This blog thing gives me the opportunity to run over my keyboard with the tips of my fingers and dance with my stream of consciousness thoughts. How pathetic is that?
Random granola piece of gristle #1
I had the strangest dream this morning. I don’t know a lot about how dreams work. I did a few papers on lucid dreaming and other stages of sleep while in college, but that just gave me a cursory look at the phenomenon of dreaming. I worked late last night on this beloved magazine and drove home about 2 a.m. This should not have allowed me to wake up with the sunrise around 6:30 this morning, but it did. And I had the strangest dream. I was in a place with a small group of people (by small, it might’ve been about 25-30 of us) … and for some reason I found myself arguing with this guy who was pretty narrow-minded and opinionated in his theological thoughts. At least that’s how I felt. I took him on and challenged him in front of the group. He mentioned something about the King James version being real good, and while I wouldn’t argue that point, I grow tired of the argument that it’s the only real choice for serious Christians. I think most serious biblical scholars would agree that it’s not the most accurate translation. Fortunately, I don’t think any doctrines can be forged based upon one translation over another.
He mentioned something about people being deceived into thinking they were Christians, and that always sets off warning flags in my head. I get kind of angry at people that, good intentions or not, are sowing seeds of doubt in young believers’ heads and hearts. I don’t always take too kindly to that. He rattled off some mish-mash about personal righteousness and stuff that really narrowed the spiritual identity of believers.
I said something about the Old Testament being “written for our instruction,” which set him off. I got the impression that he figured the Old Testament was written for Jews, who he probably thought were all going to hell, and not profitable for Christians to concern themselves with. I was about to being a discourse about the balance of Scripture, but he had something to say. I bit my tongue and let him have the floor. Then I talked about the passage where Scripture said of itself that it (the Old Testament) was “written for our instruction.” I asked him if he believed Christians could have demons, he affirmed it at the same time that I said something flippant like, “I figured you would,” and then talked about how a loving God allowed a wayward Israel (His people), who had turned away to false gods and idolatry to be overtaken by enemies. This meant killing people of His own nation, slavery, and just plain misery and suffering. He sent enemy nations in to chastise his people in the hopes that they would turn back to Him, which they usually always did. This was good instruction for us not to give ourselves over to idolatry. Hearts devoted to God that followed after Him were blessed in many ways.
I then went into a time where I temporarily lost my train of thought. I apologized to this guy for being flippant and arrogant with my “I bet you would” comment and then caught my train of thought, where I talked about the balance of “both” predestination and choice being proper interpretations of Scripture. The very same Old Testament that was written for us told us time and again, “Choose this day whom you will serve.” I laid out a case of how God presented man with a choice using parables of the kingdom Jesus told. I acknowledged how Paul stated that we were predestined. I talked about the chapters in Romans (9, 10, 11) that go into detail about a people group (I believe to be Gentiles) created by God for “destruction” and others (Jews) for “honor.” After discussing the debate between predestination and freewill I touched on faith and the power of the spoken word and how we had example after example of our words holding the “power of life and death” and how our tongue could be constructive or destructive and how Jesus commissioned His followers to have spiritual power and authority; but He also prayed Himself, “not My will but Thine be done.” There’s a balance across Scripture about many subjects that are fought over.
I then realized how quiet the place was. This argumentative guy was listening. I ended my discussion with a description of his actions: “You have been quiet and listened. In the course of a debate/conflict/fight, this shows incredible restraint, patience and respect. I am indebted to you for such an honor,” and I bowed to him.
I think maybe God told him to listen to me and his relationship with God took that “still small voice” stuff very seriously, and he did. Afterwards he stood up and said that he had nothing to say. It was weird. I didn’t feel all elated like I’d won a debate, which apparently I just did; but I felt more “in the zone” of the God-stuff variety. You know what I’m talking about? It’s like things are relaxed and casual inside. You have a peace and you’re not really focused on yourself so much, but others. I kinda felt that. It was cool.
Now that kind of surprised me that I had such a vivid dream like that. It’s funny how entertaining and imaginative our brains can be sometimes.
A dust mite or furball of observation #2
I got the latest cleavage…I mean issue of Rolling Stone in my PO Box today. Shakira graces the cover in a well-thought-out pose. I flipped through and noticed a headline on the front about an article that said, “Who pays for Global Warming.” I had recently been sent a video link from my friend Steve Rowe that said something about a One World Government and Global Warming. This older guy talked about a Global Warming treaty that he’d read, which made provisions for a one world government to oversee the problem facing our climate. My eyes roll when I hear that kind of talk. I’m not convinced that our planet is suffering from a man-made crisis or, if it is, it isn’t something that our resilient earth cannot cycle out of. Throughout time, conditions have changed and the earth is very hearty.
