<<Back To Main>>   [Email Nate]
nate's journal: because i was told to never write anything i wouldn't put my name to.
this is for posterity... so be honest.
all bible references will be NIV unless otherwise noted.
poetry   |    the great debate
current journal   |    december 02   |    november 02   |    october 02
download the bible in txt format:  NIV  KJV
11-26-02b      puzzled insomniac

Marveling at the "tolerance" paradox. An example... The various groups that claim to be against eating animals and killing trees seem to be made up of two types of people: those who don't want anyone to eat animals or kill trees, and those who refuse to eat meat and kill trees themselves, but agree that someone else has a right to eat meat and kill trees. This first group wages war against meat-eaters and tree-users. This second group, however, presents a riddle. A vegetarian saying "It's ok if you eat beef, but I think it's wrong, so I don't," is a fairly common occurrence. However, by agreeing to your right to eat meat, they are saying that they really don't mind if animals and trees die, as long as they are not responsible personally. The motive of their "noble stand," then, cannot be to save the lives of animals and trees, as is claimed. They refuse to kill and, in the same breath, defend your right to kill, then pat themselves on the back for being so tolerant.

 Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

11-26-02      of butch and sundance

I realize that the following is not very well written or easily read, and maybe I don't even have a point or make it understood... but I would like to remind you, gentle reader, that this is my webpage, and I can do what I want to with it. So there.

Today I watched Paul Newman and Robert Redford portray Robert Leroy Parker (Butch Cassidy) and Harry Longbaugh (The Sundance Kid). In the movie, as is generally accepted historically, the pair is gunned down in 1908 by a company of Bolivian soldiers. My only-slightly-further research on the internet reveals that there exist contrary claims. Butch Cassidy's sister claimed that the two escaped, that Butch died in Spokane, Washington in 1937, and that The Sundance Kid died in Casper, Wyoming in 1957. Jesse James left a similar lingering doubt about his actual versus reported fate.

Is my impression of someone affected by what I know of not only their life, but their death? Does the way they died make a difference? Since their lives, as known by the public, end at a given point, do their stories change if they live anonymously beyond that point? I think so. If it can be shown that Jesse James died of old age instead of treachery, he will go from "living by the sword, dying by the sword" to "outlasting his enemies," from loser to winner. Would Davy Crockett and William Travis be less the heroes if we found out they were trying to surrender when they were killed at the Alamo? Even though that action would not have affected their little corner of political history, I believe consciousness of cowardly deaths would taint memories of courageous lives. The way a life ends can negate or confirm the character displayed to that point. It seems to me that we don't judge a person only by their life, but also by their death, their reaction to eternity.

My entire faith hinges on Christ rising from the grave. If He did not die and rise again, then nothing of his life is important to me. He would be a fraud and his teachings empty. However, if he did return after defeating death, then He must be the God I seek. The purpose and truth and validity of his entire life was not confirmed until after His death. The implications of Christ's death decided if his life was worthwhile.

11-25-02      but what about you?

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" Mt 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Mt 16:15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Mt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mt 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

"But what about you?" Christ suggests here that Peter might come to a different conclusion than those around him. That Peter is not simply a judge who hands down a verdict that equally weighs every opinion that has ever been presented to him. Rather, Christ seems to imply that Peter can make a decision based on things other than what he has been told, other than what he is expected to conclude. He didn't listen carefully to arguments from the "Jesus is Elijah" and "Jesus is Jeremiah" groups and mindlessly, mechanically issue a decision based on the fervor or logic of their respective arguments. Rather, we see that there is evidence in Peter's consideration that is beyond what he was given by his surroundings. Peter had personal conviction, personal experience, that made him quickly answer, "You are the Christ." If we base our faith on what everyone around us is saying and don't answer who WE think Christ is, we risk building on the shifting sand that is sometimes even found within the church itself.

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
--C. S. Lewis

But what about you? Who do you say I am?

11-22-02      censored for your convenience

I took a walk downtown with my camera yesterday and only took two pictures. I actually saw quite a few pictures I would have liked, but didn't take them. I guess most of my walk was made up of pictures that I passed up. Sometimes it was my reaction time. The facial expression on that driver, the stress and importance radiating from the running man in the suit, emotions that showed up and were hidden a second later. People exposing themselves for moments at a time, then collecting their image to disappear again. I can absorb quite a bit, but to react with a camera before it's over is quite often impossible. Other pictures were passed up for compositional reasons. That reflection in the window might be really neat, but the picture would never work from this angle. Other pictures would be ruined by someone producing a camera. Candidness is difficult. Still other pictures would simply never capture the most important elements. The sounds, the temperature, the humming traffic, the countless smells that escape the background leave the scene lacking. A better photographer than myself might do it justice, but I know my picture would fall short of what I wanted to document. The replication would be incomplete, and my point would be missed. My conclusion from these thoughts was that I give the world an abbreviated, edited, even censored version of what I am thinking. The world should be grateful.

