, is a thing God wishes us to understand, for our own benefit.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Why Jesus Had To Be Perfect
...
It begins with the definition of God's Law. From one perspective, it's totally unyielding, a thing either obeyed or violated. However, the plain fact that forgiveness from God is possible, means that an additional dimension exists. Some people confuse forgiveness to mean that God will excuse sin, which is not a valid concept to me. Others suggest that God forgives sin, but there are different levels, so that someone forgiven is still not as good are pleasing to God as one who does not sin in the first place. The account of Jacob, however, makes an early case that God's forgiveness is totally perfect, and so a sin is made as if it never happened, and will not be remembered in any form.
Assuming that interpretation is correct, then the Law is something more mysterious; inflexible, yet there is a way to obey it beyond Man's understanding, and the key is the Will of God.
In writing about sin, I think the first point to make is that sin is about Man, not God. What I mean there, is that God is holy and perfect, regardless of whatever a person does; to claim otherwise would give sin a power over God, which is not at all true. So, even if every man, woman and child on the earth were to live a wholly sinless life, God would not become more perfect or holy, as He is already the Absolute. Also, even if every single man, woman and child were to become unutterably evil and vile, it would not diminish the perfection or holiness of God at all. Therefore, the action of sin is Man’s alone, and the effect of sin is Man’s alone. Whether we mean sin to be “evil”, to “miss the mark”, or anything in between, it is Man’s condition which is concerned by sin, and so when God speaks to us concerning sin, it is our condition He addresses.
Now then, when a man becomes aware of his sin, he may react in a number of ways. He may deny his sin, which is the common response, but that only delays coming to understand his condition. When he finally understands his condition (meaning he finally stops denying he has sinned, he stops trying to blame his wrong on someone or something other than himself), he must either repent of his sin, or else he holds on to his sin. If he holds on to his sin, he accepts the full measure of the sin’s effect. If he repents, then things get interesting.
First, there is the sin which is forgiven, but some sort of consequence still happens. It’s kind of like when the Fire Department comes and puts out the fire, but you still have damage from the fire. When sin happens, there are consequences, not always obvious, but they are there and must be dealt with.
Yet, it also happens that there are sins which are made as though they never happened, in G-d’s eyes. God does not keep records on forgiven sins, nor hold a man accountable for any sin in the past, which God has forgiven. Many people do not like this point, since it appears to some to give support to the notion that a man might sin as much as badly as he pleases, provided he says he’s sorry for it later. My counter to that notion, is to note that God is not fooled by fake contrition, nor is He unaware of what a man means to do in the future. So, even if a man believes he is truly sorry, if he means to go sin again later in the same way, or if his heart still holds to that sin in spirit, the LORD knows this, and there is no forgiveness until and unless that contrition is made real.
To the third point, I remember an old story, about a wise master whose disciples hoped to learn from him. The master said he would grant full knowledge, if they could produce the ‘right stone’. So, the disciples went out and found stones; great stones, small stones, smooth stones, rough stones, of every kind and they brought them, one by one, to the master. But the master only said ‘No, wrong stone’ every time.
There is no moral to that story, because it is not that kind of story. But the story reminds me that God is not like that cruel master, who has secret knowledge he will not share. Rather, the LORD makes His gifts freely available to us all. We just have to accept them. Reading through what I know as the Old Testament, I see prophets, visions granted to men and kings, angelic visits, all to give people the instruction and direction they need. Yet throughout History, people continue to fail and fall. This is not a thing which pleases God, as is evident from Scripture.
Presuming God is in position and of a mind to help us find the way He has set ready for us, it follows to me that He would do so in the most effective way possible. Yet it also follows, that God must remain God, holy and completely perfect. How then to reach sinful Man, when Man would be destroyed by God’s presence? I find it likely that God would send Himself, once, as a perfect example, and this explains the identity and purpose of Messiah.
Jews do not, I know, accept this, but Christians very much do, that the Messiah was God in person coming to be a human, and it serves the need well. Man cannot say that God does not know what it is to be unjustly hurt, as this happened to Jesus all His life. Man cannot say the perfect life is impossible, because Jesus lived it. And because Jesus died on the cross for us, no man or power can claim the debt is unpaid.
Obviously, the first question that comes up from this explanation, is just how God can walk among us, being perfect. What happened is, knowing beforehand all that Men would do, God made Himself in three persons but of the same essence and being. It is difficult to explain the Trinity, but that should not be surprising, given the task of explaining a Divine quality necessary to allow perfect reign in Heaven, yet complete contact with humans here on Earth. As for the Holy Spirit, that one shows up many times throughout the Bible, especially in the words of David and in the Scripture concerning Moses, so God was able to be in both Heaven and Earth simultaneously from the beginning.
This also explains the requirement that Jesus should be sinless. Not because we humans must be perfect in order to be forgiven by the LORD, but because Jesus is the template for perfection, proof that it can be done. You see, when we sin, we all sin against God. Remember Psalms 51:4, where David confesses “against You, You only, have I sinned”? What a strange thing to say! Because of David’s sin, Uriah was dead, Bathsheba disgraced, and his infant son killed. Yet David says he only sinned against God (and Psalm 51 was written specifically because of Nathan’s charge against David). What David meant, was that whatever we do, as bad as it is to any person on Earth, it is God who has the full right, and to whom we therefore owe contrition and penitence. It would create a conundrum, were God to sin against God! More, Davis defines “blameless” for us in Psalms 19:13, as “innocent of great transgression”. Blameless is not perfect, but God is perfect. Consider the 119th Psalm, especially verses 97-104 and 125. Why meditate upon the Law, or work to achieve insight and discernment, if the Law is a simple matter of obeying a technicality? David makes clear, that the Law is a thing much deeper than a superficial code of conduct, and Jesus reinforced that by His actions and words in practice.
Jesus did not sin, and no man who follows His way will sin. The problem, of course, is that as willing as we are to do the right thing, we fail because we are weak.
It begins with the definition of God's Law. From one perspective, it's totally unyielding, a thing either obeyed or violated. However, the plain fact that forgiveness from God is possible, means that an additional dimension exists. Some people confuse forgiveness to mean that God will excuse sin, which is not a valid concept to me. Others suggest that God forgives sin, but there are different levels, so that someone forgiven is still not as good are pleasing to God as one who does not sin in the first place. The account of Jacob, however, makes an early case that God's forgiveness is totally perfect, and so a sin is made as if it never happened, and will not be remembered in any form.
Assuming that interpretation is correct, then the Law is something more mysterious; inflexible, yet there is a way to obey it beyond Man's understanding, and the key is the Will of God.
In writing about sin, I think the first point to make is that sin is about Man, not God. What I mean there, is that God is holy and perfect, regardless of whatever a person does; to claim otherwise would give sin a power over God, which is not at all true. So, even if every man, woman and child on the earth were to live a wholly sinless life, God would not become more perfect or holy, as He is already the Absolute. Also, even if every single man, woman and child were to become unutterably evil and vile, it would not diminish the perfection or holiness of God at all. Therefore, the action of sin is Man’s alone, and the effect of sin is Man’s alone. Whether we mean sin to be “evil”, to “miss the mark”, or anything in between, it is Man’s condition which is concerned by sin, and so when God speaks to us concerning sin, it is our condition He addresses.
Now then, when a man becomes aware of his sin, he may react in a number of ways. He may deny his sin, which is the common response, but that only delays coming to understand his condition. When he finally understands his condition (meaning he finally stops denying he has sinned, he stops trying to blame his wrong on someone or something other than himself), he must either repent of his sin, or else he holds on to his sin. If he holds on to his sin, he accepts the full measure of the sin’s effect. If he repents, then things get interesting.
First, there is the sin which is forgiven, but some sort of consequence still happens. It’s kind of like when the Fire Department comes and puts out the fire, but you still have damage from the fire. When sin happens, there are consequences, not always obvious, but they are there and must be dealt with.
Yet, it also happens that there are sins which are made as though they never happened, in G-d’s eyes. God does not keep records on forgiven sins, nor hold a man accountable for any sin in the past, which God has forgiven. Many people do not like this point, since it appears to some to give support to the notion that a man might sin as much as badly as he pleases, provided he says he’s sorry for it later. My counter to that notion, is to note that God is not fooled by fake contrition, nor is He unaware of what a man means to do in the future. So, even if a man believes he is truly sorry, if he means to go sin again later in the same way, or if his heart still holds to that sin in spirit, the LORD knows this, and there is no forgiveness until and unless that contrition is made real.
To the third point, I remember an old story, about a wise master whose disciples hoped to learn from him. The master said he would grant full knowledge, if they could produce the ‘right stone’. So, the disciples went out and found stones; great stones, small stones, smooth stones, rough stones, of every kind and they brought them, one by one, to the master. But the master only said ‘No, wrong stone’ every time.
There is no moral to that story, because it is not that kind of story. But the story reminds me that God is not like that cruel master, who has secret knowledge he will not share. Rather, the LORD makes His gifts freely available to us all. We just have to accept them. Reading through what I know as the Old Testament, I see prophets, visions granted to men and kings, angelic visits, all to give people the instruction and direction they need. Yet throughout History, people continue to fail and fall. This is not a thing which pleases God, as is evident from Scripture.
Presuming God is in position and of a mind to help us find the way He has set ready for us, it follows to me that He would do so in the most effective way possible. Yet it also follows, that God must remain God, holy and completely perfect. How then to reach sinful Man, when Man would be destroyed by God’s presence? I find it likely that God would send Himself, once, as a perfect example, and this explains the identity and purpose of Messiah.
Jews do not, I know, accept this, but Christians very much do, that the Messiah was God in person coming to be a human, and it serves the need well. Man cannot say that God does not know what it is to be unjustly hurt, as this happened to Jesus all His life. Man cannot say the perfect life is impossible, because Jesus lived it. And because Jesus died on the cross for us, no man or power can claim the debt is unpaid.
Obviously, the first question that comes up from this explanation, is just how God can walk among us, being perfect. What happened is, knowing beforehand all that Men would do, God made Himself in three persons but of the same essence and being. It is difficult to explain the Trinity, but that should not be surprising, given the task of explaining a Divine quality necessary to allow perfect reign in Heaven, yet complete contact with humans here on Earth. As for the Holy Spirit, that one shows up many times throughout the Bible, especially in the words of David and in the Scripture concerning Moses, so God was able to be in both Heaven and Earth simultaneously from the beginning.
This also explains the requirement that Jesus should be sinless. Not because we humans must be perfect in order to be forgiven by the LORD, but because Jesus is the template for perfection, proof that it can be done. You see, when we sin, we all sin against God. Remember Psalms 51:4, where David confesses “against You, You only, have I sinned”? What a strange thing to say! Because of David’s sin, Uriah was dead, Bathsheba disgraced, and his infant son killed. Yet David says he only sinned against God (and Psalm 51 was written specifically because of Nathan’s charge against David). What David meant, was that whatever we do, as bad as it is to any person on Earth, it is God who has the full right, and to whom we therefore owe contrition and penitence. It would create a conundrum, were God to sin against God! More, Davis defines “blameless” for us in Psalms 19:13, as “innocent of great transgression”. Blameless is not perfect, but God is perfect. Consider the 119th Psalm, especially verses 97-104 and 125. Why meditate upon the Law, or work to achieve insight and discernment, if the Law is a simple matter of obeying a technicality? David makes clear, that the Law is a thing much deeper than a superficial code of conduct, and Jesus reinforced that by His actions and words in practice.
Jesus did not sin, and no man who follows His way will sin. The problem, of course, is that as willing as we are to do the right thing, we fail because we are weak.
Monday, May 09, 2005
George Lucas Killed Yoda
!
One of the mysteries of the Star Wars movies, is just how a story with the promise shown by the first two movies, could devolve into such utter dreck, under the same production and direction. I think I have finally figured it out.
Without revealing an utterly hopeless devotion to an adolescent concept, the 'Star Wars' theme began with "Star Wars", a swashbuckling adventure with all the bells and whistles - sleek starships, a menacing villain, an idealistic hero with multiple sidekicks, and of course, that music. Not content with a blockbuster hit, Lucas followed up with the impressive "The Empire Strikes Back", which continued the story, actually picking up the pace, complicating the plot with rivalry between the two main heroes, and opened the door into The Force and the Jedi Knights. And of course, even more of that fantastic Soundtrack. Expectations were high, especially it became obvious that Lucas was just warming up. Here we discovered that "Star Wars" was not in fact the first episode of the story, but actually Part IV in a nine-part odyssey. Interest in the series grew exponentially.
