Baby Control

This reminds me of the popular bumper sticker "Choose Life! Your Mom Did!"

While I've decided that I'm pro-life (and I guess I've always thought that way, just never consciously) I still can't think clearly on the issue. Religion aside, it is hard for me to even think about terminating a pregnancy, especially when I'm not 100% against the death penalty for certain crimes.

Just trying to write this post is difficult. My brain freezes like I've sucked on a popsicle too long. As I type it looks like a cat has walked across the keyboard until I go back and make corrections. What is it about this issue? Could it be that I buried my daughter when she was two-and-a-half? There is quite a bit of guilt there because I hadn't wanted children. Of course, I didn't object when my wife wanted a baby. In fact, I even remember thinking "we just made a baby" and that wasn't our intent at the time (some of you probably get the idea).

No, it has to be more than that. Babies are noisy, smelly, messy, time-consuming gifts from God. There is nothing like having a baby nap on your chest. Babies are love in cuddly package. But I guess they just aren't for everyone. Got me. My brain just froze again. Looks like I've got to put this on my list of things to ask God.

Apropos Scripture

The Daily Wisdom that appeared on this site today might seem like a coincidence considering a primary focus of commentary posted here, but I don't believe in luck-based happenstance. It is pretty clear that the Lord is reminding me in many ways that I need to establish a purpose and putting Proverbs 16:9 in front of me like this is an example.

As yet I still have no idea what that purpose might be, but I continue to search and to pray. Until then I'll continue to follow benevolent wills of the wisp. Being filled with the Holy Spirit I find myself doing well in trusting whim so far, but I would like to have a more definitive goal in view.

Bible Translations & My Brothers

Rick Warren's tendency to bounce between various translations of the Bible in his book The Purpose Driven Life (PDL) and my desire to buy a Bible for my brother Craig has made me think about which translation is best for various uses. So I stopped into a local Christian book store hoping to make some comparisons but failed miserably.

My goal was to look at getting a "The Message" translation for its everyday language approach. Sticker shock over the one edition they carried had my scurrying back to the comfort of the New International Version (NIV) aisle to pick up a translation that I was familiar with and knew would have a variety of publication types to choose from. Thusly I purchased a thin-line style with concordance and the words of Christ in red (pretty standard fare). Zondervan makes a good product so there isn't really much to complain about in that respect, though I should have been extra generous and sprung the extra few dollars for a study version.*

But I also picked up three pocket-sized copies of The Gospel of John in The Message (TM) translation because (a) they were cheap and (b) it seemed like a convenient way to get a feel for that translation. If it works out well I might have to (a) go buy several more copies and give them out as super-tracts and (b) invest in a complete book copy in this translation. Even with the NIV (or even the King James [KJV] and New King James [NKJV] editions that I have) I find myself reading passages over and over without comprehension.

In looking at a couple comparisons of translations (Zondervan and International Bible Society) I find that going with the NIV might not have been a bad choice after all. My brother is a fairly literate sort so the grade 4-5 level of TM's translation might be a bit too simplistic for him. The NIV, on the other hand, is still readable at about grade 8-9, the level on which a good newspaper is written. These numbers aren't my own as I haven't done my own readability tests, but this seems to be accurate after a quick glance or two.

Besides, I don't want to insult Craig's intelligence when *I'm trying to do him a favor. Recently he sent Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-Cybernetics to me (and one to Mom) stating that it had done him a world of good. Typical of the multitudinous self-help books in the Napoleon Hill Think and Grow Rich vein, it teaches the reader to rely upon the power of the self and ability within. Even before I was a follower of Christ I found such works to be puerile in respect to my needs.

Only through reading of the Word have I found a source that truly helps me in my daily struggle as a human. Its funny to recall that when I was in high school I mentioned to Craig that a problem I was dealing with at the time could have been solved if I had some sort of instruction book for life. Having read Hill's book, Og Mandino's works, and other such fare not typical for a person of my age at the time I still had a hunger. It wasn't until I started reading the Bible many years later did I begin to feel sated. Maybe BIBLE is an acronym for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

If only to be polite I'll give Maltz a good college-skim but I am likely to approach it with a bias. The God-shaped hole in my heart is being filled with each reading of scripture and books like Rick Warren's. It took me long enough, but I now understand by living my life for Christ I can achieve the promises of any self-help book and more. So I'm going to send a copy of Rick Warren's book and a Bible to Craig and get another copy of PDL for my mother. I should probably get a the same books for my brother Dana, but I'm not sure which translation would be best for him. I'll have to look for one aimed at bright gear-head grease-monkey auto mechanics.

