Some Thoughts On Easter

First of all, to all that celebrate it, I want to take a moment to wish all of you a Happy Easter. I could write on the events that led up to the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, but if that is what interests you I would recommend you see, "The Passion Of The Christ" (if you haven't already done so). Instead, I will just type out a short synopsis of the day itself, with an Easter thought or two added to stimulate some thinking on this much revered subject.



Much has both been written and said, on the subject of Easter. For Christians, it is the holiest of holidays, because it symbolizes the objective of all that follow the teachings of Christ. This is the day that is used to celebrate His triumphant resurrection that was not heralded for all to see. Many didn't pay much attention, many just weren't aware that this was taking place at the time. In short, access was limited. So naturally, such humble anonymity was not proclaimed to the ends of the civilized world, so easily.

One of the things the Jews were expecting from their Messiah was that of a royal ruling figure. Much of the Gentile world of that day was enamored with royalty that girded itself with pomp and circumstance, as well. Little did the Jews realize at that time, there were two pictures portrayed by the OT prophets that foretold of his arrival; one was that of a majestic monarch and the other was a common man that suffered in humility, and offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. But many in that lived in the world of that time, many that lived far from Israel and Judea, knew nothing at all of the OT portrayal or the events that led to the celebration we have today.

They didn't have CNN International or Al-Jazeera to cover it. There was no Jerusalem Post, no BBC World Service, no mass telecommunications media at all. And because historical records were murky at best, it becomes clear as to why we cannot pinpoint the exact date as to the death and resurrection.

In the years that followed the death and resurrection, not much thought was given to marking the date, for remembrance. It wasn't important to celebrate any of the significant events that surrounded this occasion. As a result of this, there were no cultural traditions practiced or set in any of the Christian communities scattered throughout. Most of the communities were small and dispersed throughout a world that was rich in pagan tradition, and the biggest concern many had during that time was staying alive, to further the Gospel. From lion fodder to outright killings, life was not a bouquet of roses for those that dared forsake the practices of their forefathers and take up a new path.

But when Constantine promoted and eventually converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, those that had been so vehemently persecuted under previous emperors were able to rest a bit easier. But as could be expected, it wasn't easy to convert an entire mass of people that had based their culture around time-honored and highly respected pagan deities (and the feasts to celebrate them), to the simpler more humble teachings that accompanied the Christian message.

Transformation needed to be slow. Constantine and those that were commissioned under him knew that they could not just uproot these traditions and replace them with nothing. So, during this transition period, old pagan customs were paired with significant events, taught by the Christians. The birth of Christ was put with the winter solstice celebration and Easter was infused as the one for the vernal equinox. This is why certain fundamentalist sects refuse to celebrate Easter, even yet, today.

Knowing this, do we (as Christians) err greatly by celebrating Easter? If we are truly Christians would even want to? I believe that Paul addressed this question somewhat, in one of his letters to Corinthian church.

I Cor. 8: 7, 8

Speaking on the subject of knowledge he writes:

⁷Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

⁸But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Paul, as an ever-so studious student of the Gospel, had learned that his deep understanding would not prevent him from going into an idol's temple for the specific purpose of getting something to eat. He traveled a lot and getting a meal on the road was important, even in that day. Idol temples seemingly always had a festival going on and food was almost always part of the celebration. So, it only stood to reason that he do so, when he had the opportunity. You see, Paul deeply believed that his God would not hold him accountable for stepping inside for a moment, long enough to grab a bite to eat. He did not partake of the other activities, he did not submit to their religious practices. He just ate and left, and did so with a clean conscience.

Why?

Because he knew that an idol was nothing, nothing but a carved statue of some kind that had no life within itself, and certainly no power over him. He did not worship the god of that temple. But, he was thankful that his God had led him to a place where he had the opportunity to eat something, after doing the many things God had called him to do.

So, tying this in with the celebration of Easter, I think we can safely say: Celebrating Easter for the event that it represents is not an abomination, if we do it of a sincere heart. Regardless of the pagan roots, the day should always be marked with some form of reverence towards what it represents to Christians. I do so, as to honor God, and not to honor any previous pagan gods that were believed to be the source of this and the other feasts. Because in my view, in my humble opinion, they are nothing; just like those statues that Paul looked at as he entered those temples, for an occasional meal.