But "The Return of the Jedi" failed to match its promise. It was moderately enjoyable for a movie, but didn't match the levels of "Empire". And Episodes I and II were distinct disappointments, from the perspective of the fans. And fans were informed that despite the initial promise of nine films (Lucas once claimed he had already written up screenplays for all nine), the series would end with just six. What happened?
Well, looking back on the series, I think I see what happened. Let's chart the progress by type:
"Star Wars"
Hero: Luke Skywalker. Young but grown, clean cut and optimistic, raw but talented.
Sidekicks: Han Solo. Cocky but lovable. R2D2, all-around good guy robot. C3PO, comic relief and a classic foil, who gets ripped apart by Sand People.
Aliens: Chewbacca the wookiee. Heroic and a good fit for Solo.
Greedo the bounty hunter. Dies with the right degree of surprise.
Jabba the Hutt. Disgusting, yet does not appear for too long in the film.
Mentor: Obi Wan Kenobi. Mysterious, powerful, wise, and cool in the clutch.
Romance interest: Princess Leia. Beautiful yet not aloof, also has sense of humor.
Villains: The Empire, Darth Vader. High-tech, ominous, powerful, yet very cool.
Plot: Luke finds out he is strong with the Force. Bad guys kill aunt, uncle, mentor. Bad guy wants to blow up rebels, Luke and his friends blow up Death Star first.
"The Empire Strikes Back"
Hero: Luke learns the Force, in practice and in study from a Master.
Sidekicks: More R2D2, less C3PO. Solo shows his own stuff, Lando Calrissian introduced but not too much film time. C3PO gets blown apart.
Aliens: generic
Mentor: Yoda the Jedi Master introduced. Very impressive, especially as he turns The Force into a real set of ideals and standards.
Romance Interest: Luke pursues the Force, Han and Leia pursue each other, but nothing too mucky for young teens.
Villains: Darth Vader, who personally kills a lot of people in the film. The Emporer introduced, suitably shadowy and creepy.
Plot: Luke learns about the Force. Many explosions, surprises, humor, tension. Vader cuts off Luke's hand, Solo is captured and turned into a slab of metal. The story is clearly left unfinished, creating appetite for next episode.
"The Return of the Jedi"
Hero: Luke becomes a full Jedi Knight.
Sidekicks: Han and Calrissian are kind of weeny in this film, so is Leia. Too much attention to C3PO, who for some reason is not blown up in this film.
Aliens: Ewoks, essentially feral teddy bears who nonetheless are able to destroy high-tech equipment with sticks and stones. NOT credible.
Mentor: None.
Romance interest: None for Luke, Han and Leia make gooey eyes at each other, satisfying no age group.
Villains: None, actually. The Emporer is scary at first, but has no defense against being thrown off a balcony. Vader dies, so does Yoda, so does Emporer, Boba Fett dies in a freak accident. Billy Dee Williams exhibits a Shatneresque level of acting ability.
Plot: Everybody's got some good in them, as long as they kill the right people.
"The Phantom Menace"
Hero: Sullen 5-year-old kid, Anakin Skywalker.
Sidekicks: None. He has no friends, except for a couple token kids who disappear when not needed to show a 'human' side to Anakin. Builds C3PO, which is reason to hate the guy later, especially as C3PO does not get blown up or ripped apart in this film.
Aliens: Slimy slavers, Jabba the Hutt returns as a gangster MC at the pod races. Otherwise,three four words explains why the movie stank: Jar Jar Freakin' Binks, who also is neither ripped apart nor blown up in the film.
Mentor: None. Obi Wan and Qui-Gon try to teach the lad, who does as he pleases.
Romance interest: None, except a creepy 5-year-old's prenaturnal desire for a teenaged princess Padme.
Villains: Generic, except for Darth Maul, who turns out to be far less imposing than the lead-up to the showdown seemed to suggest.
Plot: The Force is just blood chemistry?!?!?!? Lucas sells the family jewels for nothing! Qui-Gon dies, Darth Maul dies, hundreds of token aliens die. Jar Jar and C3PO are both allowed to live, proving there is no justice in the Lucas Universe.
"Attack of theClowns Clones"
Hero: Sullen teenaged Anakin Skywalker
Sidekicks: None. Anakin works alone. Obi Wan hangs with him, pitifully similar to a dad trying to be 'hip' with his rebellious son.
Aliens: Generic. Jar Jar shows up again, but mercifully only in bit parts. Jar Jar and C3PO still are neither ripped apart nor blown up.
Mentor: None. The Jedi Council turns out to be just a divided, politically impotent group of old fogies, who sense a disturbance but little more.
Romance Interest: The teen wins the twenty-something princess, marries her against all common sense and which slows down an already plodding plot.
Villains: The Emporer is hinted at, various assassins and groups of business-types. Daddy Fett shows promise but never delivers.
Plot: Heavy-handed, slow-moving. Vader's mommy dies, Vader kills her murderers and everyone in the same zip code, Tens of thousands of computer-generated characters dies, Obi Wan pouts, Yoda floats around, and has an indecisive battle with Count Dooku. Jar Jar and C3PO are both still allowed to live, to the displeasure of millions.
“Revenge of the Sith”
Hero: None apparent.
Sidekicks: None apparent. Everyone is either evil or a target, it looks like.
Aliens: The wookiees show up as a group, but it’s hard to see whether Chewbacca will finally get his long-overdue chance to show his stuff at full speed. Since C3PO will show up in Episodes IV-VI, we unfortunately cannot hope for his departure, but perhaps he will be ripped apart again in some amusing fashion. My hope that Jar Jar won’t show up again, is balanced against the possibility of his on-screen demise.
Mentor: Vader learns all about Evil from the Emporer-to-be.
Villains: Lots of guys in black and lots of evil robots, along with suitable legions of fell lackeys.
Plot: Everyone either turns evil, dies, or runs away. Much merchandising.
OK, what so we see from that overview? To me, the series loses its vision, pace, and integrity right about a third of the way through Episode VI, and turns from an excellent story about ideals, heroism, and the triumph of virtue over evil, to a series of slick tricks and well-timed explosions; John Wu’s vision of the Galactic Republic. And what happens at that point in “The Return of the Jedi”? Yoda dies.
Uh-huh. Right. The little green dude is able to kick the butts of all comers for nine hundred years, hoist starfighters out of the muck by sheer concentration, and teach a condensed version of Universal Philosophy, Logic, Meditation, and Filmography to a late starter with ADD, but all of a sudden, he dies. I know why.
Lucas turned to the Dark Side, specifically he got tired of the ideals he began the story with, and he found himself in touch with his dark masters at ILM, specifically the Marketing Department.
“Geooooooooooooooooooooooooorge”, intoned the Marketing Director, “I am your faaaaaaaaaaaaatheeeeeeeeeeeeer.”
“No you’re not” replied Lucas.
“I meant your iiiiiiiiiiiiiideeeeeeeeeeeeeeological faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaather” intoned the Director.
“Oh. OK. Waddya want, and can the fake Vader talk, willya? You don’t sound near as cool as James Earl Jones.” replied Lucas.
“Fine” said the Marketing Monster. “We’ve thought of a way to get you lots and lots of money. Interested?”
“Yep” said Lucas.
“All we want is your soul” warned the Marketing head.
“Fine,” said Lucas, “I wasn’t using it anyway.”
And so the deal was made. Yoda was killed off, to be replaced with more marketable action figures, and Episodes VII through IX, which dealt with silly notions like honor and justice, were trashed. Only half the money was set aside for the future Soundtracks, which is why they’re barely half as good as the first 2 films. Jones, Ford, Hamill, and Fisher were chased off after Episode VI. ILM took possession of the souls of Lucas and the plot development team, with Jar-Jarmodeus appointed as Lucas’ familiar and demon watch-beast. After Lucas killed Yoda, hope and truth faded from the series, to be replaced by foul marketing tactics and consulting advice from Dan Rather.
It wasn’t a complete success for the Dark Side, however. Despite Lucas’ best efforts, belief in the ideals of the original Force - Justice, Honor, Courage, and Loyalty - were not lost, but were recovered and redistributed, showing up in both George W. Bush Presidential campaigns, in the Boy Scouts, in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the confederation of new defenders of Justice and Hope, carrying names like Steyn, Hawkins, Lori, and Michelle. The FOX Network also expressed interest.
As for Lucas, he’s not in the clear. I hear the Wookiees are mad that no wookiee was made a Jedi, and they plan to pay him a visit. And they visited Darth Sidious first, to take notes.
One of the mysteries of the Star Wars movies, is just how a story with the promise shown by the first two movies, could devolve into such utter dreck, under the same production and direction. I think I have finally figured it out.
Without revealing an utterly hopeless devotion to an adolescent concept, the 'Star Wars' theme began with "Star Wars", a swashbuckling adventure with all the bells and whistles - sleek starships, a menacing villain, an idealistic hero with multiple sidekicks, and of course, that music. Not content with a blockbuster hit, Lucas followed up with the impressive "The Empire Strikes Back", which continued the story, actually picking up the pace, complicating the plot with rivalry between the two main heroes, and opened the door into The Force and the Jedi Knights. And of course, even more of that fantastic Soundtrack. Expectations were high, especially it became obvious that Lucas was just warming up. Here we discovered that "Star Wars" was not in fact the first episode of the story, but actually Part IV in a nine-part odyssey. Interest in the series grew exponentially.
But "The Return of the Jedi" failed to match its promise. It was moderately enjoyable for a movie, but didn't match the levels of "Empire". And Episodes I and II were distinct disappointments, from the perspective of the fans. And fans were informed that despite the initial promise of nine films (Lucas once claimed he had already written up screenplays for all nine), the series would end with just six. What happened?
Well, looking back on the series, I think I see what happened. Let's chart the progress by type:
"Star Wars"
Hero: Luke Skywalker. Young but grown, clean cut and optimistic, raw but talented.
Sidekicks: Han Solo. Cocky but lovable. R2D2, all-around good guy robot. C3PO, comic relief and a classic foil, who gets ripped apart by Sand People.
Aliens: Chewbacca the wookiee. Heroic and a good fit for Solo.
Greedo the bounty hunter. Dies with the right degree of surprise.
Jabba the Hutt. Disgusting, yet does not appear for too long in the film.
Mentor: Obi Wan Kenobi. Mysterious, powerful, wise, and cool in the clutch.
Romance interest: Princess Leia. Beautiful yet not aloof, also has sense of humor.
Villains: The Empire, Darth Vader. High-tech, ominous, powerful, yet very cool.
Plot: Luke finds out he is strong with the Force. Bad guys kill aunt, uncle, mentor. Bad guy wants to blow up rebels, Luke and his friends blow up Death Star first.
"The Empire Strikes Back"
Hero: Luke learns the Force, in practice and in study from a Master.
Sidekicks: More R2D2, less C3PO. Solo shows his own stuff, Lando Calrissian introduced but not too much film time. C3PO gets blown apart.
Aliens: generic
Mentor: Yoda the Jedi Master introduced. Very impressive, especially as he turns The Force into a real set of ideals and standards.
Romance Interest: Luke pursues the Force, Han and Leia pursue each other, but nothing too mucky for young teens.
Villains: Darth Vader, who personally kills a lot of people in the film. The Emporer introduced, suitably shadowy and creepy.
Plot: Luke learns about the Force. Many explosions, surprises, humor, tension. Vader cuts off Luke's hand, Solo is captured and turned into a slab of metal. The story is clearly left unfinished, creating appetite for next episode.
"The Return of the Jedi"
Hero: Luke becomes a full Jedi Knight.
Sidekicks: Han and Calrissian are kind of weeny in this film, so is Leia. Too much attention to C3PO, who for some reason is not blown up in this film.
Aliens: Ewoks, essentially feral teddy bears who nonetheless are able to destroy high-tech equipment with sticks and stones. NOT credible.
Mentor: None.
Romance interest: None for Luke, Han and Leia make gooey eyes at each other, satisfying no age group.
Villains: None, actually. The Emporer is scary at first, but has no defense against being thrown off a balcony. Vader dies, so does Yoda, so does Emporer, Boba Fett dies in a freak accident. Billy Dee Williams exhibits a Shatneresque level of acting ability.
Plot: Everybody's got some good in them, as long as they kill the right people.
"The Phantom Menace"
Hero: Sullen 5-year-old kid, Anakin Skywalker.
