We all need help when we are out "there" on our own. For the Christian, the world is a place in which we may do ministry, but also the place where Satan prowls about like a roaring lion. It never hurts to have a little extra encouragement. That is what this page will hopefully accomplish. It is with a pastor's heart that I write and with a prayer that God may grant that it will be so.
Be Careful Out There
God Does Not Believe in Atheists; Therefore, Atheists Do Not Exist!
The above title was obtained from a church sign. Must be a fairly cool church, but back to the sign. Great piece of logic, eh?
The above statement is effective because it employs the same [il]logic that many use to support their claim that God does not exist. It must be rather utilitarian and convenient to be able to wish something(s) out of existence. Who wouldn't want to wish away cancer, terrorism, taxes, bills, problems ... you get the idea.
"Don't confuse me with the facts," such a person must be thinking when others try to dissuade them from such a mindset.
Recently, I listened in to a radio personality who was trying to help a Scientologist understand that just because something is not "your truth," it can still be the truth.
The radio guy used a cliff analogy to make his point. He asked the L. Ron Hubbard follower if she would try to dissuade a blind person from continuing on the path s/he was traveling toward a cliff, even if the blind one would not believe that the Scientologist was speaking the absolute truth in her warning. The Scientologist did not readily answer, at least not specifically. She remarked that she thought that his was not an apropos analogy. She couldn't say specifically why it was not appropriate, but she was bothered by it for reasons she said she could not otherwise readily articulate.
After a commercial break, the Scientologist revealed that she has a blind sister who relies on people to tell her the truth. Moreover, her sister, being in that position, would never disbelieve someone who warned her of a dangerous course. Rather than a posture of skepticism, her blind sister actually depends on others to warn her. Her sister, she continued, had a guide dog after all that would never allow her to walk over a cliff.
I was surprised that the radio host did not then explain that even a guide dog knows the truth when s/he sees it.
One of the Things I Won't Miss is ...
When I get to heaven, I won't miss following the special dates on a calendar that so many are so firmly tied to.
For example, Easter is on March 23 this year. Poor old St. Patty is barely turning blue—from green that is—and it's Easter already, or as we Christians would rather call it, Resurrection Sunday. That's another case in point: St. Patrick, wasn't green in any sense (Why not orange? Green was considered unlucky in Ireland). He was an evangelistic Christian who returned to the place in which he had been earlier enslaved in order to win some Irish to Christ. He was born in Scotland. We aren't even sure if Patrick was born on March 17, which is only a possible date.
So what? What if it isn't Patrick's birthday—he's not even a saint in the Roman Catholic sense—and so what if all those people get pinched for not following the calendar? So what if we do turn a few rivers green and have a parade? So what if we drink so much green beer until we cannot stand anymore or safely drive home? So what if there is absolutely no connection between Patrick and green anything, or between a bunch of parading drunks and a bunch of Irish folks coming to Christ?
I'll tell you so what! This all goes to show that people will do just about anything to justify a celebration [read party] or to what extent they will go to get everyone else doing some similar behavior befitting such an imaginary occasion. The herd mentality is sickening. Can you say, “Moo?” This society and world is mindless enough. Adding to that only exacerbates things further. You do what you want, but don't drag me into it. I have enough on my calendar; I don't need anyone else adding to it without my approval. And, never expect me to get all excited because you put it on yours.
A very similar thing happens with Easter. Because it is on the calendar, people know that it is time to go to church. What could be wrong with people going to church, you ask? That is what you want, right? The problem comes when the only part of the Bible people hear when they attend church on that one day a year, that is, if they missed Christmas due to snow or it was too cold to go out that day before 11 AM, is about the resurrection of Christ.
Now, the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (see 1 Cor 15:13-19) and if you can disprove it, Christianity falls down in a heap. It is also not the only message people need to hear. If you had them for one hour a year and were given the responsibility of sharing God's message with them during that time, what would you tell them?
If you only go to church on Easter, it is quite likely that you fancy the resurrection to be a myth, a legend, a fable, a trick, some sleight of hand or some other reasonable facsimile, anyhow. So why go to church to hear about something you really don't believe is true in the first place? Is it because you like hanging with the herd? Or paying some sort of dues? Or do you like wearing spiffy clothes and checking out others as they wear theirs? Could there be other reasons, more befitting a sophisticate of the world?