This guy made a reference that “the Communists” that slinked away in defeat after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union took over the Green Peace organization that his friend started … and his friends left after this leftist takeover. The idea here is that the far left has taken the cause of pollution/ecology/global warming as its vehicle to ride for several other, ulterior motives. My first reaction to that kind of talk is suspicious. I’d like to see scientists from both sides of the political spectrum have it out in a public forum. Let them throw data at each other and debate its validity. But anyway, this treaty apparently is likely to be signed on or around December 9th by President Obama. The treaty calls for the richer nations to pay “energy debts” back to this one world government, which will apportion it to the countries that need it. The developing third world countries will get assistance, while the richer, industrialized nations will be penalized for its “negligent and abuse of our earth’s resources.”
I have to pause here. I won’t reference coughing or throwing up in my mouth. I just won’t. Whoops…
And furthermore, this speaker says that there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that makes treaties we sign with other nations somehow supercede our own Constitution, making us subordinate to the new One World Government. Now it’s getting dicey. Did someone mess with the thermostat in here?
When it comes to End Times prophecy and conspiracy theories, I’m a little bit jaded. I was born again at an altar call in 1974 that was probably one of those “the rapture is happening any moment, so come down and get right with God.” While fear might’ve been communicated in that message, I thank God that it was real for my 11-year-old heart. I’ve seen a lot of prophetic mumbo-jumbo come and go. Did I say pathetic? No. Good.
I’m probably not prone to jump on an End Times conspiracy theory. I’m tired of false prophecies and predictions. I examine my heart, of course, to make sure I’m not one of those, “Oh yeah, they’ve always been saying that crap” kinda guys that the Bible warns about. Ha ha ha. So, color me skeptical. But if this treaty goes down and a One World Government is erected through the agenda and “cause” of global warming, I won’t be too terribly happy.
It’s funny, because if this stuff did take place, it would indicate that many of our biblical/prophecy scholars and pundits could be on to something. But I’m not a fan of suffering, famine, persecution, that kind of thing. I wouldn’t wish it on any third world citizen or my friends, family or even whacked-out enemies.
I find myself filtering a lot of things these days. I’m about to repeat myself here… Run away! I made a change of heart of sorts, or a commitment not to be a hater this time. Instead of gritting my teeth and “praying for my leaders because I’m supposed to” attitude, I’m truly praying for Obama’s benefit. I hope that he turns out to be our best president ever. I want to be like a military guy or secret service agent who, even if he is of the conservative political persuasion, will serve his Commander-in-Chief with all diligence. These guys are sworn to and trained (I believe), if necessary, to take a bullet for the President, even if it’s a guy like Walter Mondale or Dick Cheney — whoever sits in that office. Plus, I want to give a leader a chance. I’m not going to be looking for any evidence of him being a loser and chomping at the bit to get him out. I kinda did that for 8 years during the Clinton administration. So, I find myself deleting or filing emails about Obama that are disparaging into a “read later” folder that I may never get into. That kind of humor just feeds on and reinforces a distrust, dislike, anger and, let’s face it, hatred. I don’t wanna do that again.
I’m inspired by folks that will take this stance, but also criticize whoever it is when he or she sees something they really disagree with. So, I don’t want to be blindly accepting a guy, but still loyal to my leader and give him some measure of that benefit-of-the-doubt kind of grace that we ought to share more often. Because of this, I kinda ease into (or out of) discussions or reading emails that talk about our current President. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day (Tim Ottley, who manages Blindside, who should have a new album next year…I can’t wait. — by the way, this was a public speaking trick. Like a pastor infusing his sermon with humor every 8 minutes, this reference to Blindside will magically keep you reading. ha ha ha), and I told him that “these days, it’s like you can hear the argument of either side before they start talking.” He agreed. It’s like there’s no longer people talking or debating. They’re simply toting party lines and cliches that no one challenges in a civil debate.
In another repeated mantra, one of my old “you can see this coming” things that I rant about is the “liberal media bias.” If the media is going to be unbiased, they should keep their own rule, which is to let a group define and create its own name. If the group are calling themselves “the Burgundy Party,” then journalists should refer to them as such, and not call them “the anti-Yellow Party.” No one wants to be called “anti-anything.” It’s a negative slant, be it ever so subtle. Yet what do pro-lifers get called in any liberal publication? “Pro-lifers?” Nope. They get called “anti-abortion.” Man, if papers were calling the “Pro-Choice” crowd “Anti-Life” or something, you’d hear about it. That’s unfair, it’s biased, and it’s (I think) real evidence of that bias.
But, what happened to civil debate? Why can’t we talk about the things we disagree over? Many issues are complex and have nuances that could make a reasonable person pause and think. Maybe if we listened to each other more, we could get along better. I don’t know.
When I opened to that article in Rolling Stone, I saw the subtitle, which read: “The only way to stop global warming is for rich nations to pay for the damage they’ve done — or face the consequences.” It shouldn’t surprise me. I guess it doesn’t. It shouldn’t even bother me anymore, but somehow it still does. Rolling Stone is a liberal rag. It’s not a music magazine. It doesn’t take the middle ground. That’s okay. They get to print what they want and people also get to choose whether or not they agree with it. I hear their points, but I’m not ready to agree. I did listen to their argument, though.
Comments