Sidekicks: None. He has no friends, except for a couple token kids who disappear when not needed to show a 'human' side to Anakin. Builds C3PO, which is reason to hate the guy later, especially as C3PO does not get blown up or ripped apart in this film.
Aliens: Slimy slavers, Jabba the Hutt returns as a gangster MC at the pod races. Otherwise,
Mentor: None. Obi Wan and Qui-Gon try to teach the lad, who does as he pleases.
Romance interest: None, except a creepy 5-year-old's prenaturnal desire for a teenaged princess Padme.
Villains: Generic, except for Darth Maul, who turns out to be far less imposing than the lead-up to the showdown seemed to suggest.
Plot: The Force is just blood chemistry?!?!?!? Lucas sells the family jewels for nothing! Qui-Gon dies, Darth Maul dies, hundreds of token aliens die. Jar Jar and C3PO are both allowed to live, proving there is no justice in the Lucas Universe.
"Attack of the
Hero: Sullen teenaged Anakin Skywalker
Sidekicks: None. Anakin works alone. Obi Wan hangs with him, pitifully similar to a dad trying to be 'hip' with his rebellious son.
Aliens: Generic. Jar Jar shows up again, but mercifully only in bit parts. Jar Jar and C3PO still are neither ripped apart nor blown up.
Mentor: None. The Jedi Council turns out to be just a divided, politically impotent group of old fogies, who sense a disturbance but little more.
Romance Interest: The teen wins the twenty-something princess, marries her against all common sense and which slows down an already plodding plot.
Villains: The Emporer is hinted at, various assassins and groups of business-types. Daddy Fett shows promise but never delivers.
Plot: Heavy-handed, slow-moving. Vader's mommy dies, Vader kills her murderers and everyone in the same zip code, Tens of thousands of computer-generated characters dies, Obi Wan pouts, Yoda floats around, and has an indecisive battle with Count Dooku. Jar Jar and C3PO are both still allowed to live, to the displeasure of millions.
“Revenge of the Sith”
Hero: None apparent.
Sidekicks: None apparent. Everyone is either evil or a target, it looks like.
Aliens: The wookiees show up as a group, but it’s hard to see whether Chewbacca will finally get his long-overdue chance to show his stuff at full speed. Since C3PO will show up in Episodes IV-VI, we unfortunately cannot hope for his departure, but perhaps he will be ripped apart again in some amusing fashion. My hope that Jar Jar won’t show up again, is balanced against the possibility of his on-screen demise.
Mentor: Vader learns all about Evil from the Emporer-to-be.
Villains: Lots of guys in black and lots of evil robots, along with suitable legions of fell lackeys.
Plot: Everyone either turns evil, dies, or runs away. Much merchandising.
OK, what so we see from that overview? To me, the series loses its vision, pace, and integrity right about a third of the way through Episode VI, and turns from an excellent story about ideals, heroism, and the triumph of virtue over evil, to a series of slick tricks and well-timed explosions; John Wu’s vision of the Galactic Republic. And what happens at that point in “The Return of the Jedi”? Yoda dies.
Uh-huh. Right. The little green dude is able to kick the butts of all comers for nine hundred years, hoist starfighters out of the muck by sheer concentration, and teach a condensed version of Universal Philosophy, Logic, Meditation, and Filmography to a late starter with ADD, but all of a sudden, he dies. I know why.
Lucas turned to the Dark Side, specifically he got tired of the ideals he began the story with, and he found himself in touch with his dark masters at ILM, specifically the Marketing Department.
“Geooooooooooooooooooooooooorge”, intoned the Marketing Director, “I am your faaaaaaaaaaaaatheeeeeeeeeeeeer.”
“No you’re not” replied Lucas.
“I meant your iiiiiiiiiiiiiideeeeeeeeeeeeeeological faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaather” intoned the Director.
“Oh. OK. Waddya want, and can the fake Vader talk, willya? You don’t sound near as cool as James Earl Jones.” replied Lucas.
“Fine” said the Marketing Monster. “We’ve thought of a way to get you lots and lots of money. Interested?”
“Yep” said Lucas.
“All we want is your soul” warned the Marketing head.
“Fine,” said Lucas, “I wasn’t using it anyway.”
And so the deal was made. Yoda was killed off, to be replaced with more marketable action figures, and Episodes VII through IX, which dealt with silly notions like honor and justice, were trashed. Only half the money was set aside for the future Soundtracks, which is why they’re barely half as good as the first 2 films. Jones, Ford, Hamill, and Fisher were chased off after Episode VI. ILM took possession of the souls of Lucas and the plot development team, with Jar-Jarmodeus appointed as Lucas’ familiar and demon watch-beast. After Lucas killed Yoda, hope and truth faded from the series, to be replaced by foul marketing tactics and consulting advice from Dan Rather.
It wasn’t a complete success for the Dark Side, however. Despite Lucas’ best efforts, belief in the ideals of the original Force - Justice, Honor, Courage, and Loyalty - were not lost, but were recovered and redistributed, showing up in both George W. Bush Presidential campaigns, in the Boy Scouts, in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the confederation of new defenders of Justice and Hope, carrying names like Steyn, Hawkins, Lori, and Michelle. The FOX Network also expressed interest.
As for Lucas, he’s not in the clear. I hear the Wookiees are mad that no wookiee was made a Jedi, and they plan to pay him a visit. And they visited Darth Sidious first, to take notes.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Peace
[][]
In the course of my writing, I had meant to discuss the Rights of Man at some length. I still mean to, but recent events have humbled me, making me see the cost and purpose of some of them rather more directly.
Amanda Twellman has arranged with Medarex to get the drug she hopes will cure her cancer, and I pray God that this is a true hope. But looking at her case from an idealist POV, I see something about how the way these ideals and rights work.
Today, I want to share thoughts about Peace. To many people, peace is fairly simple, a freedom from trouble or violence, perhaps a serenity in spirit. But years ago, I had a thought which still strikes me as the most valid definition: Peace is the sense of things being as they should be.
In the matter of Amanda Twellman, the woman faces a threat against her life. Medarex faced a threat which could potentially destroy the company and undo years of research. And thousands or blog readers were upset that a decision of this importance had to be handled in an atmosphere of conflict and bureaucracy. There could not be said to be peace in this matter for anyone.
Then an agreement was struck, privately, between the Twellman family and Medarex. The details were not released, but the effect appears to be one which is acceptable to all the concerned parties. Even though it’s far too early to know whether the drug will destroy the cancer as hoped, and even though there is a lot of hard work ahead for both the Twellmans and Medarex, one clear result is that a new condition has been created. One with peace and honor.
In the course of my writing, I had meant to discuss the Rights of Man at some length. I still mean to, but recent events have humbled me, making me see the cost and purpose of some of them rather more directly.
Amanda Twellman has arranged with Medarex to get the drug she hopes will cure her cancer, and I pray God that this is a true hope. But looking at her case from an idealist POV, I see something about how the way these ideals and rights work.
Today, I want to share thoughts about Peace. To many people, peace is fairly simple, a freedom from trouble or violence, perhaps a serenity in spirit. But years ago, I had a thought which still strikes me as the most valid definition: Peace is the sense of things being as they should be.
In the matter of Amanda Twellman, the woman faces a threat against her life. Medarex faced a threat which could potentially destroy the company and undo years of research. And thousands or blog readers were upset that a decision of this importance had to be handled in an atmosphere of conflict and bureaucracy. There could not be said to be peace in this matter for anyone.
Then an agreement was struck, privately, between the Twellman family and Medarex. The details were not released, but the effect appears to be one which is acceptable to all the concerned parties. Even though it’s far too early to know whether the drug will destroy the cancer as hoped, and even though there is a lot of hard work ahead for both the Twellmans and Medarex, one clear result is that a new condition has been created. One with peace and honor.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Hero Corporation Comes Through!
<>
In an earlier post, I covered the plight of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who has Hodgkin’s Disease and worse, has relapsed and does not have a favorable prognosis. Unfortunately, the emotion of Amanda’s condition led to a confrontation with Medarex, who is developing a drug which may help Amanda’s condition. Unfortunately, the Twellman-Dieppa family chose the wrong method, but Mr. Drakeman, President of Medarex, stepped up to the plate in a big way.
SaveAmanda.com has an update, confirming that “a resolution has been reached, which meets the needs of the family and the goals of Medarex”. Details, as you might expect when an exception to all the normal rules is made, are being kept private, but considering the immense risk that Medarex is accepting in this case, the company’s actions are nothing short of heroic. The company was falsely accused of being uncaring and greedy, was hounded by a biased national radio host*, and faced a growing wave of unfair accusations through the Internet rumor mill; very few voices presented Medarex’s perspective, or tried to balance the known information. Despite the public pressure from both sides, the huge risk of allowing its competitors to see the results of MDX-60, and the embarrassment of hundreds of false rumors directed against them, Mr. Drakeman and the directors of Medarex stayed on mission to find a way to help Amanda. There is no way to know for sure whether MDX-60 will work, and even if it’s completely successful, it means years of recovery at best. Since my own mom had breast cancer, I understand that ‘success’ means remission, which is just another word for waiting for the possibility the cancer could still come back.
I am very thankful that Amanda will get the drug she believes is her best hope. I appreciate the determination her father showed in making sure he did everything he could. And most of all, the courage and idealist spirit showed by the directors at Medarex, though it will be ignored by most, is worthy of great praise on the record.
(* The radio host, it should be mentioned, grudgingly admitted that Medarex and it's President, Mr. Drakeman, have been invaluable in helping Amanda.)
In an earlier post, I covered the plight of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who has Hodgkin’s Disease and worse, has relapsed and does not have a favorable prognosis. Unfortunately, the emotion of Amanda’s condition led to a confrontation with Medarex, who is developing a drug which may help Amanda’s condition. Unfortunately, the Twellman-Dieppa family chose the wrong method, but Mr. Drakeman, President of Medarex, stepped up to the plate in a big way.
SaveAmanda.com has an update, confirming that “a resolution has been reached, which meets the needs of the family and the goals of Medarex”. Details, as you might expect when an exception to all the normal rules is made, are being kept private, but considering the immense risk that Medarex is accepting in this case, the company’s actions are nothing short of heroic. The company was falsely accused of being uncaring and greedy, was hounded by a biased national radio host*, and faced a growing wave of unfair accusations through the Internet rumor mill; very few voices presented Medarex’s perspective, or tried to balance the known information. Despite the public pressure from both sides, the huge risk of allowing its competitors to see the results of MDX-60, and the embarrassment of hundreds of false rumors directed against them, Mr. Drakeman and the directors of Medarex stayed on mission to find a way to help Amanda. There is no way to know for sure whether MDX-60 will work, and even if it’s completely successful, it means years of recovery at best. Since my own mom had breast cancer, I understand that ‘success’ means remission, which is just another word for waiting for the possibility the cancer could still come back.
I am very thankful that Amanda will get the drug she believes is her best hope. I appreciate the determination her father showed in making sure he did everything he could. And most of all, the courage and idealist spirit showed by the directors at Medarex, though it will be ignored by most, is worthy of great praise on the record.
(* The radio host, it should be mentioned, grudgingly admitted that Medarex and it's President, Mr. Drakeman, have been invaluable in helping Amanda.)
Wow
[]
I was trying to think of a great article for today, and a few ideas came up. But they will have to wait for another day, because I found a tremendous article on a critical need we all face; How to really be a follower of Christ.
Timothy George and John Woodbridge wrote a powerful book, entitled “The Mark of Jesus", and excerpted it into an article, using the books of 1st and 2nd Corinthians to show historical examples from the missions of Paul. It’s a bit lengthy, but if you want to really be a Christian, or if you are curious about what a Christian should be like, you must read this article. Read the whole thing, as they say.
(grateful hat tips to Worthy Thinking, and to Oh How I Love Jesus)
UPDATE: I meant to write 1st & 2nd Corinthians, but actually wrote "Chronicles". Thanks Romeocat for the catch! The entry is now corrected.
I was trying to think of a great article for today, and a few ideas came up. But they will have to wait for another day, because I found a tremendous article on a critical need we all face; How to really be a follower of Christ.
Timothy George and John Woodbridge wrote a powerful book, entitled “The Mark of Jesus", and excerpted it into an article, using the books of 1st and 2nd Corinthians to show historical examples from the missions of Paul. It’s a bit lengthy, but if you want to really be a Christian, or if you are curious about what a Christian should be like, you must read this article. Read the whole thing, as they say.