As for me, being the annual church attendee that I am, I will be going to the early service today. I won't be going to mark or celebrate this as the very day from a historical standpoint, like many. I will be thinking about the event itself and reflect on how thankful I am that it did happen. Because Christ is alive, it is our hope that we too can live. That's my view.

So, again I say:

Happy Easter, to all that celebrate it as such

The Dobson Phenomenon

I have minced very few words in my disdain for the far-Left ideology (and in many cases, tactics). But the far-Right certainly doesn't settle well with me either, and here's why.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

Here's where evangelicals and myself part ways. Here's where I must draw the proverbial line and make the distinction between what is Caesar's and what is God's. Even if I agreed with Mr. Dobson right down the line (and believe me I do not), it is my firm belief that making proclamations on who is and who is not a Christian is primarily and precisely the reason why we have the separation of church and state.

So, can anyone tell me who died and made James Dobson the spokesperson for Christians? I am Christian and I can definitely say with an infinite amount of assurance that he does not speak for me.

It is said by many that Dobson's power and influence in the world of the evangelical right is second to no one right now; Robertson and Falwell have pretty much been replaced. The flock is now gravitated to him now and somewhere along the way, someone must've given him the impression that he is now in "kingmaker" status. But that's not all there is to this. What makes this even worse is the fact that there are many that listen to him and count his word as gospel.

Some in the evangelical right leadership have greatly miscalculated in their speech before. Some are no strangers to "foot-in-mouth-disease". We all know Pat Robertson has said things that were better left unsaid. Who can forget the need for Hugo Chavez's assassination comments? Jerry Falwell is another one. His righteousness has always preceded him and if you don't believe me, just ask him. He does well when he leaves politics out of his conversation.

The point I am trying to make here is not a difficult one. What I am trying to convey is politics has no business in religion and the same courtesy must be extended, when it goes the other way. There is nothing wrong with voting one's conscience and choosing to vote for those that reflect a person's values. But do feel there is something to be said for picking against a candidate merely because they may not fill the specific mold of what they feel a Christian ought to be.

But let me be clear here, Dobsonites are entitled to their opinions and can certainly express them; just as the Left is entitled to theirs and to express them. They are entitled to stick up for their faith, if they feel it is under attack or if their individual constitutional rights have been or are being violated in some way. But if they make the same mistakes they have made in the past by attempting to drive the GOP train, they will seriously endanger the GOP's chance of winning in 2008.

Fred Thompson is just about as conservative as you can get. And relatively speaking, for a politician, he is of pretty sound character. There is no one that has championed the causes that many in the evangelical right have deemed important, than Mr. Thompson. He has been demonized by many on the Left, which are the same ones that now demonize Mr. Dobson. Yet, Mr, Dobson has now seen fit to act as kingmaker, judge, and jury against Mr Thompson? Someone help me out here. Just who does he want, anyway?

Look, if it's ideology differences, fine. If he's not strong enough on this or not lax enough on that, okay. But do not allow anyone to influence you to cast your rightfully and constitutionally guaranteed vote -- based on who he/she thinks is or is not a Christian. But also know this. if you disregard this bit of advice, President-Elect Clinton will thank you for it.


(Note - Because this is one of those posts that could fall on either the political or religious side, I have cross-posted it at PYY. If your comments lean toward the religious side, you can leave a comment here. If it's more toward the political, you can leave it there.)

The U2-charist

A play on words? Yes. But the gist of this short article shows the depth and breadth of the lyrics of one of the biggest rock bands in the world.

The Pope may have condemned rock music as "anti-religion" but the Church of England has announced it is to use the songs of a global supergroup in an effort to boost congregations.

If one hasn't followed U2 throughout their career, it might be easy to be a bit skeptical about the use of their music in worship services. With all of the junk the music industry puts out, it's easy to see why. Some bands put out absolute garbage, that's for sure. But in U2's early days, their lyrics were very strongly rooted in their faith. Today, one can listen to many of their more recent songs and still hear (at least in some measure) valuable prose based on the very faith that was the early the basis, of their calling.

Few would know that early in their career there was an inner conflict, a dilemma of sorts, with the band. Their struggle was complex, because they were at a crossroads with the direction of their music. Early on, they were legitimately torn between maintaining total Christian themes, and branching out into a wider scope of vision. The Edge almost left the band over Bono and the others' decision to do the branching out.