11-17-02      power made perfect in weakness

Jdg 7:2 The LORD said to Gideon, "You have too many men for me to deliver Midian into their hands. In order that Israel may not boast against me that her own strength has saved her, Jdg 7:3 announce now to the people, 'Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead.'" So twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained. Jdg 7:4 But the LORD said to Gideon, "There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them for you there. If I say, 'This one shall go with you,' he shall go; but if I say, 'This one shall not go with you,' he shall not go." Jdg 7:5 So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, "Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink." Jdg 7:6 Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink. Jdg 7:7 The LORD said to Gideon, "With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place."

Tonight I had the opportunity to discuss the book of Joshua with a friend over a plate of Peking Garden sesame chicken, a situation that one should not pass up. I started thinking about God and the way He kept the army of Israel from feeling powerful in themselves. At Jericho, he could have made Israel fight a battle and win. He could have granted strength and swiftness to the Israelite soldiers so they could defeat the city in a brazen display of military prowess that would establish them then and there as mighty conquerors to command respect all over the land. Instead, Jericho never saw powerful warriors. They saw days of marching. They saw faith, they saw devotion to an unseen Leader. If I had been a soldier in that army, I am certain I would have wanted God to bless me with the strength... not to ask me for the faith. Had he allowed the children of Israel to defeat Jericho by military might, they would have been etched in history as heroes. They would later have had the ability to look upon their own achievement. Instead, I think they left with the bitter taste of humility mixed with the sweet realization of God.

Gideon saw this same eloquence later. God insisted on decreasing the Israelite army to a fraction of its original size. I am sure Gideon felt as though his hands were tied behind his back. Many factors were not in his favor anyway, and God kept sending soldiers home! The odds piling up against him, Gideon had to see beyond his own strategy. God thinks very little of odds, and Gideon's sweat was wasted.

11-14-02      random thought...

I was amused today to realize how much we throw around the idea of "random" in science. If we can reduce life to a series of what we call random mathematical events, we can deny design. Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single random event. The common ones, the roll of a die, the toss of a coin, the draw of a card, are not as random as we like to think. A tossed coin is subject to any number of factors, including wind currents, the speed and height to which it was tossed, the surface it lands upon, and the weight and balance of the coin itself. In fact, no movement of the coin whatsoever is the result of chance; the coin is manipulated, to some degree, by every force that acts upon it. I contend that no event is random. The most sophisticated computer cannot produce a number randomly. "Random" is simply used to describe the set factors that we cannot or will not measure. Why then, do scientists insist on using the term? Science, of all the places to find such flagrant ignorance! The answer is simple. If we can succeed in convincing ourselves that everything we see is a cosmic accident, and not the result of order and design, we don't have to acknowledge a Designer. The fool says in his heart there is no God...

My Poet Friends 

Aristotle was wrong... could Darwin be?

11-12-02      a song worth reading.

God's Own Fool
~Michael Card


Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind

For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane

Chorus

When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well

So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see

Chorus

So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well
11-09-02      wow.

This summer, Luke led the BLAZE group on a very interesting journey through the world of prayer. He really felt God prodding him to get us more involved, as a youth group, in our community. We did prayer walks, alone and in small groups. This meant wandering through the streets of Brodhead praying for the town and the people around us. Sometimes Luke asked us to stop at a few houses and ask if anyone needed prayer. The reactions were very stirring-- most people were very surprised and declined quickly. "No, I don't need prayer, everything's going pretty well..." To introduce the notion that something is amiss in one's life is a social taboo. Every day we are asked, "How are you doing?" and reply, "Fine!" Later conversation might reveal the actual (and possibly extensive) problems we are dealing with, but initially it is the farthest thing from our minds to spill all of the concerns, anxieties, and pains that dog us through our days. I'm not sure we try to cover anything up when we say, "No, I don't need prayer." Rather, I think we work so hard to avoid vulnerability that we develop insecurities and really don't think our prayer request has the relevance or comfortability that seems to be the underlying target of the question.