(grateful hat tips to Worthy Thinking, and to Oh How I Love Jesus)
UPDATE: I meant to write 1st & 2nd Corinthians, but actually wrote "Chronicles". Thanks Romeocat for the catch! The entry is now corrected.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Was Jesus Sinless?
+++
The question about whether of not Jesus sinned has come up, as well as whether this matters in relation to His atonement for the world. In these days of Absolute Moral Relativism, the notion that Jesus Christ may actually have been exactly as the Gospel accounts describe Him, runs headlong into the humanist dogma, which thinks itself enlightened and tolerant, to grant the Son of God status as a ‘good teacher’, but not as the Lord God’s only begotten Son. So, a defense of the Lord’s perfection, once accepted as obvious as the corrupt nature of Man, is necessary.
There is an abundance of Scripture which refers to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, much of the Old Testament is rejected by non-Christians in that context, and so for the purpose of this discussion I will leave aside the Old Testament passages which I believe specifically mention Jesus the Christ, and bear directly with New Testament passages when speaking of Jesus directly, and only refer to the Old Testament when addressing the Jewish position on sin.
To answer the question of whether Jesus sinned, requires a basic agreement on the meaning of ‘sin, especially as practiced in Jesus’ day. Accordingly, I have selected verses which bear on the general description of sin, and on the actions of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ specific case.
First, the functional starting point – does it matter? To that, I reference Ezekiel 33:12, which reads:
“The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.”
So, if Jesus Christ had sinned, even though He was perfectly righteous, He would have been made unfit to be the Savior of the world in that moment. This is exactly why satan tried to tempt Him in the wilderness, and a point on which I may not yield.
So, what else does God have to say about sin before the coming of Christ? Quite a bit, actually. Consider what these verses say:
“The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13)
The law is from God, not what men demand.
“He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
To love God and act in that love, is to not sin at all.
“The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.” (Obadiah 1:15)
You get back what you do. Sin, therefore, must be to do a thing which is destructive and evil. To do good would only bring good back to yourself.
“Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13)
God is not concerned with what happens on the outside, but what happens on the inside, in your heart.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
Again, we see plainly that God is concerned not with technicalities, but the heart and soul of a person.
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
(Leviticus 19:18)
Even in the book most often quoted as onerous and burdensome, God speaks plainly about love and doing good.
Therefore, the notion of sin must be considered not by what is written in ink, but in what pleases and serves God.
Further, we have the example of how Jesus was treated in His own life. Consider the words and actions of the Pharisees and Levites in these situations:
“Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”(Matthew 9:1-8)
See how the Pharisees are answered, and how by doing what is good Jesus rebukes them.
“While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
(Matthew 9:32-33)
See how Jesus does a blameless thing, and His enemies seek an insulting explanation. Who in this point pleases God more?
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”
(Matthew 12:1-14)
Jesus not only explains the law, but provides a historical context. Se how the Pharisees do not answer, but accept His truth.
“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
(Matthew 15:1-11)
“Break the tradition”? See how cumbersome these men become, that even a habit they have become used to, is now considered a requirement!
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”
(Matthew 19:3-11)
Jesus again explains the law and more, shows us that some of the old law was not what God desired, but what man was willing to accept.
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:13-14)
Could Jesus be more plain? It is not about deeds against a standard, or knowledge of a code of rules, but the purity of heart.
Now, after all this, you would think that the Pharisees would have had a lengthy list of accusations to place against Jesus, but when they arrested Him, they couldn’t even agree on their stories:
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
”He is worthy of death," they answered.”
(Matthew 26:59-66)
Note that carefully. Not that Jesus broke any point of the law, not any of the Commandments, except that they claimed He blasphemed, and if Jesus is the Son of God then that charge was false.
So they take Jesus to Pilate, but once there, they no longer accuse Jesus of Blasphemy, but Sedition and Insurrection against the Caesar by claiming to be a king.
The matter is plain, from that perspective – even the Pharisees could not find a law Jesus had broken.
OK, now I sense the people who don’t accept the Bible as literally true, will protest that I am taking the accounts at their word, and that very possibly the Sanhedrin did in fact press Moses’ law against Jesus. To that, I answer look at what happened. Jesus was not stoned, as is the customary punishment for Blasphemy. He wasn’t even flogged by the Sanhedrin, which we know was an option through the events mentioned in the Book of Acts. Nope, the Sanhedrin sent Jesus off to Pilate and Herod. Why? Because they had no religious basis on which to kill him, and depended on the Secular government for that. So, on that basis, the sole conclusion available, is that the Sanhedrin could not indict Jesus convincingly on a charge of violating the law. IF they could, they could have discredited Him, which would have done exactly what they wanted.
Now, returning to the Person of Christ, what signs do we see that support His sinlessless? Consider these verses:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)
Jesus said this at the start of His ministry. Would His disciples have included this in the Gospel according to Matthew, if they believed He had broken the Law? Would Jesus have said this, if He was going to violate the Law?
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Matthew 11:27)
Jesus enjoys a special relationship with God the Father. Who could say this, except the one man who never sinned?
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
(Matthew 17:1-5)
We see here Jesus speaking to the writer of the Law, and to its most effective defender. That speaks to His authority. Also, there is no chance, at all, that the most Holy and Perfect LORD would say this statement, if Jesus were simply a good teacher.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25:31-46)
Jesus has authority to judge all men, including those who God deems righteous. That speaks for itself.
Jesus, alone of all men, lived a sinless life. This is borne out by a close look at how God created His Law, how even Jesus’ enemies weighed His actions, by the effects and results of Jesus’ words and deeds, and by the authority which is reserved for Christ Jesus. In my opinion, one can only pretend Jesus sinned, by denying Whom He Is.
The question about whether of not Jesus sinned has come up, as well as whether this matters in relation to His atonement for the world. In these days of Absolute Moral Relativism, the notion that Jesus Christ may actually have been exactly as the Gospel accounts describe Him, runs headlong into the humanist dogma, which thinks itself enlightened and tolerant, to grant the Son of God status as a ‘good teacher’, but not as the Lord God’s only begotten Son. So, a defense of the Lord’s perfection, once accepted as obvious as the corrupt nature of Man, is necessary.
There is an abundance of Scripture which refers to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, much of the Old Testament is rejected by non-Christians in that context, and so for the purpose of this discussion I will leave aside the Old Testament passages which I believe specifically mention Jesus the Christ, and bear directly with New Testament passages when speaking of Jesus directly, and only refer to the Old Testament when addressing the Jewish position on sin.
To answer the question of whether Jesus sinned, requires a basic agreement on the meaning of ‘sin, especially as practiced in Jesus’ day. Accordingly, I have selected verses which bear on the general description of sin, and on the actions of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ specific case.
First, the functional starting point – does it matter? To that, I reference Ezekiel 33:12, which reads:
“The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.”
So, if Jesus Christ had sinned, even though He was perfectly righteous, He would have been made unfit to be the Savior of the world in that moment. This is exactly why satan tried to tempt Him in the wilderness, and a point on which I may not yield.
So, what else does God have to say about sin before the coming of Christ? Quite a bit, actually. Consider what these verses say:
“The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13)
The law is from God, not what men demand.
“He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
To love God and act in that love, is to not sin at all.
“The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.” (Obadiah 1:15)
You get back what you do. Sin, therefore, must be to do a thing which is destructive and evil. To do good would only bring good back to yourself.
“Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13)
God is not concerned with what happens on the outside, but what happens on the inside, in your heart.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
Again, we see plainly that God is concerned not with technicalities, but the heart and soul of a person.
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
(Leviticus 19:18)
Even in the book most often quoted as onerous and burdensome, God speaks plainly about love and doing good.
Therefore, the notion of sin must be considered not by what is written in ink, but in what pleases and serves God.
Further, we have the example of how Jesus was treated in His own life. Consider the words and actions of the Pharisees and Levites in these situations:
“Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”(Matthew 9:1-8)
See how the Pharisees are answered, and how by doing what is good Jesus rebukes them.
“While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
(Matthew 9:32-33)
See how Jesus does a blameless thing, and His enemies seek an insulting explanation. Who in this point pleases God more?
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”
(Matthew 12:1-14)
Jesus not only explains the law, but provides a historical context. Se how the Pharisees do not answer, but accept His truth.
“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
(Matthew 15:1-11)
“Break the tradition”? See how cumbersome these men become, that even a habit they have become used to, is now considered a requirement!
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”
(Matthew 19:3-11)
Jesus again explains the law and more, shows us that some of the old law was not what God desired, but what man was willing to accept.
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:13-14)
Could Jesus be more plain? It is not about deeds against a standard, or knowledge of a code of rules, but the purity of heart.
Now, after all this, you would think that the Pharisees would have had a lengthy list of accusations to place against Jesus, but when they arrested Him, they couldn’t even agree on their stories:
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
”He is worthy of death," they answered.”
(Matthew 26:59-66)
Note that carefully. Not that Jesus broke any point of the law, not any of the Commandments, except that they claimed He blasphemed, and if Jesus is the Son of God then that charge was false.
So they take Jesus to Pilate, but once there, they no longer accuse Jesus of Blasphemy, but Sedition and Insurrection against the Caesar by claiming to be a king.
The matter is plain, from that perspective – even the Pharisees could not find a law Jesus had broken.
OK, now I sense the people who don’t accept the Bible as literally true, will protest that I am taking the accounts at their word, and that very possibly the Sanhedrin did in fact press Moses’ law against Jesus. To that, I answer look at what happened. Jesus was not stoned, as is the customary punishment for Blasphemy. He wasn’t even flogged by the Sanhedrin, which we know was an option through the events mentioned in the Book of Acts. Nope, the Sanhedrin sent Jesus off to Pilate and Herod. Why? Because they had no religious basis on which to kill him, and depended on the Secular government for that. So, on that basis, the sole conclusion available, is that the Sanhedrin could not indict Jesus convincingly on a charge of violating the law. IF they could, they could have discredited Him, which would have done exactly what they wanted.
Now, returning to the Person of Christ, what signs do we see that support His sinlessless? Consider these verses:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)
Jesus said this at the start of His ministry. Would His disciples have included this in the Gospel according to Matthew, if they believed He had broken the Law? Would Jesus have said this, if He was going to violate the Law?
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Matthew 11:27)
Jesus enjoys a special relationship with God the Father. Who could say this, except the one man who never sinned?
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
(Matthew 17:1-5)
We see here Jesus speaking to the writer of the Law, and to its most effective defender. That speaks to His authority. Also, there is no chance, at all, that the most Holy and Perfect LORD would say this statement, if Jesus were simply a good teacher.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25:31-46)
Jesus has authority to judge all men, including those who God deems righteous. That speaks for itself.
Jesus, alone of all men, lived a sinless life. This is borne out by a close look at how God created His Law, how even Jesus’ enemies weighed His actions, by the effects and results of Jesus’ words and deeds, and by the authority which is reserved for Christ Jesus. In my opinion, one can only pretend Jesus sinned, by denying Whom He Is.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The Story Has 2 Sides - Amanda and Medarex
In his best-seller, “Blog”, columnist and talk show host Hugh Hewitt explained why blogs are passing news analysts in popularity: “The public has the final say. There is no going back, only an endless effort to capture and keep audience based on credibility.” (pg 94). That credibility is the seed for the blogosphere’s growth and character. Sometimes it’s vital for blogs to band together to defend a fellow blogger. Sometimes, it’s necessary for one blog to step in to be sure the story remains balanced.
Tuesday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt posted the story of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who contacted him to ask for support in her quest to gain access to an experimental cancer drug. According to Amanda, she has cancer which has relapsed, and in her opinion only an experiemntal drug she calls “CD30” has any chance of saving her life, but she says the drug company, Medarex, refuses to allow her access to the drug, even though she says the Food and Drug Administration has promised special permission to ensure she can take the drug. Hewitt checked our her website, decided he found it credible, and says he tried to get Medarex’s side of the story. By airtime of his radio show, Hewitt had made up his mind to pick a side, and pushed his audience to press Medarex to release the drug. One of Hewitt’s callers pointed out that he had only presented one side of the story, which Hewitt rather angrily denied, saying “she’s dying, and we can’t wait.” The caller suggested that one day wait to get the other side wouldn’t hurt the matter, and could allow a balanced presentation. Hewitt was not interested in that option. Hugh's one of the good guys, but on this call I don't believe he has covered all the bases. So, I decided to look into the matter myself.
Hewitt’s website has links to Amanda’s website (which has become unavailable, probably due to high traffic), and the website for Medarex. This allowed me important reference information, for which I thank Mr. Hewitt.
