my preacher's wisdom continues "Imagine that"

My preacher told a story from his life last Sunday, and I was struck by it and he said I could repeat it, as long as I didn't name names (except for him, Rev. Bob Peak).

He related how years ago he was working closely with a hispanic preacher to be the hispanic church leader for the province. This Spanish-speaking teacher was from a pentecostal background, and one of the elders in the church hierarchy approached Bob saying "Pentecostals don't do well in our churches."

Bob's response, "Imagine that! The Holy Spirit moving in our churches!"

I thank God for people like Bob, who live what they preach, and are not afraid to remind their bosses who the real boss is. Also, he reminds us all what the attitude of Christians should be. It follows quite beautifully with the Moravian motto In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.

In another story related by him (or another preacher I respect), he was at some church conference where they were deciding on some change. There was a public debate about nominating a committee to study the issue, and it was suggested they have a person representing the various facets of the issue (I do not recall what the issue was). The church leadership nominated this person and that person, and had formed a diverse group of minds, and were almost concluded, and my preacher spoke up: "Are we going to have anyone that represents God's point of view?"

Preacher's wisdom about Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and God

My preacher (Rev. Bob Peak) told a short little story that struck me as unusually wise. Although a wise man, the wisdom was not his originally. Before he was a pastor, and before seminary, my preacher was simply a churchgoer, and after a Bible study had a question for his own preacher. He had run into the big idea that the God of Abraham is often seen as the God of the Jews, and of the Christians, and of the Muslims. I personally think it depends on how you are looking at the matter. Anthropologically speaking, He is the same God. In the theological sense, I think most people would agree on "No". He asked his pastor about this complicated question, and the old man thought about it. He finally said, "I'd hate to stand before God not having known Jesus."

That strikes me as an excellent answer.

I should not put words into either my preacher's mouth or his preacher before him, but in my thinking I don't dare decide what God would do, and certainly not what He should do. Not only is it not my decision to make, but I am certain I lack both the wisdom and the righteousness to make such a decision. Certainly the Bible provides guidance in such matters, and we can and should study and learn, but it makes me angry (I hope in a righteous way) when people talk as if they can tell God what to do, and when.

My preacher says something else that is meaningful regarding this: "My job is to preach, not judge. That's God's job, not mine."

Karl Barth, noted theologian speaks on the Trinity

I can't find the exact qoute by Barth tonight, but I was told he said:

"Try to understand the Trinity and you will lose your mind; try to deny it, and you will lose you soul"

I thought that was a well-said version of many of my own thoughts on the matter, and applies well to many matters of God concerning predestination, purgatory, and literal Judgement calls.

Here I might add: I think of purgatory, not as a place, but as an instantaneous process of cleansing and firey division of goats from sheep, however that works. And it seems very possible every human being has some measure of goat, which must be torn out. On the other had, it is also possible there are people who are goats and people who are sheep, and there is only one or the other. I don't decide these things, nor do I know. (Oh, and the very idea of instantanous within the concept of eternity is silly.)

Wikipedia says that Barth rejected the label of neo-orthodoxy, and I can well understand why he might, although that is the way he is best known.

I also read on Wikipedia that he was an activist against the Nazis within Germany, which sounds like a very brave thing to have done.

http://trinityinyou.com/understanding-karl-barth-pt-1/

Tartessos-Tarshish-Scheria-Atlantis/ Peacocks

I have been reading Willy Ley's new book, Lands Beyond. Actually, it's a book from the 1950s era co-authored with de Camp, but I prefer to hear Ley's voice in my head, and it's a new book to me. And for the publication date stills has a very "recent news" feel, which is impressive.

Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.

One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!

http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/

Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.

While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.

http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html

Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).

"The Empty Birdcage"

I heard a story in church last Sunday that I wanted to share (as I remember it). I'm not sure if it's accreddited to any writer, but it's more than an anecdote.

A older man was walking down a dusty road in a small town. He was a preacher. Along from the other direction came a young boy of maybe 7 or 8. He boy was carrying something. As the boy came closer, the precher could tell it was an old rusty birdcage, and soon he could even see a few brown unhappy-loooking birds inside.

"What ya got there?" said the man.