But did they do the right thing here?

Some would say they compromised their standards. Others would say they gave into "the devil" and are going to burn in hell. But me? I say it's neither.

The band has maintained some sense of a theological foundation, throughout their reign of the charts. The lyrics of their songs speak of peace, love, and understanding. Some promote hope and vision. But one thing is for sure, they all carry a deeper message than the old "rock and roll is good time music" genre. The words to many of their songs cry out a lament at various social injustices, to include poverty and war.

Having grown up in Ireland and knowing firsthand the brutality of a war between Protestants and Catholics, they (no doubt) were influenced to be the cynics they were (and still are), by that insane process. Christians fighting Christians was the main topic of Sunday Bloody Sunday.

And it's true we are immune
When fact is fiction and TV reality.
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die.

The real battle just begun
To claim the victory Jesus won
On...

Sunday, bloody Sunday
Sunday, bloody Sunday..

The descriptive analysis of a possible future life rendered in Where The Streets have No Name, is second to none in the vivid and detailed imagery department.

The city's a flood, and our love turns to rust.
We're beaten and blown by the wind
Trampled in dust.
I'll show you a place
High on a desert plain
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name.

I could go on with the lyrics presentation, but there's more to this story than just a music review.

Christ said in Mt 7:

¹⁵Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. ¹⁶Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ¹⁷Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. ²⁰Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

By their fruits you will know them He says. So if we examine the fruits of the lead singer Paul David Hewson (better known to the world as, Bono), we see quite a unique individual. He has been married for close to 25 years to a woman that he has been involved with, for over 30. Womanizing is not something he is known for. Neither is he tabloid material, because he does not hang out with the drug and alcohol club, as many others do in the rock world. Britany Spears would do well to emulate him, instead of others that have gone down a dangerous and destructive path.

But that doesn't mean he is a recluse and does not get out and about. And it does not mean he is perfect, I am sure.

However, one only needs to see the list of humanitarian work he does, to know that he is driven to correct some things he sees as wrong and attempts (to the best of his ability) to right them. It is my firm belief that he behaves in the manner he does and does these things, out of a sincere appreciation for what God has done for him. By his being a successful rock icon, he has had the opportunity to use his platform and mouthpiece for improving the world. He has raised awareness of things that others in his field, care little or nothing about.

He has won the respect of many, to include the President of the United States (and others). Not only has he won respect, he has inspired, persuaded, and convinced. Much of that comes from setting an example, first and foremost. It does not come from hypocritical and pious moralizing, like many in the religious world seem to think is necessary to get a message out.

So when we see a church (like the one mentioned in the article used as the reference point for this post) using the music of U2 to reach a new generation of people that otherwise may be unreachable, it should come as no surprise. It should not be condemned, nor frowned upon. Looking at all of the temptations that this band has (no doubt) experienced in their line of work over the many years, and having rejected the lion's share of them for a more spiritually profitable path of existence, I have to say my hat's off to them. They are in a humanly way, to be praised and respected.

So, in my view, it's easy to see that when they had to decide to be just another Christian band playing at church functions or branch out into a wider spectrum of music-making, they made the right choice. Otherwise, they would not have had the ability to have the influence or ability to reach the many that needed reaching.

What do you think?

A "Road To Damascus" Moment

To not have confidence that people can change, one only needs to read about the story of Saul of Tarsus and his transformation to Paul, the Apostle to the gentile world. From a persecutor of Christians, a man that consented to many people's death, this man was made into a great Apostle and was the largest contributor to what is now known as the New Testament.

Meet Mmoja Ajabu. His "Road To Damascus Moment" is well chronicled in this MLK Day article.

Mmoja Ajabu didn't always embrace the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s philosophy that protest should be peaceful.

When he led the Black Panther Militia in Indiana, Ajabu specifically left open the possibility that armed conflict might be the answer to black oppression.

When he wanted to bring attention to his concerns about a black man's impending execution, he burned an American flag on Monument Circle.

When his son was being prosecuted for a triple murder in Carmel, Ajabu was jailed for making threatening comments toward court officials.