Hewitt began with Amanda’s statement to him, which in part reads as follows:
“I am 22 years old and I have cancer. I was diagnosed when I was 16 years old, went through chemo and radiation and was in remission until I relapsed when I was 19 years old. I went through a grueling stem cell transplant and received my lifetime amount of radiation and once again went into remission until February 25, 2005.”
One thing which bothered me right off the bat, is that Amanda does not specify what sort of cancer she has in this statement. Since I was unable to access her website, it’s possible that this information is on her website, but neither Amanda nor Mr. Hewitt were specific about this point. This is a concern, because there are many types of cancers, some which move rapidly (like cancer of the liver) and some which grow comparatively slowly, some which can be treated with a number of options, and some which are difficult to treat.
Another point of concern showed up when I reviewed the information at Medarex. Medarex did not refer to a drug called “CD30”, but their 2004 Annual Report mentioned promising hope for a drug they called “MDX-60”, which is primarily being developed as a treatment for Hodgkin’s Disease, and the statement says the drug was especially effective in treating “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”.
The National Institute of Health identifies “CD 30” not as a drug, but as a class of treatment, called “anti-CD 30 immunotoxins for the treatment of cancer”, specifically “a novel therapeutic agent to treat Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NCI has made a panel of recombinant immunotoxins specific for CD30 using Fvs of newly produced anti-CD30 monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and a truncated mutant of Pseudomonas exotoxin. CD30 is highly expressed on both Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. NCI is curently seeking cooperative partners to work with the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the development and clinical application of immunotoxins directed against CD 30 epitopes found on cells in Hodgkin's Lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”
Significantly, the NIH says that anti-CD 30 immunotoxins are in a “current state of development” known as “in-vitro demonstration of toxicity.”
Further, the NIH notes that in developing drugs for this purpose, companies working on the drug will operate under an agreement known as “CRADA” (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) . CRADA terms include:
* Term of the CRADA will be up to five (5) years
* No funding from the Government is available to Collaborator under a CRADA.
* Non-exclusive license option available for background rights. Exclusive license rights may be available in a specified field of use.
In plain english, the NIH expects drug labs to develop the drugs, but at their own cost and risk, and without a guarantee of an exclusive license, should a viable drug be discovered.
Looking deeper into Medarex, I found that Medarex began in 1987 as a New Jersey company, went public in 1991, and specializes in Monoclonal antibodies. Their specialties are “MDX-10” for melanoma treatment, and “MDX-60” for Hodgkin’s Disease (both entering or in “Phase II” of clinical trials in 2005)
22 “UltiMAb” products in clinical trials in 2004. Eight reached Phase II or III, meaning most of their work is in very early stages.
"MDX-60" is the product used in conjunction with “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”, in Phase I and II trials. This is the product most likely referred to by Amanda Twellman-Dieppa.
"MDX-10" is already in “fast track” study in conjunction with the FDA, for treatment of metastatic melanoma, meaning that "MDX-60" has a back seat..
FDA assigned “Orphan Drug” designation for "MDX-60" in treatment of Hodgkins Disease. This means that using the drug for any other purpose can result in revocation of this designation, with significant tax penalties for the company.
Also, I found a “2005 Proxy Meeting Notice”, which shows company will have a meeting of the Shareholders on May 19. The notice specifies that any actions the company may take before the May 19 meeting, will be decided and approved at a prior meeting on March 22, 2005.
So, if you’re a director at Medarex, here’s what you see:
You're a relatively new, relatively small comany which has two major drugs in various phases of advanced research, but neither is in anything like near-release stages, certainly not for FDA submission. A woman and her family are demanding you release a drug still in “in-vitro” testing to them, and this request does not come from the FDA or the woman’s doctor, and there are no effective releases from liability, should something go wrong (like a patient facing death in a year, suddenly dying from an unexpected heart attack). There is no information about whether “MDX-60” is the only drug with a reasonable chance of success, nor in fact any empirical data to show “MDX-60” will be effective in the specific case. Further, release of the drug will be public record, so it’s success or failure will provide pivotal data to your competitors. Even if the drug does work, there is a risk that the extended use of the drug would result in increased tax costs, which the eventual sale of the drug would not cover. And finally, you have no authority to make a decision between March 22 and May 19, because of a blackout window in the Shareholders’ Meeting terms. In those conditions, what would you say to Mr. Hewitt, if you represented Medarex?
Maybe Medarex can find a way to make this work. Maybe there is some negotiating position with the FDA which can happen. But Hewitt’s assumption that Medarex doesn’t want to help Amanda, or that Medarex is operating out of greed, does not fairly present both sides. This article presents Medarex’s side, to give some balance to this story. It also reminds us that as bloggers, we have a strong and unending responsibility to seek the truth. It also, as a sidenote, illustrates some of the difficulties in drug reform initiatives: We need to focus on the patients, but never to the point of forgetting the needs of the companies which provide the miracle cures we now take for granted or worse, expect on our terms without delay or conditions.
UPDATE: The "Save Amanda" site is back up, but is very thin on facts. Amanda and her family still do not explain what sort of cancer she has, there is no medical support whatsoever, least of all to explain why MDX-60 is alleged to be the "only" drug which has any chance of successful treatment. I have also emailed Mr. Hewitt the notice of this article, so that he will have fair opportunity to respond.
UPDATE II: As it happens, I cross-posted over on Polipundit. Some of the more salient comments follow:
a4g reported (9:26 AM) that at the end of his show on Tuesday, Hugh spoke with Amanda’s father, who says that he has spoken with the President of Medarex, and found him very kind and sympathetic.
I pointed out (9:54 AM) that “the reason I am concerned about the absence of a doctor’s comments, is that we have nothing to indicate that MDX-60 will be more effective than other options. Amanda says MDX-60 is ‘it’, but given the level of its development, that seems an emotional assumption, rather than the judgment of a medical professional.
Next, what if MDX-60 kills her immediately, then it turns out another drug could have saved her? If Medarex ignores protocols here, there are all sorts of liability and performance issues that can fall on the company. What good would it do to give Amanda the untested drug, if the result not only does not save her life, but destroys the company and hurts countless other people, because the research is set back by the loss of the company? Don’t say it can’t happen, because it’s happened before.
Finally, there is a basic issue of fairness here. Hewitt put this up on his national radio show, but only addressed one side of the story. I genuinely hope that Amanda can receive the treatment that will save her life, but to coerce a private company to take risks, purely on an emotional argument with no empirical support at all, can hardly be called the right way to go about this.”
~B observed (9:58) this raises the question of whether it is acceptable for “dying patients to demand access to unproven drugs in an effort to extend and or save their lives at the risk of crashing the company developing the drug.”
Buckland (10:20) observed “The part I don’t like about this is the perception it leaves – if you want an unapproved treatment, the way to get it is to scream loudly and make accusations. Working within the system is for losers (and eventually dead ones).
The FDA puts some really stringent rules in place concerning the hurdles that a drug has to clear in order to come to the public. This is why it takes many years and successful trials to bring the drug to the public.
The drug has to be safe and effective. Those concerns have to be balanced. OxyContin is a great pain reliever, but the safety is less than optimal due to high addiction rates. However on balance it’s good. Such tradeoffs are made by companies and the FDA hundreds of times per year. There are exceptions, but on balance the system works well.
My guess is that the company will work out a way for Amanda to get the medicine, possibly through enrolling her in a trial of some kind. It may or may not do her any good, and it may or may not have side effects...
Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) is extremely rare in people under 50, while Hodgkins Lymphoma is much more common in young people. However the fact that she had a marrow transplant hints that it is NHL, since that’s the only form of lymphoma that a transplant does any good for. It’s not an accepted treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Another possibility is that she has the more common Hodgkins Lymphoma and the family convinced the doctors to experiment with a marrow transplant (she calls it stem cell transplant), even though it has no history of working on Hodgkins Lymphoma. That would explain the public pressure to get the “wonder drug” now, and also explain why there’s no definitive statement on the type of cancer on the website.
My heart goes out to the family. It seems that they’re thrashing about, trying to find a cure for their daughter. Maybe I would do the same. However pushing for treatments that won’t help won’t do any good for anybody. And publicly pushing for drugs that aren’t ready for the public will tend to dry up the supply for those who really need them.”
I followed up again (10:46) with unanswered questions: “Why is MDX-60 the only option?
Why should a drug in early stages of testing be released to a patient with no compatibility vectors considered?
The page you referenced clearly (and in bold letters) claims Medarex is “CHOOSING PROFIT OVER LIFE” without a shred of evidence to back up that claim. Why do you ignore that issue?
There is not a single piece of medical opinion anywhere. There is nothing from her GP or any Lymphoma specialist, to support her demand for this specific treatment regimen. Why not?”
Buckland observed (11:04) “According to the Lymphoma Information Network , there are roughly 131,279 cases of Hodgkins Lymphoma in the US. All are fighting their own demons and those of the medical industry in order to do what’s necessary to survive. Each can tell a story of a disinterested doctor or a treatment that didn’t work as expected.
So if Hewitt found a new demon in the form of a drug company, so be it. And getting a new drug with unknown efficacy and side effects may be just what she needs. But if this in any way delays research on this or other drugs by diverting scarce resources to her above all of the other 131,278 cases then it’s a bad thing.
In the 1980’s the organ transplant world went through this. A reasonably fair system was set up for the allocation of scarce donor organs. However “resonably fair” is not at all fair if you are the one denied a life saving organ. So very sad cases mounted publicity campaigns, complete with sobbing Moms and beautiful children to get the needed organ.
And it worked. The cases that could mount the best publicity drive got the livers, no matter where the need was. Eventually the system corrected and went back to more of a dispassionate approach to these horrible choices.
There is a very good case that drugs as a whole go through too many trials before reaching the consumer. There’s also a case to be made that certain specialty drugs should be exempt from more (they are somewhat exempt now) of the rules and regulations. However I’m hard pressed to come up with a logical argument that the people who can get on the radio or build a website should go to the front of the line.”
Jim m noted (11:47) “A couple of thoughts…I have worked in the oncology/transplant industry for 14 years now. Stem cell transplants(Bone marrow is almost never used any more as the primary source of cells) are done for Hodgkins Lymphoma. It is rare. Most cases respond well to therapy and such aggressive therapy is not necessary.
The company’s reluctance is quite understandable. “Compassionate Use” exemptions from the FDA are common, however these are typically requested by physicians who are participating in a company sponsored study. The Medarex website indicates that MDX-60 is in Phase II trials, but does not specify whether or not these trials are active or complete. In any case is seems clear that Amanda’s physician is not participating in any Medarex trial. Also it would take longer than just a few days to get the drug to Amanda. While the company might e able to ship the drug, the hospital where she would be treated would have to have any treatment plan approved by their investigational review board and the physician and staff need to be trained in the drug’s use. These issues would delay administration of the theray significantly.
The idea that the company is being greedy is simply nuts. They are required by law to follow very strick regulations regarding the use of an unapproved drug. Improper release of a drug would bring severe penalties to the company and possibly delay the approval of the drug if trials are successful.
As to the notion that this is her only hope. Please go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for hodgkins lymphoma. You will find 101 open trials for this disease. Many are for advanced disease. This family as seized upon one opportunity among many and clearly has decided not to pursue the many other options that are currently available.”
These profound thoughts add great value to this matter.
Tuesday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt posted the story of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who contacted him to ask for support in her quest to gain access to an experimental cancer drug. According to Amanda, she has cancer which has relapsed, and in her opinion only an experiemntal drug she calls “CD30” has any chance of saving her life, but she says the drug company, Medarex, refuses to allow her access to the drug, even though she says the Food and Drug Administration has promised special permission to ensure she can take the drug. Hewitt checked our her website, decided he found it credible, and says he tried to get Medarex’s side of the story. By airtime of his radio show, Hewitt had made up his mind to pick a side, and pushed his audience to press Medarex to release the drug. One of Hewitt’s callers pointed out that he had only presented one side of the story, which Hewitt rather angrily denied, saying “she’s dying, and we can’t wait.” The caller suggested that one day wait to get the other side wouldn’t hurt the matter, and could allow a balanced presentation. Hewitt was not interested in that option. Hugh's one of the good guys, but on this call I don't believe he has covered all the bases. So, I decided to look into the matter myself.
Hewitt’s website has links to Amanda’s website (which has become unavailable, probably due to high traffic), and the website for Medarex. This allowed me important reference information, for which I thank Mr. Hewitt.