So I, and a lot of others in my shoes, are pressured to follow the herd. Not from the world, but from the ones who believe the message of the resurrection. They expect a message that goes along with the calendar, even if the Lord says, tell those people something else—this has been going on for some time over multiple decades. Last I looked, I am not of the bovine genus.
What to Tell the Children and Grandchildren About Santa
In the late 1960’s or early 1970’s (I have since lost the record somewhere, but I do remember the song), Arlo Guthrie made a song entitled, “Pause for Mr. Claus.” In it, Guthrie remarked, from one perspective or another, that since Santa Claus wore a red suit, he must be a communist. The song also contained the query, “What’s in the pipe that He’s smoking?” Guthrie is not the only one to ask maligning questions of the one known also as St. Nick.
Others mention that Santa is none other that Satan himself in disguise. Move the “n” in Santa’s name over three spaces to the right, and see what you get. This seems much worse than being called a communist, at least in some circles.
Is Santa some cruel hoax perpetuated upon the young and the gullible?
What do you tell your children or grandchildren about Santa? If you are like many, you simply allow the issue to take care of itself. You say very little or what you do say is so calculated that you can back out at any time it becomes necessary. Some try to keep both Santa and Jesus never really allowing any real discussion of the subject. Others stick their heads in the sand and try to keep Santa out of the picture altogether. Or you could adopt Guthrie’s methodology dismissing Santa out of hand as something totally undesirable.
I prefer to be totally honest. This becomes increasingly important as we take seriously the commands of Christ, not to mention the rationale that our progeny will get the impression we are lying to them later, if we set a pattern of not telling them the truth now.
St. Nick is a reality. In the fourth century AD. lived a man named Nicolas; he was Bishop of Myra. Myra is modern-day Turkey. Nicolas was raised in a wealthy home and to Christian parents. He received an education from his mother who taught him about Jesus. Included in that teaching was how Jesus healed the sick and helped the needy. Both his parents died when Nicolas was a teenager, leaving him independently wealthy. This allowed him to spend great amounts of time seeking the will of the Lord for his life. He went to the church often and prayed. One day, when entering the church, Nicolas was informed by the head of the church council that he would be replacement Bishop of Myra. It seems that the Lord had spoken to the head of the council in a vision telling him that he was to confer this position upon the first one to enter the church named “Nicolas.” This happened around 300 AD.
The Arian controversy, whose modern-day descendants are Jehovah’s Witnesses, arose. The question of the deity of Christ was being called into question by Arius & c. History records that Nicolas held firmly the deity of Christ. Later, when Diocletian became Emperor, Nicolas was imprisoned. Later when Constantine came into power, Nicolas was released. According to tradition, Nicolas attended the very important Council of Nicaea, ca. 325 AD.
Nicolas had a kind of secret hobby, we might call it. He would disguise himself and secretly give gifts to the needy. He especially liked to give gifts to children. When folks received their presents, they would see this as an answer to prayer—indeed, it was nothing less.
Perhaps the best illustration of Nicolas’ generosity is the story of the down-and-out Nobleman who had three daughters who were old enough to be married. Needing a dowry, one of the daughters was ready to sell herself into slavery so that the others could at least have the means to attract a young man. Having heard of this plight, Nicolas threw a bag of gold into the window of their house and no longer was there any need for her to enter indentured slavery. A second time this same thing happened for another daughter. The Nobleman, his curiosity getting the best of him, decided to find out the identity of his generous benefactor. A trap was set, and the bait was provided in the need for a dowry for the third daughter. Bells, cans, noisemakers of all kinds were tied to a string hidden in the area below the fated window. Caught in the act, Nicolas implored the Nobleman not to tell, wanting no credit for himself. Soon, all Myra knew.
After Nicolas died, Rome canonized him a saint. The people of Myra emulated their patron saint who had secretly given presents to many of them while he lived. Through his example, Nicolas taught them that the secret of giving is giving in secret. The secret giving of gifts became widespread among the community in Myra. Upon finding gifts at one’s door, the recipients would give St. Nicolas credit. Though he was no longer on the earth, the people knowingly remarked that St. Nicolas must have brought the gifts.
The story of St. Nicolas and the tradition of the people of Myra secretly giving gifts to one another spread throughout the world. Sailors from Italy took the story of Nicolas to their home. From there, the story went to Germany where “Nicolas” became “St. Nicklaus” (spelling of this and the following names may vary). From there, the name became Sinter Klaus. Eventually, the tale traveled with Dutch settlers to the New World and New Amsterdam, which later became New York. It was in New Amsterdam that St. Nicolas became most famous.