Ajabu, a man disillusioned by his tour of duty in Vietnam and bitter about racism he saw upon his return, thought more along the lines of Malcolm X, who asserted that blacks should seek justice "by any means necessary."

He was an angry man.

What follows is the story behind this man's change of heart, attitudes, and actions. While you read it, consider that this man was in the news, a lot. He was angry. He had a radical agenda that was disruptive and potentially volatile, for years. And for 10 years or so, he hasn't made a peep.

Now, I am not comparing him to Paul. Paul was Paul, he had his calling, and this guy has his. But this guy has really implemented a distinct change in his methods and behavior. Like Saul/Paul was converted, so was Ajabu. Now, instead of intimidating, he is persuading. Whether he realizes it or not, his personal experience was very similar to the Apostle's.

How can this be? Can people filled with this kind of anger and hate genuinely change so drastically? I think they can.

But know this, I cannot personally attest as to the true intentions of this man (or anyone else, for that matter). But I can say this with a surety, it's been many years since this man has made front page of the Indianapolis Star (that is, until yesterday).

God and Sports

With the NFL Playoffs currently in progress, I thought now would be a good time to bring up a discussion about God and Sports.

I can remember when the Dallas Cowboys were nicknamed, "God's Team". Why? I do not know, but that's what they were called. Notre Dame, being a Catholic school, has always had playful media references to the tune of "divine" intervention, in many last minute victories in South Bend. And, there are still many teams that engage in a generic locker room prayer, before games.

But, Bob Knight once said something along the line of, "I don't believe God cares about sports. When you ask Him to help your team win, you are asking Him to screw the other team". One could then assume, he thought the better prayer would for the health and safety of all players in the game, or he didn't care about any prayer at all. But one thing he appeared to be certain about was that God is not an unfair God.

What do you think? Does God care about who wins and who loses sporting contests?

A Prayer

Dear God,

Please help me to be half the person that my dog thinks I am.

Amen.

- Author Unknown

Clearing The Air

People make mistakes. We are certainly fallible creatures.

Technology is made by humans and as a result, it is sometimes faulty. Sitemeter is a technology that was developed by fallible beings and is at times, faulty to the say the least.

Anyone that had any lengthy amount of time in the blogosphere well knows that Sitemeter, sometimes does not provide accurate information, especially in regards to location of some visitors. Why is that? Beats me. To find the answer, you'll have to ask the fine folks at Sitemeter.

I while back, a blog friend of mine that lives in a certain town began showing up as visiting my site from a town almost 200 miles away. At some point subsequent to that, my location was being read as a town 200 miles away, or so (on my sitemeter as well as others). I never cared to pursue the issue much and still don't care to. But there has been an incident of a commenter accusing of me and another commenter of being the same person, due to the mere fact that both of our locations show up as the same town.

Never mind that the service providers are different. Never mind that our ISP addresses are different. Never mind that my service provider probably does not service the town in question. But that doesn't seem to matter. This person seems to have it in her head that because Sitemeter says it is so, it must be true. All confidence has been thrown to the faulty technology made by fallible human beings and none has been given to the host of this blog, when she was told this information.

Let's be clear here. I am not a liar, a sneak, nor do I go to other peoples blogs for the sole purpose of making accusations and stirring trouble. I may be wrong, mistaken, and I may even miscalculate (I am one of those fallible humans that I speak of). But make no mistake whatsoever, I am not a liar. I do not have time for these kinds of childish games.

Anyone certainly can ask me a question and I will reply, in one of two ways:

1. I will answer the question honestly and truthfully, to the best of my ability.

2. I will not answer the question at all, by politely declining.

One thing I will NOT do is lie. You can count on that.

So let it be known now, I am not here to play silly games. The vast majority of my readers are not here to play silly games either. We are all adults, I expect that when we post comments here we do not make unfounded accusations against me, or anyone else.

As this (or any other) blog grows, there will be people that for whatever reason have found it hard to trust others (probably based on past experiences on other blogs) to filter through here, on occasion. But I can without a doubt assure all of you that there is no attempt to cause any kind of deception here, or on PYY. There never has been and there will never be.

Most of my regular readers already know where I live, but for those that do not, it is in a suburb of Indianapolis. I have lived all over the world, have seen many places and things throughout my life. But right now this is where I live. I do not, will not, nor will I ever have any desire to represent myself, as anyone else in the blogosphere. And accusing me of such childish behavior, will not be tolerated.