Hewitt began with Amanda’s statement to him, which in part reads as follows:
“I am 22 years old and I have cancer. I was diagnosed when I was 16 years old, went through chemo and radiation and was in remission until I relapsed when I was 19 years old. I went through a grueling stem cell transplant and received my lifetime amount of radiation and once again went into remission until February 25, 2005.”
One thing which bothered me right off the bat, is that Amanda does not specify what sort of cancer she has in this statement. Since I was unable to access her website, it’s possible that this information is on her website, but neither Amanda nor Mr. Hewitt were specific about this point. This is a concern, because there are many types of cancers, some which move rapidly (like cancer of the liver) and some which grow comparatively slowly, some which can be treated with a number of options, and some which are difficult to treat.
Another point of concern showed up when I reviewed the information at Medarex. Medarex did not refer to a drug called “CD30”, but their 2004 Annual Report mentioned promising hope for a drug they called “MDX-60”, which is primarily being developed as a treatment for Hodgkin’s Disease, and the statement says the drug was especially effective in treating “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”.
The National Institute of Health identifies “CD 30” not as a drug, but as a class of treatment, called “anti-CD 30 immunotoxins for the treatment of cancer”, specifically “a novel therapeutic agent to treat Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NCI has made a panel of recombinant immunotoxins specific for CD30 using Fvs of newly produced anti-CD30 monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and a truncated mutant of Pseudomonas exotoxin. CD30 is highly expressed on both Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. NCI is curently seeking cooperative partners to work with the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the development and clinical application of immunotoxins directed against CD 30 epitopes found on cells in Hodgkin's Lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”
Significantly, the NIH says that anti-CD 30 immunotoxins are in a “current state of development” known as “in-vitro demonstration of toxicity.”
Further, the NIH notes that in developing drugs for this purpose, companies working on the drug will operate under an agreement known as “CRADA” (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) . CRADA terms include:
* Term of the CRADA will be up to five (5) years
* No funding from the Government is available to Collaborator under a CRADA.
* Non-exclusive license option available for background rights. Exclusive license rights may be available in a specified field of use.
In plain english, the NIH expects drug labs to develop the drugs, but at their own cost and risk, and without a guarantee of an exclusive license, should a viable drug be discovered.
Looking deeper into Medarex, I found that Medarex began in 1987 as a New Jersey company, went public in 1991, and specializes in Monoclonal antibodies. Their specialties are “MDX-10” for melanoma treatment, and “MDX-60” for Hodgkin’s Disease (both entering or in “Phase II” of clinical trials in 2005)
22 “UltiMAb” products in clinical trials in 2004. Eight reached Phase II or III, meaning most of their work is in very early stages.
"MDX-60" is the product used in conjunction with “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”, in Phase I and II trials. This is the product most likely referred to by Amanda Twellman-Dieppa.
"MDX-10" is already in “fast track” study in conjunction with the FDA, for treatment of metastatic melanoma, meaning that "MDX-60" has a back seat..
FDA assigned “Orphan Drug” designation for "MDX-60" in treatment of Hodgkins Disease. This means that using the drug for any other purpose can result in revocation of this designation, with significant tax penalties for the company.
Also, I found a “2005 Proxy Meeting Notice”, which shows company will have a meeting of the Shareholders on May 19. The notice specifies that any actions the company may take before the May 19 meeting, will be decided and approved at a prior meeting on March 22, 2005.
So, if you’re a director at Medarex, here’s what you see:
You're a relatively new, relatively small comany which has two major drugs in various phases of advanced research, but neither is in anything like near-release stages, certainly not for FDA submission. A woman and her family are demanding you release a drug still in “in-vitro” testing to them, and this request does not come from the FDA or the woman’s doctor, and there are no effective releases from liability, should something go wrong (like a patient facing death in a year, suddenly dying from an unexpected heart attack). There is no information about whether “MDX-60” is the only drug with a reasonable chance of success, nor in fact any empirical data to show “MDX-60” will be effective in the specific case. Further, release of the drug will be public record, so it’s success or failure will provide pivotal data to your competitors. Even if the drug does work, there is a risk that the extended use of the drug would result in increased tax costs, which the eventual sale of the drug would not cover. And finally, you have no authority to make a decision between March 22 and May 19, because of a blackout window in the Shareholders’ Meeting terms. In those conditions, what would you say to Mr. Hewitt, if you represented Medarex?
Maybe Medarex can find a way to make this work. Maybe there is some negotiating position with the FDA which can happen. But Hewitt’s assumption that Medarex doesn’t want to help Amanda, or that Medarex is operating out of greed, does not fairly present both sides. This article presents Medarex’s side, to give some balance to this story. It also reminds us that as bloggers, we have a strong and unending responsibility to seek the truth. It also, as a sidenote, illustrates some of the difficulties in drug reform initiatives: We need to focus on the patients, but never to the point of forgetting the needs of the companies which provide the miracle cures we now take for granted or worse, expect on our terms without delay or conditions.
UPDATE: The "Save Amanda" site is back up, but is very thin on facts. Amanda and her family still do not explain what sort of cancer she has, there is no medical support whatsoever, least of all to explain why MDX-60 is alleged to be the "only" drug which has any chance of successful treatment. I have also emailed Mr. Hewitt the notice of this article, so that he will have fair opportunity to respond.
UPDATE II: As it happens, I cross-posted over on Polipundit. Some of the more salient comments follow:
a4g reported (9:26 AM) that at the end of his show on Tuesday, Hugh spoke with Amanda’s father, who says that he has spoken with the President of Medarex, and found him very kind and sympathetic.
I pointed out (9:54 AM) that “the reason I am concerned about the absence of a doctor’s comments, is that we have nothing to indicate that MDX-60 will be more effective than other options. Amanda says MDX-60 is ‘it’, but given the level of its development, that seems an emotional assumption, rather than the judgment of a medical professional.
Next, what if MDX-60 kills her immediately, then it turns out another drug could have saved her? If Medarex ignores protocols here, there are all sorts of liability and performance issues that can fall on the company. What good would it do to give Amanda the untested drug, if the result not only does not save her life, but destroys the company and hurts countless other people, because the research is set back by the loss of the company? Don’t say it can’t happen, because it’s happened before.
Finally, there is a basic issue of fairness here. Hewitt put this up on his national radio show, but only addressed one side of the story. I genuinely hope that Amanda can receive the treatment that will save her life, but to coerce a private company to take risks, purely on an emotional argument with no empirical support at all, can hardly be called the right way to go about this.”
~B observed (9:58) this raises the question of whether it is acceptable for “dying patients to demand access to unproven drugs in an effort to extend and or save their lives at the risk of crashing the company developing the drug.”
Buckland (10:20) observed “The part I don’t like about this is the perception it leaves – if you want an unapproved treatment, the way to get it is to scream loudly and make accusations. Working within the system is for losers (and eventually dead ones).
The FDA puts some really stringent rules in place concerning the hurdles that a drug has to clear in order to come to the public. This is why it takes many years and successful trials to bring the drug to the public.
The drug has to be safe and effective. Those concerns have to be balanced. OxyContin is a great pain reliever, but the safety is less than optimal due to high addiction rates. However on balance it’s good. Such tradeoffs are made by companies and the FDA hundreds of times per year. There are exceptions, but on balance the system works well.
My guess is that the company will work out a way for Amanda to get the medicine, possibly through enrolling her in a trial of some kind. It may or may not do her any good, and it may or may not have side effects...
Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) is extremely rare in people under 50, while Hodgkins Lymphoma is much more common in young people. However the fact that she had a marrow transplant hints that it is NHL, since that’s the only form of lymphoma that a transplant does any good for. It’s not an accepted treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Another possibility is that she has the more common Hodgkins Lymphoma and the family convinced the doctors to experiment with a marrow transplant (she calls it stem cell transplant), even though it has no history of working on Hodgkins Lymphoma. That would explain the public pressure to get the “wonder drug” now, and also explain why there’s no definitive statement on the type of cancer on the website.
My heart goes out to the family. It seems that they’re thrashing about, trying to find a cure for their daughter. Maybe I would do the same. However pushing for treatments that won’t help won’t do any good for anybody. And publicly pushing for drugs that aren’t ready for the public will tend to dry up the supply for those who really need them.”
I followed up again (10:46) with unanswered questions: “Why is MDX-60 the only option?
Why should a drug in early stages of testing be released to a patient with no compatibility vectors considered?
The page you referenced clearly (and in bold letters) claims Medarex is “CHOOSING PROFIT OVER LIFE” without a shred of evidence to back up that claim. Why do you ignore that issue?
There is not a single piece of medical opinion anywhere. There is nothing from her GP or any Lymphoma specialist, to support her demand for this specific treatment regimen. Why not?”
Buckland observed (11:04) “According to the Lymphoma Information Network , there are roughly 131,279 cases of Hodgkins Lymphoma in the US. All are fighting their own demons and those of the medical industry in order to do what’s necessary to survive. Each can tell a story of a disinterested doctor or a treatment that didn’t work as expected.
So if Hewitt found a new demon in the form of a drug company, so be it. And getting a new drug with unknown efficacy and side effects may be just what she needs. But if this in any way delays research on this or other drugs by diverting scarce resources to her above all of the other 131,278 cases then it’s a bad thing.
In the 1980’s the organ transplant world went through this. A reasonably fair system was set up for the allocation of scarce donor organs. However “resonably fair” is not at all fair if you are the one denied a life saving organ. So very sad cases mounted publicity campaigns, complete with sobbing Moms and beautiful children to get the needed organ.
And it worked. The cases that could mount the best publicity drive got the livers, no matter where the need was. Eventually the system corrected and went back to more of a dispassionate approach to these horrible choices.
There is a very good case that drugs as a whole go through too many trials before reaching the consumer. There’s also a case to be made that certain specialty drugs should be exempt from more (they are somewhat exempt now) of the rules and regulations. However I’m hard pressed to come up with a logical argument that the people who can get on the radio or build a website should go to the front of the line.”
Jim m noted (11:47) “A couple of thoughts…I have worked in the oncology/transplant industry for 14 years now. Stem cell transplants(Bone marrow is almost never used any more as the primary source of cells) are done for Hodgkins Lymphoma. It is rare. Most cases respond well to therapy and such aggressive therapy is not necessary.
The company’s reluctance is quite understandable. “Compassionate Use” exemptions from the FDA are common, however these are typically requested by physicians who are participating in a company sponsored study. The Medarex website indicates that MDX-60 is in Phase II trials, but does not specify whether or not these trials are active or complete. In any case is seems clear that Amanda’s physician is not participating in any Medarex trial. Also it would take longer than just a few days to get the drug to Amanda. While the company might e able to ship the drug, the hospital where she would be treated would have to have any treatment plan approved by their investigational review board and the physician and staff need to be trained in the drug’s use. These issues would delay administration of the theray significantly.
The idea that the company is being greedy is simply nuts. They are required by law to follow very strick regulations regarding the use of an unapproved drug. Improper release of a drug would bring severe penalties to the company and possibly delay the approval of the drug if trials are successful.
As to the notion that this is her only hope. Please go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for hodgkins lymphoma. You will find 101 open trials for this disease. Many are for advanced disease. This family as seized upon one opportunity among many and clearly has decided not to pursue the many other options that are currently available.”
These profound thoughts add great value to this matter.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Heaven - Members Only?
...
Over at BelieffNet, I got into it with a member whom I will refer to as a Christian Exclusionist (CX). Now, I truly believe that everyone needs Christ Jesus as their Lord, but it just doesn’t make sense to threaten people with damnation. The simple fact, as I see it, is that the Holy Spirit moves us if we are going to accept Jesus, so there’s no good purpose in calling someone lost, just because it may not be their time yet. Worse, the CX was telling other Christians on the board that they were ‘heretics’ and ‘deceivers’, simply because they brought up Scripture indicating God might forgive everyone of their sins, and save the whole world.
This is a mystery from God, so far as I see it. What I mean is, we can see part of the truth, but not all, anymore than any person can tell the fate and resolution of every person of the earth. Some things we just have to accept on faith.