And now, for the rest of the story, we turn our attention to an eminent theologian named Clement C. Moore. He had a famous father, an Episcopalian bishop who administered the oath of office to the first president of the United States. Moore was a professor of biblical languages at General Theological Seminary, in New York. However, he was not famous for his theological skills, though he should have been. Instead, Dr. Clement C. Moore was famous for a poem he wrote in less than twenty minutes one snowy evening before.
On the night in question, Moore’s wife ran short of the Christmas baskets she was filling and sent her husband out for another turkey. On the way home he met his Dutch caretaker, Jan. Jan was short and stubby, had a bowed-up mouth, a big nose, red from the cold, and perfectly placed dimples. Always smoking a pipe, the smoke on this occasion seemed to encircle the caretaker’s head. It was snowing heavily as their conversation revolved around Christmas.
The caretaker related how the Dutch celebrated St. Nicolas Day with a statue of the saint in a reindeer-drawn sleigh. The route of the sleigh was crowded with children who anxiously anticipated its passing by them. Alongside the sleigh were helpers dressed in red suits with white piping. Helpers passed out gifts to the children lining the streets to watch the sleigh containing the likeness of St. Nicolas.
Dr. Moore could hardly contain himself. In a rush, he dropped off the turkey with his wife and bounded upstairs to his study. The words flowed onto the page:
‘Twas the night before Christmas,
And all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring,
Not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung
By the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicolas,
Soon, would be there.
Then Dr. Moore began to describe his Dutch caretaker in the poem:
His eyes, how they twinkled;
His dimples, how merry:
His cheeks were like roses;
His nose, like a cherry.
His droll little mouth
Was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin,
Was as white as the snow.
The stump of a pipe
he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke, it
Encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a broad face
And a round little belly—
That shook when he laughed,
like a bowl full of jelly.
So you see. St. Nicolas is no myth; he is real. He lived in Myra during the fourth century. He gives children a concrete example of secret giving. Children learn through concrete examples. They think differently than adults. In 1 Corinthians 13:11, we read of this: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.” Then, in every child’s life comes a time when the concrete example gives way to the truth behind it. For this, read on in 1 Corinthians in the same verse as before: “When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”
Is Santa Claus a cruel hoax perpetuated on the gullible and the young? The true story of Santa Claus is not only for children, but also for adults. Adults have been given the responsibility as the keepers of truth. One day, adults will need to explain the truth behind the symbol. Christians are the keepers of truth as well, and Santa is for them too. Isn’t St. Nicolas’ story what Christmas is all about? Read John 3:16 once more if you doubt this: “For God so loved the world that He gave ....”
Someone may ask, “Isn’t Jesus the One Who should be receiving the presents? Christmas is His birthday after all!” Look into Matthew 25:35-40 for the answer to this puzzle. Especially look at v. 40b: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Christmas is for the needy as well, not just for “us four, no more, shut the door.” In the spirit of St. Nicolas—and God from whom St. Nick got his cue—we must seek ways—at Christmas and all through the year—to help those we see in need.
The best picture of Santa Claus I have found today is a ceramic one of Santa kneeling at the crib of the baby Jesus. This is a true picture of the reality behind Santa Claus. Many today only see the story of St. Nicolas living on in the form of Santa Claus. It goes deeper than that! The truth is that if St. Nicolas believed in the Jesus of the Bible, he really does live on with his heavenly Father. And if so, one day believers will have the opportunity to meet the real St. Nicolas, where they will find him, no longer kneeling and worshiping at the crib, but at the throne of King Jesus.
Dusting Off the Idea that God Ordains Individuals to Salvation — Acts 13:48
Years ago, while working for a farmer, my friend Lyle and and I had to unload a railroad car full of dust. Actually it was the dust and the chaff from wheat after the winnowing process. How it got in the railroad car or why, I do not know. All I know that it we were totally covered when we finished. We could literally shake the dust off our feet, and everything else for that matter. We looked pretty weird as we shook ourselves like dogs after a bath. In spite of all our gyrations, it was almost impossible to get all that dust off.
We need to shake the considerable dust off of Acts 13:48. Some say that it, specifically teaches that God ordained individuals to salvation. If that is true, the ordaining happened a long time ago and those individuals in Acts 13 were stirring up some ancient dust when they believed in Christ. That only created more dust since some of those being saved were Gentile, something that certain Jews did not think proper. So the dissenting Jews stirred up some more dust. They did so by going to the prominent people of the area and drove Paul and Barnabas out of their district (13:45, 50).