Islam & Violence

Curiosity finally got to me and I searched the Web for the controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad published first by a Dutch newspaper and then nearly a year later by other European papers and I can see why the protesters would be upset. Regardless that depictions of "Allah's final prophet" are (vaguely) forbidden by the Qur'an (see 42:11), it is just a matter of simple respect for another's culture that the cartoons should never have been published. I have seen far more offensive renditions of other religious figures, particularly the one I'm most fond of, my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

But you don't see me burning down buildings over it. Maybe because Christianity doesn't inherently believe -- despite what was done during the Crusades and the Inquisition -- that non-believers should die. On the contrary, Christians want everyone to come to salvation of their own free will. That's the only way it works. Redemption by spear-point doesn't count. That certainly seems contrary to what supposed followers of Islam are demonstrating.

As recalled in The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley (which led to the 1992 movie Malcom X), Malcom learns during a Hajj that the hatred of Caucasians instilled in him by the Nation of Islam and it's then leader Elijah Muhammad is false and Islam teaches that all people are valued in the eyes of Allah, even disbelievers, if only as dhimmi. Having read much of the Qur'an I have yet to find any command to the contrary.

Which makes me wonder if I am reading the same book as the Muslims that I see daily on the evening news. Where is the command "Go forth and injure or kill the infidels" in the book? I have searched and searched and cannot find the justification. Now I suppose I have to start looking at the fatwahs. Many a war has been started or turned on the interpretation of scripture. For that matter, so has many a sect and denomination. Sometimes I think that religion would be much more fun if people weren't involved.

For your consideration:
"Danish Cartoons: Free Press or Hate Speech?"
"Nation of Islam" at Wikipedia

Extending the Debate

Readers of my seminal blog, Musings in Search of a Muse, found frequent posts about the ongoing debate over Evolution and Intelligent Design. With the creation of this religion-oriented blog I hope to expand the debate. When the topic relates primarily to society and culture posts will continue to appear on Musings, but when the impact is more theological than theoretical I plan on posting commentary here. But don't forget about Musings for lighter fare and other commentary.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
- Stephen Jay Gould

PDL Chapter 2 Discussion

For various reasons it wasn't until February 7th that my Bible Study group got around to discussing with some depth chapter 2 of The Purpose Driven Life. Those familiar with the book know this as the "Why was I put here?" chapter. Despite some prayer, a lot of thinking, and the group discussion, I still don't have an answer for myself. But an interesting comment was made by group leader Paul: "Some of us are here to receive love."

That's it. Nothing more. Just "some of us are here to receive love." Could it really be that simple? Going through life up to this point I've always sought a reason that is proactive and productive. It is amazing to think that a purpose might not be to create or to give but to merely take or accept.

Perhaps my reticence to this proposition comes from my desire to be more of a giver than a receiver. For example, I have several weeks worth of dishes piled up in my kitchen but if a friend or neighbor were to call up and ask me to do their dishes I wouldn't hesitate. I would rather do for others than for myself. More to the point, this includes love.

In my quest to find another wife my goal is far less about being loved than loving another. When I was married I didn't really feel love despite the myriad of expressions and nuances that made the intent clear, but my married joy came from giving love so it didn't matter. My purpose was give, not recieve..

Then I guess it is possible for someone's purpose is to be loved rather than to give love, yet the concept still seems too simplistic and I think that is because it is limited to one purpose. I can't imagine any person having just one reason for being. In this respect I feel that PDL chapter 2 is a bit limited. It seeks to find the spiritual equivalent of the Unified Field Theory when it should concentrate more on the obviously structured composition of purpose.

Just as a person's behavior and personality change to at least a small extent depending on who they are interacting with, a person's purpose changes under similar circumstances. In examining the role of 'father' it is clear that the individual is by turns or simultaneously, a teacher, judge, and companion, among other purposes. The father role then can be seen as a meta-purpose or a an administrative description for many functions.

It is that meta-purpose that PDL chapter 2 seeks for each of us. To discover my meta-purpose I need to do several things. First, a fresh inventory of my skills, gifts, and needs is required. Second, I should pray for additional guidance and wisdom from the Lord. What does He want my primary purpose to be and what intermediate purposes need I fulfill to complete the whole? Since effectively abandoning my quest to become a full-time teacher I have struggled with these questions and PDL chapter two has merely added kindling to the burning questions.

I cry out to God Most High,
to God, who fulfills {his purpose} for me (Psalm 57:2).