The CX presented these verses for his side:
John 14:6
John 8:24
John 3:3
Acts 4:12
2 Corinthians 6:1-3
I thought it would be enlightening to examine them in greater detail, to see their context and meaning:
In John 14:6, Jesus was speaking to His Disciples in the Upper Room, privately. This was not a saying to the crowd at large, but to men already promised as Christ’s disciples. Do you see the distinction, especially since this is a statement not made to the crowds in such words. Also, in this same chapter, Christ explained “In my Father’s house there are many rooms” (John 14:2). What might that saying mean? Also, Jesus said “it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work” (John 14:10). This means that what Jesus is saying, comes from the Father. This is critical to understanding how Christ may be relevant, after all, to people who lived and died without ever hearing the name. In that same chapter, Jesus also said about the Holy Spirit, “The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him” (John 14:17). Therefore, if anyone shows signs of the Holy Spirit, they must be right with the Father in their hearts, or else they could not have the Spirit! Further, Jesus in that same chapter explained “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.” (John 14:21) That is, the words of a doctrine are not the measure, but whether one does what is right.
In John 8, before verse 24, Jesus addressed the matter of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus knows her guilt, but instead of acquiescing to her death, He simply wrote on the ground, then said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). When the men went away, Jesus asked the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
“No one, sir’ she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now, and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)
After this, the Pharisees, angry that Jesus did fall for their trap (see verse 6), tried to claim Jesus was speaking without authority. Jesus explained, “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (John 8:15). The verse you cited (24), in that light, is quite a different thing, a warning to change but not a threat. Jesus was not speaking to people trying to do what was right, but warning the Pharisees that if you embrace sin, you cannot be free of it.
In John 3:3, the CX quoted Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, but stopped short of the full explanation. Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5). Jesus went on to further explain that “the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6), meaning that the distinction is not part of this mundane, physical life at all, but a creation of a spiritual being. Jesus warned that “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18), not to threaten the non-Christian but to explain our need for Christ; after all, it would be fair to say that Peter did not believe at the moments he denied Christ, and that Thomas did not believe until he saw Christ risen from the dead, yet neither of those men was condemned for all time, as you seem to think. John the Baptist explained that salvation comes from God, as do all good things, saying “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27), which is to say that we cannot choose to believe, but will believe as God makes it possible for us.
In Acts 4, Peter and John are seized by the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3), and brought before the Sanhedrin. The verse (4:12) cited was part of their explanation for how they healed a crippled man. Note further that they specify that Salvation is found “in no one else”, and under “no other name under heaven” (Acts 4:12). They do not deny truth of justice and obedience, but simply explain the name of the Savior, to prove to the Sanhedrin that the Jesus put to death on the cross was and is the promised Messiah, the Anointed One who would be the servant through whom the Father would work Salvation (see also Acts 4:25).
Finally, I found the 2 Corinthians 6:1-3 citation interesting, for in that same chapter Paul wrote that a believer should act and speak “in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love” (2 Corinthians 6:6). This is a crucial element to the message.
So, a deeper look at the verses, shows that God acts with complete Sovereignty, that forgiveness and love are His hallmarks at all points, and that no one may act in love for God or their neighbor without the Holy Spirit’s presence. I note also, that the only Gospel account he cited was John. I wonder if one might consider the Beatitudes, or perhaps the faith of the Centurion? These too speak to God and Christ, in a gentler manner than some seem aware.
Over at BelieffNet, I got into it with a member whom I will refer to as a Christian Exclusionist (CX). Now, I truly believe that everyone needs Christ Jesus as their Lord, but it just doesn’t make sense to threaten people with damnation. The simple fact, as I see it, is that the Holy Spirit moves us if we are going to accept Jesus, so there’s no good purpose in calling someone lost, just because it may not be their time yet. Worse, the CX was telling other Christians on the board that they were ‘heretics’ and ‘deceivers’, simply because they brought up Scripture indicating God might forgive everyone of their sins, and save the whole world.
This is a mystery from God, so far as I see it. What I mean is, we can see part of the truth, but not all, anymore than any person can tell the fate and resolution of every person of the earth. Some things we just have to accept on faith.
The CX presented these verses for his side:
John 14:6
John 8:24
John 3:3
Acts 4:12
2 Corinthians 6:1-3
I thought it would be enlightening to examine them in greater detail, to see their context and meaning:
In John 14:6, Jesus was speaking to His Disciples in the Upper Room, privately. This was not a saying to the crowd at large, but to men already promised as Christ’s disciples. Do you see the distinction, especially since this is a statement not made to the crowds in such words. Also, in this same chapter, Christ explained “In my Father’s house there are many rooms” (John 14:2). What might that saying mean? Also, Jesus said “it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work” (John 14:10). This means that what Jesus is saying, comes from the Father. This is critical to understanding how Christ may be relevant, after all, to people who lived and died without ever hearing the name. In that same chapter, Jesus also said about the Holy Spirit, “The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him” (John 14:17). Therefore, if anyone shows signs of the Holy Spirit, they must be right with the Father in their hearts, or else they could not have the Spirit! Further, Jesus in that same chapter explained “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.” (John 14:21) That is, the words of a doctrine are not the measure, but whether one does what is right.
In John 8, before verse 24, Jesus addressed the matter of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus knows her guilt, but instead of acquiescing to her death, He simply wrote on the ground, then said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). When the men went away, Jesus asked the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
“No one, sir’ she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now, and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)
After this, the Pharisees, angry that Jesus did fall for their trap (see verse 6), tried to claim Jesus was speaking without authority. Jesus explained, “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (John 8:15). The verse you cited (24), in that light, is quite a different thing, a warning to change but not a threat. Jesus was not speaking to people trying to do what was right, but warning the Pharisees that if you embrace sin, you cannot be free of it.
In John 3:3, the CX quoted Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, but stopped short of the full explanation. Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5). Jesus went on to further explain that “the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6), meaning that the distinction is not part of this mundane, physical life at all, but a creation of a spiritual being. Jesus warned that “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18), not to threaten the non-Christian but to explain our need for Christ; after all, it would be fair to say that Peter did not believe at the moments he denied Christ, and that Thomas did not believe until he saw Christ risen from the dead, yet neither of those men was condemned for all time, as you seem to think. John the Baptist explained that salvation comes from God, as do all good things, saying “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27), which is to say that we cannot choose to believe, but will believe as God makes it possible for us.
In Acts 4, Peter and John are seized by the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3), and brought before the Sanhedrin. The verse (4:12) cited was part of their explanation for how they healed a crippled man. Note further that they specify that Salvation is found “in no one else”, and under “no other name under heaven” (Acts 4:12). They do not deny truth of justice and obedience, but simply explain the name of the Savior, to prove to the Sanhedrin that the Jesus put to death on the cross was and is the promised Messiah, the Anointed One who would be the servant through whom the Father would work Salvation (see also Acts 4:25).
Finally, I found the 2 Corinthians 6:1-3 citation interesting, for in that same chapter Paul wrote that a believer should act and speak “in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love” (2 Corinthians 6:6). This is a crucial element to the message.
So, a deeper look at the verses, shows that God acts with complete Sovereignty, that forgiveness and love are His hallmarks at all points, and that no one may act in love for God or their neighbor without the Holy Spirit’s presence. I note also, that the only Gospel account he cited was John. I wonder if one might consider the Beatitudes, or perhaps the faith of the Centurion? These too speak to God and Christ, in a gentler manner than some seem aware.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Deliberate Ignorance
[]
President Bush has signed the Family Movie Act of 2005 into law, and Hollywood is outraged.
"Censorship!" screams Rob Reiner.
"A Nefarious and Sneaky Little Document" sneers the lefty blog Filmbrain.
Why? Is Bush preventing directors and producers from making films as they see fit?
Nope. He just wants Americans to be able to edit out the nudity, violence, profanity, and all those things most of us are sick of, but which Hollywood seems to think is absolutely necessary. Americans have said for decades that they want cleaner movies, and revenues from the top grossing films bears that out.
It speaks to the matter then, that Hollywood producers/directors not only think they have the right to make a film as they please (which they do), but that they also have the right to force people to watch whatever they put up there (they have no such right).
I have a very simple solution for Hollywood: Start making films the way people want to see them, and get rid of the trash, and there will be no market for companies and filters to remove the filth. How about you make films which attract people on the strength of the story, the acting, things like that?
Otherwise, we're gonna wash your film out before our kids see it.
President Bush has signed the Family Movie Act of 2005 into law, and Hollywood is outraged.
"Censorship!" screams Rob Reiner.
"A Nefarious and Sneaky Little Document" sneers the lefty blog Filmbrain.
Why? Is Bush preventing directors and producers from making films as they see fit?
Nope. He just wants Americans to be able to edit out the nudity, violence, profanity, and all those things most of us are sick of, but which Hollywood seems to think is absolutely necessary. Americans have said for decades that they want cleaner movies, and revenues from the top grossing films bears that out.
It speaks to the matter then, that Hollywood producers/directors not only think they have the right to make a film as they please (which they do), but that they also have the right to force people to watch whatever they put up there (they have no such right).
I have a very simple solution for Hollywood: Start making films the way people want to see them, and get rid of the trash, and there will be no market for companies and filters to remove the filth. How about you make films which attract people on the strength of the story, the acting, things like that?
Otherwise, we're gonna wash your film out before our kids see it.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Honor
[][][][]
The first human right is not usually considered among the rights: Honor. Yet it is a critical element to human life, to live with honor. In fact, whole cultures have based the right to life on honor. In Japan centuries ago, a Samurai who disgraced his name was expected by his community to kill himself. In ancient Greece, warriors carried huge bronze shields into battle, and if a warrior fled battle, he left his heavy shield behind, so their mothers and wives told the warriors to come home with their shields, or on them. Countless cultures have allowed duels on the matter of honor, even to the point of homocide on a point of personal image. Honor today is a more idealistic notion, but it still matters to many people; what parent does not want their child to live honorably, and to bring honor to the family?
Why would I regard honor as a right given to us humans? It comes down to the fuel of life. We need air, water, food, shelter, health, and so on, but even when we have all those things, sometimes we do not have everything we need. We still need a reason to strive, a reason to take on responsibilities and do the right thing when it is difficult, a reason to do something for someone else’s gain. That is where honor matters. Some cultures give rewards for honorable works, and it is generally true that governments, businesses, and communities consider honor in awarding jobs, promotions, and in enhancing their own reputations, since they too crave honor.
So, what is honor? Honor is more than meeting a need, but rather is that quality which makes a deed or word or thought better than without that quality. For instance, when men are working, each looking to his task, that is one thing, but a man who helps them work as a team and accomplish better results, is honorable for making that advantage happen. Also, a man who gives up something to his own cost, so that his comrades might gain a great victory, or perhaps prevent a great loss, acts in honor, like a man whose heroism saves his group from destruction. In this world, we consider teaching especially honorable, because a teacher performs a great service for little reward. We consider our military veterans honorable, because of their service and sacrifice to our nation and its ideals. But even in more ordinary lives, we still consider courtesy honorable, we consider charity honorable, and we consider growth honorable, whether it is exercise for our bodies, study for our minds, or improvement for our spirits.
Honor comes from God, and is one of the great rights of Humanity.
The first human right is not usually considered among the rights: Honor. Yet it is a critical element to human life, to live with honor. In fact, whole cultures have based the right to life on honor. In Japan centuries ago, a Samurai who disgraced his name was expected by his community to kill himself. In ancient Greece, warriors carried huge bronze shields into battle, and if a warrior fled battle, he left his heavy shield behind, so their mothers and wives told the warriors to come home with their shields, or on them. Countless cultures have allowed duels on the matter of honor, even to the point of homocide on a point of personal image. Honor today is a more idealistic notion, but it still matters to many people; what parent does not want their child to live honorably, and to bring honor to the family?
Why would I regard honor as a right given to us humans? It comes down to the fuel of life. We need air, water, food, shelter, health, and so on, but even when we have all those things, sometimes we do not have everything we need. We still need a reason to strive, a reason to take on responsibilities and do the right thing when it is difficult, a reason to do something for someone else’s gain. That is where honor matters. Some cultures give rewards for honorable works, and it is generally true that governments, businesses, and communities consider honor in awarding jobs, promotions, and in enhancing their own reputations, since they too crave honor.
So, what is honor? Honor is more than meeting a need, but rather is that quality which makes a deed or word or thought better than without that quality. For instance, when men are working, each looking to his task, that is one thing, but a man who helps them work as a team and accomplish better results, is honorable for making that advantage happen. Also, a man who gives up something to his own cost, so that his comrades might gain a great victory, or perhaps prevent a great loss, acts in honor, like a man whose heroism saves his group from destruction. In this world, we consider teaching especially honorable, because a teacher performs a great service for little reward. We consider our military veterans honorable, because of their service and sacrifice to our nation and its ideals. But even in more ordinary lives, we still consider courtesy honorable, we consider charity honorable, and we consider growth honorable, whether it is exercise for our bodies, study for our minds, or improvement for our spirits.