LIkewise, some Jews who were deeply touched by the message Paul preached in Pisidian Antioch, had some old dust in their hearts moved around as they awakened to something brand new to them. And did not Paul stir up some settled dust in the message he preached, taking his hearers from the Exodus, to kings Saul and David, to John the Baptist, to Jesus' cross, burial and resurrection, even dusting off a quote from Habakkuk (13:16-41)? Paul and Barnabas then symbolically shook some dust off their feet just before moving on to Iconium (13:51).
As we briefly examine Acts 13:48 and some other parts of Acts 13, we intend to stir up a little dust too. We begin by dusting off from some common misconceptions about 13:48. Some say that Acts 13:48 proves once and for all that God choses some and not others. In his fine commentary on Acts, FF Bruce writes: “We cannot agree with those who attempt to tone down the predestinarian note of this phrase by rendering 'as many as were disposed to eternal life' .... The Greek participle is tetagmenoi from tasso, and there is papyrus evidence for this verb in the sense of 'inscribe' or 'enroll.'”
AT Robertson sees the verse a bit differently: “Periphrastic, past perfect passive indicative of tasso, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word 'ordain' [KJV] is not the best translation here. 'Appointed,' as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included the Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away” (Word Pictures, p 200).
If we change the word order of 13:48b from the way it appears in popular English translations (NIV, NASB and KJV), the predestinarian argument becomes even weaker. For example, NASB's “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” makes it sound like those who believed were appointed and then believed. But when the word order is changed to “as many as believed had been appointed to eternal life” — not a literal translation but uses the same words from the NASB — new prospects surface. FF Bruce has already told us that tasso [appointed] can be translated “enrolled” or “inscribed.” Additionally, BAGD tells us that tasso can mean “assigned to someone a certain classification.” Add all that up along with the fact that the phrase in Greek strongly suggests the latter English word order and a predestinarian interpretation of Acts 13:48 is shaky at best.
In the phrase final phrase of that verse, "appointed" (tetagmenoi) is the perfect passive participle, nominative, masculine, plural of tasso. Understand that the perfect tense is like nothing we have in English. In their grammar, Dana and Mantey write:
There are really two fundamental ways of viewing action [in Greek]. It may be contemplated
in single perspective, which we may call punctiliar action; or it may be regarded as in
progress, as a line, and this we may call linear action. The perfect tense is a combination of
these two ideas: it looks in perspective a the action, and regards the results of the actions as
continuing to exist; that is, in progress at a given point. Hence the perfect has both elements,
linear and punctiliar. The aorist may be represented by a dot ..., the present by a line ..., and
the perfect by the combination of the two ... (p. 179.
"Believed" (episteusan), on the other hand, is aorist, or punctiliar in action. That means that they believed at one point, then next in order, were appointed, that is, enrolled into eternal life by God. To quote AT Robertson again: “The subject of this verb [believed] is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it made to mean 'those who believe were appointed'” (p 201). If your presuppositions don't get in the way, this is a very simple verse that teaches logically how one is saved.
I often ask a person if there was ever a point at which s/he repented and believed in Jesus Christ. What I mean by that is is the aorist way of believing in Christ—punctiliar action. Being born-again is not a process. After repenting and believing, at a point in time, a person is then placed among the saved ones, and appointed unto eternal life.
For even more, we return to the dust the two missionaries shook off their feet. A small body of NT teaching on this practice exists. Mt 10:14 says, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” Mark 6:11: “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." Luke 9:5: “If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." Paul and Barnabas were only doing what others in their position had done. Paul The Gospel was on its way to others since a some there “repudiate[d] it and judge[d] ... [themselves] unworthy of eternal life ...” (13:46). Acts 13:1ff. speaks about people as if they were volitionally and freely making decisions. Likewise in 13:48. Nothing is said as to why they made those decisions. We have no indication that they had to make those decisions because God wired them that way or elected them to do so.
If that is not true, and God did choose them to, wire them to, force them to, or determine that they would repent and trust in Christ, what we read in Acts 13 is a huge subterfuge. Why present that pericope as it is if everything is already predetermined? Acts 13 relates that the exact same message was clearly presented to all of them and yet people decided to reject is while others chose to receive it. Some readers may see an effectual call in all this, but the simple teaching of Scripture is that people go to hell because they choose to do so, and people go to heaven because they choose to believe the message about and in the person of Jesus.