"I just caught me some birds out in the feilds here." the boy said proudly. "I trapped 'em. Set bait and all. They wasn't too smart."

"What you catching birds for?"

"Oh, I'm gonna take 'em home and have a real good time. I'm gonna pull out their feathers, and dunk 'em in water to see if they swim, and poke them with my pocket-knife." He brandished his sharp toy in the sun.

"What are you gonna do with them after that?"

"Oh, kill 'em. I got cats around the house that will have some fun, too."

The preacher looked thoughtful. He said, "Well, son, I hate to spoil your fun, but I was wondering if I could buy those birds from you. The whole cage, actually."

The little boy stood wide eyed. "You'd buy these mangy birds? They ain't even pretty. Just feild birds. Good for nothin'. Why'd anybody spend good money on birds like this?"

"Well, I do. How much would you want"

The boy looked rather confused. Scrunched up his nose. Then, he got a crafty look in his eye.

"Twenty bucks, mister" It was pretty clear the boy had picked out a sum he thought was astronomical.

"Okay," said the preacher, and pulled out his wallet. Handing the money to the youngster, he smiled at the boy. The boy set down the cage a bit roughly and hurried off without another word. Maybe he wanted to get home with his bounty before anything happened.

The preacher picked up the cage of frightened and disoriented birds huddled in the bottom. He walked around, and found an alley with a pleasant sunny grassy spot at the end. There was a meduim-sized tree there. The man set the cage down, opened it, and backed away a bit. He had thought about tapping the cage to encourage the birds to leave, and although he decided that wouldn't be wrong, it was still unnecessary to further excite the creatures. The birds were shy at first, but soon one of them tested the open door, perched at the edge, half-in and half-out. After a moment of hesitation, it darted up into the branches. This seemed to give confidence to the other birds, who soon followed.

The preacher smiled quietly, and walked back over to pick up the cage. While he had waited for the birds to realize they were free, he had thought about what to do with it. He had at first thought it was merely junk to be thrown away, but on further reflection decided it might be useful after all. Next Sunday, he'd bring it with him to the pulpit. It'd make a pretty good conversation starter, he thought. And that's the way he thought about his sermons: as conversations. True, the sermons by nature were pretty one-way, but instead of a lecture he tried to make it feel like it was one friend telling a story to another. The best story ever told, he thought to himself.

We can imagine a conversation between God and Satan much like that between the preacher and the boy. There was a trap, and those who were trapped, and also a price.

MySpace repost x2: "Books Dante's Inferno & Moby Dick"

Aug 31, 2009
The Pleasure Gardens of Hell (reading Dante's Inferno)


Although Dante's Inferno doesn't quite use the exact words pleasure garden, that's definately the idea that comes across. It talks about "sweet brooks" bubbling along, and "green meadows" in a certain part of Hell. A level reserved for the "virtuous pagans" especially the great thinkers and heros of the Roman world (and assumedly others of a similar nature). Despite all their comforts, these damned are indeed officially listed as suffering "piteously" but none of that anguish was in evidence to this reader. They lived in a dome (my word) of light and warmth and pleasantness. A Citadel in the book. The commentaries say that the bright garden represents the power of Human Reason, even within Hell.

To me, this is very disagreeable. Even accepting that this is fiction, it's a very strange concept. In part, I guess Dante couldn't bear to assign his personal ideal personages from the ancient world (Virgil and Aeneis) to a suffering eternity. Moreover, he ascribes far too much power to Human Reason, and/or God's respect thereof. I am personally confused about how God will ultimately treat so-called "virtuous pagans," but I have no doubt in my mind that the power of Human Reason doesn't have that kind of influence.

On the other hand, why am I taking this so seriously? Who was Dante to speak for the whole of Catholicism in the 1300s? Today, many many novels and movies have their protagonist somehow encounter the afterlife. I certainly wouldn't want contemporary theology judged according to "Bruce Almighty".

I would definately like to seek out some good commetaries on Dante, especially Catholic reaction near that time. Maybe I can find a friendly college student with access to JSTOR....

I'm only about a fourth into the Inferno, which is only the first third of Dante's Comedia (Divine Comedy). I will have to keep eveyone updated.