Honor comes from God, and is one of the great rights of Humanity.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Human Rights By God’s Grace
...
In my last post, I observed that rights belong to Almighty God by right and authority. The obvious follow-up question then, is what does that do to our rights as human beings?
I’ve read the Bible more than a dozen times all the way through, and there are books in the Bible I have read literally thousands of times. For all the claims otherwise, I have decided that God is consistently good and just at all times. The problem lies with human will and its consequences. As people presume to judge God by human perception, they fall prey to the illusion that God does wrong, or that His word cannot be trusted. Once this error is embraced, people fall to their own judgment for decisions, which fails to accomplish those things which need God, and opens the door for grievous harm.
In that last post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence. Here, it occurs to me to mention that God uses people to teach lessons, whether by prophets, by kings, or simply by serving His sovereign will. America serves God’s will for the most part, and in return is rewarded with prosperity, influence, and power. We are, accordingly, expected to serve God’s will to continue receiving these rewards, and serving God includes protecting the rights God has given to all men. We are the guardians of human rights, and we are the minions of justice. America is, unquestionably I think, the most influential power on the earth today, but that includes responsibility in the same degree as power. If we stop pursuing the rights of men and the protection of the right, we will lose our place to another, just as happened in the past.
Now, what are those rights of man? As I see it, there are four basic rights given to us:
The right to Honor, to Peace, to Freedom, and to to Justice. Everything we value is driven by these rights in action. I will write on each of these rights in subsequent posts.
In my last post, I observed that rights belong to Almighty God by right and authority. The obvious follow-up question then, is what does that do to our rights as human beings?
I’ve read the Bible more than a dozen times all the way through, and there are books in the Bible I have read literally thousands of times. For all the claims otherwise, I have decided that God is consistently good and just at all times. The problem lies with human will and its consequences. As people presume to judge God by human perception, they fall prey to the illusion that God does wrong, or that His word cannot be trusted. Once this error is embraced, people fall to their own judgment for decisions, which fails to accomplish those things which need God, and opens the door for grievous harm.
In that last post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence. Here, it occurs to me to mention that God uses people to teach lessons, whether by prophets, by kings, or simply by serving His sovereign will. America serves God’s will for the most part, and in return is rewarded with prosperity, influence, and power. We are, accordingly, expected to serve God’s will to continue receiving these rewards, and serving God includes protecting the rights God has given to all men. We are the guardians of human rights, and we are the minions of justice. America is, unquestionably I think, the most influential power on the earth today, but that includes responsibility in the same degree as power. If we stop pursuing the rights of men and the protection of the right, we will lose our place to another, just as happened in the past.
Now, what are those rights of man? As I see it, there are four basic rights given to us:
The right to Honor, to Peace, to Freedom, and to to Justice. Everything we value is driven by these rights in action. I will write on each of these rights in subsequent posts.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Rights of God
<>
Along the way in debating religion, a lot of people find fault with God. Generally, they use their arguments as proxy; they either do not believe in God, and use their argument as some kind of straw-man against those who do believe, or else they believe in God, but only on their terms, and rather than defend their position with reason, try to discount other beliefs by heckling God as they pretend the others see Him. Neither course is valid, I think, but it does raise an interesting often ignored in these conversations; the rights of God.
Humans are innately selfish. The secular sort would like to claim that the worse behaviors and attitudes must be taught, but in fact it’s the good which has to be learned; children sometimes become the worst of monsters if they are not shown a better way. When Jesus spoke of the need to be like little children, it was because little children have learned from their parents how to be good, but have usually not yet strayed from what they know to be right. By the time they’re adults, people have become very good at lying, especially to themselves.
I love the Declaration of Independence, not least because the document lays out rights pretty directly; all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Justice, Mercy, Hope, Honor, Love, all these things come from God. Indeed, by their very nature they could come from nowhere else, and so, all these things by right belong to God. That is, man does not have the right to deny these things to another human, but since they belong to God, they remain His rights in any dispute, not Man’s. This is not to say that God does not give His gifts freely, but receiving these gifts does not mean that Man may disparage God while claiming His grace.
Along the way in debating religion, a lot of people find fault with God. Generally, they use their arguments as proxy; they either do not believe in God, and use their argument as some kind of straw-man against those who do believe, or else they believe in God, but only on their terms, and rather than defend their position with reason, try to discount other beliefs by heckling God as they pretend the others see Him. Neither course is valid, I think, but it does raise an interesting often ignored in these conversations; the rights of God.
Humans are innately selfish. The secular sort would like to claim that the worse behaviors and attitudes must be taught, but in fact it’s the good which has to be learned; children sometimes become the worst of monsters if they are not shown a better way. When Jesus spoke of the need to be like little children, it was because little children have learned from their parents how to be good, but have usually not yet strayed from what they know to be right. By the time they’re adults, people have become very good at lying, especially to themselves.
I love the Declaration of Independence, not least because the document lays out rights pretty directly; all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Justice, Mercy, Hope, Honor, Love, all these things come from God. Indeed, by their very nature they could come from nowhere else, and so, all these things by right belong to God. That is, man does not have the right to deny these things to another human, but since they belong to God, they remain His rights in any dispute, not Man’s. This is not to say that God does not give His gifts freely, but receiving these gifts does not mean that Man may disparage God while claiming His grace.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Final Days
+
Pope Benedict XVI held his first full mass as the new Pope, and the world, superficial as always, has moved on to other things. But I think it still matters to consider the significance of these changes we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church, especially as it might pertain to God’s will in the Final Days.
Non-believers often sneer at Christians for believing we are living in the last days of this world. 2nd Peter warns us, “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) , also “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. “ (2 Peter 3:8-9). Small wonder then, that so many would mock the Roman Catholic Church, the most visible and enduring of the denominations on this earth. Where we see stability, the mockers see intransigence. Where we see faithfulness, the mockers see a defiance against their ‘superior’ humanism. It is a hard thing, to be faithful in public to a faith so derided. On this point, Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals can see eye to eye, and points of debate between the two denominations fade to insignificance in the light of our common hope and faith through Jesus Christ.
These are the ‘Final Days’, because Christ has already come the first time, and accomplished what He set out to do. Now, like a good farmer, the Lord is merely waiting for the planting to bear fruit, for the harvest of righteousness on the Earth.
What this has to do with the new Pope, is the role we play as followers of Christ. And while there are many areas of doctrine where I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church, I agree completely that the Pope, of all people, should represent the RCC as it is. He is the figurehead of the RCC, and if you believe the RCC dogma, the Vicar of Christ. For my end of the pew, there seem to be far too many Evangelicals willing to cater to the secular culture, to change their message to ‘package’ it for the masses, believing that the Gospel needs human improvements on the original message.
Seems to me, we ought to keep an eye on the basics:
1. Believe in Christ
2. Follow His example as best we are able
3. Explain what we believe gladly to anyone who asks
4. Don’t give up our ‘first love’
Time to be fruitful.
Pope Benedict XVI held his first full mass as the new Pope, and the world, superficial as always, has moved on to other things. But I think it still matters to consider the significance of these changes we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church, especially as it might pertain to God’s will in the Final Days.
Non-believers often sneer at Christians for believing we are living in the last days of this world. 2nd Peter warns us, “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) , also “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. “ (2 Peter 3:8-9). Small wonder then, that so many would mock the Roman Catholic Church, the most visible and enduring of the denominations on this earth. Where we see stability, the mockers see intransigence. Where we see faithfulness, the mockers see a defiance against their ‘superior’ humanism. It is a hard thing, to be faithful in public to a faith so derided. On this point, Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals can see eye to eye, and points of debate between the two denominations fade to insignificance in the light of our common hope and faith through Jesus Christ.
These are the ‘Final Days’, because Christ has already come the first time, and accomplished what He set out to do. Now, like a good farmer, the Lord is merely waiting for the planting to bear fruit, for the harvest of righteousness on the Earth.
What this has to do with the new Pope, is the role we play as followers of Christ. And while there are many areas of doctrine where I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church, I agree completely that the Pope, of all people, should represent the RCC as it is. He is the figurehead of the RCC, and if you believe the RCC dogma, the Vicar of Christ. For my end of the pew, there seem to be far too many Evangelicals willing to cater to the secular culture, to change their message to ‘package’ it for the masses, believing that the Gospel needs human improvements on the original message.
Seems to me, we ought to keep an eye on the basics:
1. Believe in Christ
2. Follow His example as best we are able
3. Explain what we believe gladly to anyone who asks
4. Don’t give up our ‘first love’
Time to be fruitful.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Counter-Terrorist Agent Arrests Democrat Leadership
.
Hollywood (Fox) - Jack Bauer, the lead actor in a fictional task force assigned to attack terrorists and defeat their plans, took over the Democratic Party Caucus, which was meeting with leading actors in Hollywood for the purpose of raising funds, morale, and munitions.
Held in custody by Bauer were Senators Reid, Clinton, and Baucus, as well as attempted demagogues Martin Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and Michael “Make Me Money” Moore. Authorities were uncertain of Bauer’s authority to hold the actors and pretenders, as an unnamed FBI source explained:
“Most of these Leftists types are no longer living in the real world, so a fictional government agent would hold jurisidction in such a case. No one has seen any indication that Senator Reid is living or working in the real world, so someone from fiction had to go get him.”
Bauer explained the matter in rather blunt terms:
“These people want to destroy America and all it stands for, and I’m not going to let that happen.”
Hollywood (Fox) - Jack Bauer, the lead actor in a fictional task force assigned to attack terrorists and defeat their plans, took over the Democratic Party Caucus, which was meeting with leading actors in Hollywood for the purpose of raising funds, morale, and munitions.
Held in custody by Bauer were Senators Reid, Clinton, and Baucus, as well as attempted demagogues Martin Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and Michael “Make Me Money” Moore. Authorities were uncertain of Bauer’s authority to hold the actors and pretenders, as an unnamed FBI source explained:
“Most of these Leftists types are no longer living in the real world, so a fictional government agent would hold jurisidction in such a case. No one has seen any indication that Senator Reid is living or working in the real world, so someone from fiction had to go get him.”
Bauer explained the matter in rather blunt terms:
“These people want to destroy America and all it stands for, and I’m not going to let that happen.”
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Jedi
....
I saw “The Empire Strikes Back” again today, and it took me back. Partly because 1979 was a long time ago, and who doesn’t change from their teenaged years? But I also remember how this movie inspired me. Science Fiction doesn’t usually do that; heh, movies don’t usually inspire me, but TESB did just that. And all because of a muppet.
“The Empire Strikes Back” is the best of the Star Wars movies, and that includes the Episode III coming out this summer. That’s because TESB didn’t rely on special effects or star power to make its story work; it had decent acting, a good plot, relative suspense, and a great theme using ‘The Force’. The first three (now renumbered ‘Episodes 4, 5, and 6’) movies showed the force as a moral element, and a personal choice; the next three (‘Episodes 1, 2, and 3’) treat it as little more than a chemical component in the blood stream. For all the financial and marketing success, George Lucas blew this call. What could have been a true epic, lost its message. But in TESB, the message was still true and valid.
Back to that muppet. Yoda the Jedi Master spoke of choosing to do better than just live, to be a part of directed goodness. We could use Jedis today, and I don’t mean light sabers and acrobatic stunts. A man who orders his life in pursuit of the good and productive, is a man of honor.
I saw “The Empire Strikes Back” again today, and it took me back. Partly because 1979 was a long time ago, and who doesn’t change from their teenaged years? But I also remember how this movie inspired me. Science Fiction doesn’t usually do that; heh, movies don’t usually inspire me, but TESB did just that. And all because of a muppet.
“The Empire Strikes Back” is the best of the Star Wars movies, and that includes the Episode III coming out this summer. That’s because TESB didn’t rely on special effects or star power to make its story work; it had decent acting, a good plot, relative suspense, and a great theme using ‘The Force’. The first three (now renumbered ‘Episodes 4, 5, and 6’) movies showed the force as a moral element, and a personal choice; the next three (‘Episodes 1, 2, and 3’) treat it as little more than a chemical component in the blood stream. For all the financial and marketing success, George Lucas blew this call. What could have been a true epic, lost its message. But in TESB, the message was still true and valid.
Back to that muppet. Yoda the Jedi Master spoke of choosing to do better than just live, to be a part of directed goodness. We could use Jedis today, and I don’t mean light sabers and acrobatic stunts. A man who orders his life in pursuit of the good and productive, is a man of honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