Paul and Barnabas did not shake off the dust because God was not working there. He was working and that is what stirred up all that dust in the fist place. A group of believers remained there and the work continued no doubt. The dust would keep on being stirred up, but no longer in that area by Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas only left after they had presented the message to the people who rejected it, not before. The modern church often makes the decision for the lost by not taking it to them in the first place. Give the lost the dignity of having an opportunity, at least. Don't decide beforehand who will or who will not listen! Believers should emulate God who treats all people with the utmost dignity as He allows each one to decide personally where s/he will spend forever. But there is evidence in Scripture that deciding to trust Christ never gets easier. Indeed the opposite seems to be conveyed. In any event, a time is coming a time when God will no longer stir up the dust in a cold stone heart, and He will be the One who shakes the dust off His feet.
Lost Connection
Our cable, telephone and internet are out right now ... for over eight hours. A storm hit last night ... hard. I thought the trees on the south side of the property were going to come down on the house. Tornado warnings were all around us. The news guy was very sketchy not really knowing what was going on either. He was about to quit for the night when the storm came up and some higher-up said there was a tornado along the state line. The news guy was pressed into further action and had to stay later than the normal time frame. He was, from then on, receiving and disseminating information on the fly. It was a sight to behold. He held up well and never let anyone know how much pressure was on him or how little he actually knew about what was taking place. He was receiving information through his headset and spitting it out just as fast. I felt sorry for him.
Then the cable went out. I lost the feed. The dreaded blue screen that my TV generates stared back at me. I had all the same equipment and capability that I had a minute ago, but no signal. I suspect that the TV station was still trying to put out their signal just like they had been. But I wasn't receiving it. Something disrupted the connection.
This same thing can happen between a believer and God. Something happens - a storm - and the signal can no longer get through. God is still communicating but the believer cannot receive it for one reason or another. S/he is still capable of receiving the signal but the connection is lost.
I could easily go into all the different storms that can come up in life, but it really doesn't matter. What matters is that the service needs to be restored; remove that disruption.
In God's economy restoration is priority one. In all He does, reconciliation is first and all else secondary. His people who are to become like Him more and more, are to be about reconciliation as well.
Until the connection is restored you are forced to watch the video you bought or rented one more time. People can call you all they want to or even eMail you a gazillion times. What good is that?
Want specifics? Connect with me somehow.
Testing, Testing ...
Is this thing on?
I have been wondering. I have gone to a lot of trouble to get this site up and running. I also thought this blog would be a place for people to "gather" and converse about certain subjects that are brought up from time to time.
I guess I will have to be more controversial or something. Maybe I am too boring or old hat. Then again, people may not be into writing or the internet.
If there is anybody out there, let me know what you might want to discuss or see in print from me. In the mean time I am going to write about some subjects that I believe will be generally beneficial to the body of Christ.
Manipulated
I have just come from a school board meeting. Actually, it was a budget workshop. One of the reasons I was there was to learn how things are done in board meetings. I was thinking about running sometime. (I am not so sure about that now.) Another was to argue against a position that I was told that the board was taking. That position was that they were going to cut out all sports at the local schools in order to stay afloat, given the current funding cuts out of Lansing. To my surprise, the statement that wholesale cutting of sports, music and other extracurricular activities was not on the table and would not be in the upcoming meeting in which a vote would be taken. Then in an unrelated disclosure, a Mr. Ken Papenhagen divulged that he had either made the statement or started the rumor about no more sports in order to fill the room, i.e., get more people involved, attend the meetings, become informed and let voices be heard. Well, I was beside myself. I am still livid. You see the time at which I am writing. I don't like being manipulated. When manipulated, I lose all confidence in the one or ones who have done the manipulating. I try not to manipulate anyone else, although I am sure that I have. Perhaps I should say it like this: I try not to knowingly manipulate anyone. Manipulation does not serve anyone well. It isn't right. Still, some people think the end justifies the means--the Papenhagens of the world. Maybe that is why the first three letters of manipulate are m-a-n. God never manipulates. He offers choices and conditions, but He will allow you to make up your own mind. There is so much evidence for this not only life, but in Scripture as well. Not even Pharaoh was manipulated. He chose first to harden his heart. After a lengthy time of recalcitrant stubbornness, God, knowing there would be no change in the mind of Pharaoh, strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to maintain his own personal decision. I could cite many other instances and examples, but I won't. If God doesn't manipulate, neither should we. It destroys confidence and makes one feel foolish and used. God will never use you in that sense, that is, like a puppet on a string. Instead He respects your dignity and your ability to chose for yourself. Chose you this day whom you will serve. It is up to you. Be ready for the Lord to actually help you maintain your choice, even into eternity.