In The Beginning: Understanding Creation And Who Created It

Well here it is, my first original post with some of my personal views. Please keep in mind that these are only my views. As always, please feel free to express yours as well, in spite of the fact that you may disagree with me.

Not all posts will be as in-depth, not all will use scripture as a pretext. But I feel that before I can share any other thoughts and views on other topics, I must give all who read this blog, some background of some things that may help explain other things later on. As I said, I am not mainstream. I am not locked up in traditional doctrine. But that doesn't mean that I am locked in to my views, either. I can and do reserve the right to change my mind, as often as I deem prudent to do so.


Many that have read the Bible have historically believed that the first verse in the book of Genesis, is the beginning of all creation by the Almighty.

Gen. 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

But in my extensive readings, I have found that the actual beginning of creation is described in the Gospel Of John.

John 1:1-5

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Let's break this down a bit further starting with verse 1:

In the beginning was the Word. Most biblical scholars have believed this to be Christ and I am in agreement with them on this point. But while it's not disputed by many in Christianity, the rest of this verse has historically been a source of disagreement in some factions.

...and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God. With God? Was God? Sounds confusing doesn't it?

Most Christians have believed that God has always been in existence. There's no more scientific proof for that, than there is for His very existence. But nevertheless, that's the story we have adhered to.

Knowing this, we can surmise that God, in existence for eternity past, seemed lonely and wanted to create something for someone, through someone. So if we are to infer this accurately, we can say this: God created Christ for the purpose of creating the heavens and the earth and for companionship.

There are some people that have interpreted this scripture as God and Christ, being one and the same. They contend that this is one place in the Bible where God reveals that they are both the same entity. Groups known as "oneness people" take a few scriptures, like this one and others where He speaks of He and His Father being one, as evidence of them both being the same entity. Naturally, I disagree.

Most Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. In fact, most of the "oneness people" were offshoots of the Assemblies Of God Churches, when the AG adopted the Holy Trinity as part of their church doctrine. Out of an estimated 2 billion Christians worldwide, "oneness people" make up only approximately 4 million. The rest are for the most part, trinitarian and assign separate status to God and Christ, as well as the Holy Spirit.

But I differ with trinitarians too.

In the Holy Trinity, we are taught the nature of God in the form of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, with each assigned equal status. I differ with that theology for a couple of reasons.

1. God is not the Son, Christ is the Son. God created the Son, as I have shown in this scripture from John. Even though it says the Word was God, Christ had a distinct separate life after His creation, both in Heaven before He came to earth, and afterward.

2. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a personified entity. If Christ were here physically on this earth right now, He'd have to be somewhere. Japan, Europe, America, my garage, He would have to have a specific location. I would not go so far as to say that He would have to travel as we do, He probably could just say the word and He could be anywhere. But my point is He couldn't be in two places simultaneously. I believe that the same holds true for God. But the Holy Spirit can be. This is I believe, that the Spirit of God can be with Mary Ellen, Mustang, and here with me at the same time. It is a spirit, not a person.

So with all of this said, I do not believe that Christ is God, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the life force and personality of God that emanates from both. It originates from God and flows through Christ and those that believe in Him.

Imagine this scene:

God is lonely and wants to have a companion (not a conjugal companion). He has an idea in his mind to create that companion (The Word was God). He then speaks the word and by His command there is a Son (The Word was with God). And through this Son, He creates the entire world and universe.

We can safely determine this, if we read further into Genesis where we see the scripture where man is created (emphasis is mine):

Gen. 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image , after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Looks like their were at least two entities involved here. To me, it's easy to see that Christ was of the same mind and spirit as God, but the one and the same. All of the scriptures that said that He and His Father were one were true, but in a metaphorical sense. Obviously there is much more to creation than just this part, but here is where it all begins. And it is my feeling that to understand anything else, one must (at least) consider this explanation, if nothing else.

Thank you for reading.

Some Noteworthy Theological Posts

Since the "Welcome" thread has just about expended its energy, I wanted to call your attention to two posts written by two good blog friends AC and Mustang.