If you've noticed, my reading record closely coresponds to the various upsets in my life. This is less due to stress releif than the extra time on my hands.


Aug 26, 2009
currently just finished 'Moby Dick'

Wow, I've been very busy lately. I clearly haven't blogged in a very long time. And I STILL haven't read Ashenden!

Since my last blog, quite a few things have happened, professionally and literarily (is that even a word?)

I will make a further blog about my hurried exodus from Tulsa, and other life changed events, but in the meantime, I've learned....

The Borg are now planning annihilation, not just assimilation. (ST:Destiny)

The White Whale is better left alone; and Pip jumped again (I finished 'Moby Dick', and learned that to Melville, the whale is a fish, albeit a very strange one. I, for one, do not have the presumption to argue with Melville about whales)

The mighty sirrush is a mystery of natural history worth my attention (I happened upon the wonderful author Willy Ley, a most amazing amatuer naturalist and [I kid you not] rocket scientist)

A P2C2E solves all problems [so does rubbing your eye with your elbow]. (currently reading Salman Rushdie's children's book Haroun and the Sea of Stories)

Onward! I am on the heavy lookout for Willy Ley's Salamanders and Other Wonders, and I'm eager to find ST: Soul Key.

Science and Religion are Compatible, book says

Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science, Religion, and Naturalism
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY

I heard about this book on NPR. I invite you to listen here.

From what I understand, the book seems to have a very simple point, but one that really needed to be said and it so very basic and yet overlooked. The incompatability of religion and science just simply doesn't exist. They might not agree, but they aren't opposed to each other the way most people seem to think.

The mutual disagreement arises between religion and naturalism (often seen as atheism). Now, many scientific thinkers are indeed beleivers in naturalism, but athiem cannot be "proved" any more than theism can. Specifically, both cannot be observed, and are merely an assumption. Admittedly, certain elements of religion are implausible notions, at best, and are the ones most often thought of, such as fundamentalist creationism. But even there, room for thinking allows plausability.

Your thoughts?

As a book, I have no basis for real recommendation, one way or the other. At first blush, it sounds like the book could have made its case as an article rather than a book, or as an entry in a compilation, perhaps.

Be Not Deceived...

The title of this blog post comes from the Bible verse 1 Corinthians 15:33 (as I recall off the top of my head).

Today, being Sunday and making it to church, I was given much to think on. This time, anyway. It is always a treat when I accidentally receive a thought-problem, and this one is not the source of my blog, but is a reaction to wanting to blog about my conclusions, because I enjoy the blogging (writing) process.

When I began this blog, there were a few subjects I wanted to stay away from (such as religion), because they distracted from the basic "themes" of my blog, enthusiastic ideas (such as science fiction, zoology, ethics, gaming, books) applied to everyday life. My everyday life, anyways. However, that wasn't a easy choice to make, and this is somewhat a retraction. But not exactly.

There are many people who would consider my blog as it stands pretty eclectic and disordered. On the reverse side I have identified at least 5 major areas I chose to omit from my blogging previously: 1) religion 2) human sexuality and my preferences 3) my personal life and relationships 4) my job when I have one and 5) my health and related biological functions

I am very serious about my spirituality, and I think of my observations in that realm the most important blogging subject I could have. Thus, I haven't been very happy excusing myself from that discourse. Further, my attitude about human sexuality would be the most fun to blog about. It is grating that it so easily discredits a person, and so my sense of humor that I revel in privately I choose to hide. Likewise, my family and love life (and job, in some cases) mean an enormous amount to me, but is too susceptible to personal invasion, while my health is a vital subject, quite literally in many cases.

Did I forget any big area of self-censored blogging material?

Henceforth, I think it would be my uneasy policy to be more direct about some matters, such as my girlfriend (do you mind if I name you, lover baby?) and my job. Also, this website (blogspot) is really kind to allow one user to have multiple blogs, so I imagine I will begin a blog adjacent to this one focusing on religious matters. The reason for the schism is pretty obvious. In case I have readers of natural history matters they might not want to be immersed in highly controversial religious matters. My sexual humor and my health remain a bit more personal.

It may seem distinctly odd for a churchgoing person to have an active sexual (dare I say kinky?) side. Oh, well. That's me.