Incorporate the Parable of the Talents into Your Banking?
The following exchange was published in the British humor magazine, Punch, on April 3, 1957.
Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q:Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all.
Q: Then they have got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually around $500,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn't theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lent it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing.
A: You can't really say that.
Q: But you just said it. If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it's liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets. It's the same $100, isn't it?
A: Yes. But ...
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that haven't really any money at all?
A: Theoretically ...
Q: Never mind theoretically. And it they haven't any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts?
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest.
Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a half percent. That's their profit.
Q: Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?
A: You do.
Q: You don't say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank rate. Say half a percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I'm going to draw the money out again. If I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden, couldn't I?
A: They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it's a Liability. Would they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they'll let you have someone else's money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too ... and they've let me have it?
A: You're being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I am being acute. What if everyone wanted their money at once?
A: It the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what the banks bank on in not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn't say that.
Q: Naturally. Well, if there's nothing else you think you can tell me ...?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account.
Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.
Q: Wouldn't it be better to go off and open up a bank?
State-Sponsored Religion
Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The so-called “establishment clause” is exactly what the US. government is going against in its government schools. Granted, Congress has passed no law, but the courts, the third constitutionally established branch of our government, have essentially and effectively done the same thing. A monopoly status is given the teachings and teachers of evolution. Yet evolution is not science; it is a religion.
U.C. Berkeley takes exception to that notion and issued a response:
Response: Evolution is observable [what?]and testable [really?]. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml) [italics mine].
The site cited above is contains arguments for teachers to use to promote evolution. By the way, at the bottom of the home page are these words:
This site was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439).
I guess I paid for them to do so. So did you. The government doesn't have any money of its own. I, for one, would rather spend my money on something else.
The site also addresses as absurd that religion and evolution are diametrically opposed. Below the response is an illustration of what is presumably a scientist holding of the upper skull of an animal minus the jawbone and a clergyman (one wonders why not a clergy woman?) holding a book. Here is the response:
Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml).
Isn't it neat and tidy that “science” and “evolution” are synonymous according to the response. Beyond that, their illustration depicts the men shaking hands, left hands [not the norm and in some countries an insult]. Both appear to be the same man, twins perhaps. A book with a cross on back cover, a golden cross, is in the hand of the twin with the collar. The book is closed. Suggestive? We are not sure if that book is a book of prayers, a liturgy of some sort, or what. That is not all that important, but curious nonetheless. Further, the Berkeley response uses the terms “religion” and “science” prior to making the statement that “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science.” Yet “most”—love that technical language—“religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution” [emphasis mine]. Why not the other way around? Is this a bias slipping in? Could the god of science be wrong? Heavens no! Or should I say, Mother Earth no? That could never be! But even this website says that evolution is a theory! What would it be called if it were proven?
Curiously I agree with the Berkeley side of things, only I would be a bit more technical than they. I actually agree with Berkeley that science—real science—and the Bible—not “religion”—agree. Religion is as man-made as is evolution. The evolutionist's presupposition is that the Bible is automatically wrong if their interpretation—and that is all it is, an interpretation—of the fossil record or, say, the strata of the Grand Canyon does not line up with it. The evolutionist presupposes that there is no God. What of religionists? I am not sure. Evolutionists also presuppose billions of years of existence for the earth. None of which has been proven, only presupposed. That is not real, but junk science. Evolution is a religion.
Better persons than I have seen evolution as a religion. Below are enough links to satisfy anyone's curiosity and not all are from a particular viewpoint:
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i4/religion.asp
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=8769
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13688_1.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523
There are more but you will get enough information from the above to whet your appetite and point you elsewhere.
I want the government to stop using my tax dollars to promote a religion as the one true way. I want the government to stop presenting their faith as a fact while I am paying for it. Call your representatives today. If they cannot present Intelligent Design or the biblical account, I understand. Just don't present evolution either. None of them is provable and each is a matter of faith.
The biblical account, makes more sense to me from what I observe. Evolution is so contrived and unbelievable, but then you are free in the United States to believe what you want. At least, that is true in theory, and according to the Constitution.