The first is by Mustang of Social Sense and is entitled, In The Name Of The Father. In it, he poses some very thought-provoking questions that many have asked, for years. It starts out like this:

There are obvious disagreements among scientists and theologians about the origin of our world and the people in it, although to be fair, not all scientists disregard the existence of an all powerful deity, in whose image we are created. Between these two groups of people, the underlying differences involve questions of fact versus faith; this is something we can all understand, and I think we generally accept such differences as simply “the way it is.”

But what about disagreements among those who do believe?

To get the entire message you will have to read the entire essay, yourself.

The second piece is by AC at Fore Left and is entitled, Pat Robertson's Murky Vision.

It isn't long, but it draws attention to more of the televangelist's outrageous remarks that are usually better left unsaid. You may recall that Rev. Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, awhile back. Well, he's back in the news again saying that God told him that there will be another deadly attack by terrorists in 2007, this time with even more people killed.

I am reminded of the Oral Roberts scam a few years back, where he said that God told him that if he did not raise a certain amount of money to keep his hospital open, God would call him home. Some wealthy benefactor gave him the money, but with one caveat. He should seek psychiatric help. For a list of this false prophecy and some of his others, you can look here.

My point here in this, is simple. It is this kind of activity that will ultimately turn people off to Christianity. Prophets, they are not. Scammers, are more likely the more accurate term I would apply to them.

So read these two pieces and see what you think. I hope to have an original post up by week's end.

Thanks to all that read here and at PYY.

WELCOME

Introduction

Many may be here, from my other blog, Political Yen/Yang. Many may be getting here through other means. But no matter how you got here, I want to welcome you to The Psychological/Philosophical Theology Of God.

This is a project I have been thinking about doing for some time now, with some measure of trepidation, given the sensitivity of the subject.

As is sometimes the case in political discussions, the topic turns to religion. I am not sure why that is, but it is, and sometimes I feel that it has little or no bearing on certain political discussions. There are times that it does, and when I feel that is the case, I will keep the discussion on PYY. But when I feel that the topic evolves too much in the theological direction and has little or no relevance to politics, this is where I will post my commentary.

Purpose

My sole purpose for starting this blog is not to convert anyone to my way of thinking or doctrinal belief system, but to facilitate discussions about theological topics of the day and to give readers something deeper to think about than many can receive in a church setting. But know this and understand it well, this is not an effort to proselytize. Subsequently, this board will not be used for that purpose by me or any commenter.

Rules for Commenting

As I say in the opening description, intolerance will not be tolerated. Views can be discussed, challenged, and refuted in a classy, intelligent, and dignified manner; but I will not allow people to condemn anyone to hell or have their characters called into question over this. If this happens, comments will be deleted and if need be, commenters will be banned. If this proves to become more common than I would wish, I will delete the blog, and can it into non-existence.

Helpful Hints for Commenting

As I have said, I will not tolerate mean-spiritedness or any judgemental comments, in any way. There are ways to post comments on views that will be expressed here, WITHOUT engaging in this kind of behavior.

Some examples are as follows:

Wrong:

Commenter A says: I believe in ........

Commenter B says: You are an idiot and are going to hell.

Right:

Commenter A says: I believe......

Commenter B says: I have heard this, but I have always believed.......

Surely, that is not too hard of a concept to grasp.

Who Can Comment

Anyone. As I said earlier, this will be written primarily from a Judeo-Christian perspective. But I welcome comments from any religion. Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and any other people from any other faiths are most certainly welcome. But understand that your views may or may not be accepted. But rest assured, you will not be condemned for them.

Summary

I hope this goes well and hope that this can be a source of inspiration (and in some cases enlightenment) for whoever reads it. My readers from PYY are some of the best, in the world. I do not feel that hoping for this same type of clientele is too far out of reach.

I am not a mainstream Christian, I do not belong to any sect or denomination, and I will more than likely express some views that will not be consistent with many mainstream denominations. So, read with an open mind and if you cannot grasp the things I will be saying, so be it. Like I said earlier, I am not proselytizing and conversion is not an objective here.

I probably will not be posting as much on this site as I do on PYY. But when I do, I will post an announcement on PYY and provide a link. Some of those posters may or may not make the trek over here, and that's okay. But for those that do, I hope this is as much of an experience as can be expected, in such a touchy and sensitive subject.

So if you have made it this far and plan to return, I say again:

Welcome and thank you for reading.