The other thing I noticed was how much I knew about the people in my community. By the time I made it over to the neighborhood that was my paper route for several years, I was aware that I knew quite a few of these people well enough to pray specifically for needs and praises of theirs that I knew about. I think that's what being in a community means. You see people every day that you don't even know, and you know people that you don't see very often. We are part of lives that we don't even realize. People we ignore are important to us. It hit me pretty hard when I zig-zagged through town seeing lives instead of houses, people I cared about instead of people who simply didn't concern me, and aching emptiness and need instead of the elevated success and serenity we all try to feign. To try to look at the world through the teary eyes of Jesus.

11-05-02      disenchanted voter

Elections today. Tell me, faithful reader, what makes someone go out and vote for their favorite smile from the newspapers and return to rant about how actively they participate in the democratic process? They run cheering behind their favorite image like so many sports fans. I wonder what percent of voters cast their vote based on media coverage and charisma rather than issues. How many minds are decided by colors of campaign signs, kind eyes, or the academic background of a candidate?

The American voting public demands news that they can swallow whole. We, the people don't want to decide whether or not abortion is a serious issue... We want CNN to tell us that it isn't. We, the people don't want to know what each party or candidate stands for... We want to see if they can maintain a smile during a debate. We, the people don't want to vote our minds... We want to watch the polls and pick a winner. We, the people don't want to know how our leader is dealing with our nation's problems... We want to know if he can pronounce the names of foreign leaders. We, the people don't care if our leader lies under oath... As long as the economy is good. We, the people don't care about the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from fear, the freedom from want... We will forfeit them all if the "American way of life" will improve. We, the people will give up our right to bear arms if asked. We, the people will blindly follow a candidate, as long as he has the right party listed by his name. We, the people will not question anything we hear. We, the people will sell our votes for the words our itching ears want to hear. We, the people will vote for the man who tells us that our lives, our dreams, our culture, are more important than any other, that it is acceptable to do anything to achieve The Dream. We, the people will rally around anyone who says we have the right to take charge of our lives, that we have the choice and the right and the duty to end anything that stands in the way of The Dream, be it a Jew or an unborn child. In the name of Democracy.

11-03-02      the rock

• Numbers 20:6 Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. Nu 20:7 The LORD said to Moses, Nu 20:8 "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." Nu 20:9 So Moses took the staff from the LORD'S presence, just as he commanded him. Nu 20:10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, "Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?" Nu 20:11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. Nu 20:12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."

In my old testament Bible study today, it was brought up that Moses was not allowed to lead the children of Israel into the promised land because he struck the rock. (see Numbers 20:6-12 and Exodus 17:6). I think he was getting a bit impatient, and instead of speaking to the rock, like God had told him, he lost it. He called the Israelites a bunch of rebels. He took it upon himself to show the wrath of God at a time when God wanted to show His healing and holiness and provision. Moses' temper and lack of faith kept him from seeing the promised land.

Moses was branded as the leader of this people, but at different points throughout the journey he resisted. He found himself surrounded by whiners. even Aaron gave in and built them a golden calf, just so they could have a god they could SEE. Sara Groves wrote a song about "painting pictures of Egypt"... At times Moses was not a popular leader, and I feel almost certain that Moses painted some pictures of his own in those wanderings. Yet he was so strong in his communion with God. He surely understood (and came to understand) God-given duty and faithfulness to calling, and "how hard it is to keep from being king when it's in you and in the situation." It is tempting to think that God is over-reacting here, that what Moses did right should overshadow the few times he slipped up. In fact, the consequences of one small action were enough to lock Moses out.

On another tangent, what is the difference, if any, between consequences and punishments? I think a consequence is automatic, a direct result of one's actions, whereas punishment is the result of judgment. For example, if you run a red light at a busy intersection, the consequences might be serious injury and damage to your vehicle. No amount of mercy from a policeman afterwards can reverse that. The punishment is the ticket you have to pay for breaking traffic regulations. These nuances come into play when we consider God's reactions toward sin. The consequence of sin is separation from God, the punishment for sin is death, non negotiable. If we have sin in our lives, we cannot be close to God (the consequence), because God cannot be close to sin. If we have sinned, the only way to again become presentable to God is to pay the debt, go through the punishment, right the wrong. Christ has done this for us because we cannot do it for ourselves. If we accept Christ's gift, we can walk with God.



<<Back To Main>>  [Email Nate]


The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.