The question in this post is a bit tougher than the one in my previous post. It also comes from a college student; a friend of my eldest daughter. I have posted the question below. I'm a bit conflicted because the questioner doesn't even know I've read her question, but I'm assuming/hoping her question is general enough that it's OK for me to post it. I've re-worded it slightly.

For context: this College student grew up (as far as i know) in an evangelical church, was involved and even a leader in her youth group, etc. She read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead in her senior year of High School and this began what, to my understanding, was her journey away from the core of her faith. She is, by the way, extremely intelligent and is attending a prestigious ivy league school in the northeast.

Here's here question:

So, right now I'm trying to reconcile the goodness of God in relation to the problem of evil, so I had written down some things I thought about this and some other questions. Tell me what you think.

Things i don't understand:
Original sin, morality, and salvation (in relation to each other)

1) Original sin: I think Rand summed this one up nicely. how can I be corrupted before I exist? If that is the case - that I'm born guilty or have "tendencies," then I am not free. If that is determined by outside forces, I am not free. If I am not free, but merely acting under compulsion, how can I just be held responsible for anything I do, good or bad?

This leads into the next question, which will lead to the last one:

2) Morality: certain moral issues arise when considering the idea of creation. If God is all-knowing, he would know what we would do, whether he determines it or not, through that knowledge he could (should?) select certain people to exist or not exist. In this sense, God would have to be not omniscient (can he be god w/o omniscience?) or evil, not merely by "omission" but by actively creating people he knows will do evil. For instance, inventors of weapons. If the latter, there is no reason to worship him except maybe fear. If the former, why is he God? though, the lack of omniscience could be a product of pure freedom, in which case, I suppose that could work or it could work depending on whether or not the future exists.

Mildly unrelated: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God want relationships with people? this seems to be some sort of desperately lonely god or people who decided to raise themselves up to be friends of God. The first seems illogical, the second, petty. however, this only deals with God's morality, what of that of the people? In many cases, it would seem to be irrelevant: God picked them to do certain things [leibniz: best possible world] and therefore they deserve no credit or blame.

3) Salvation: how can a moral, just, omniscient God create people who will reject his truth? Isn't that the best definition of evil - rejection of truth? Furthermore, how can he punish them if he created them to do just that? it doesn't make sense. How would he pick those who would go with him, those he would call?

Possible resolutions:
1) Determinism is true and God is evil
2) We are free and God is not omniscient
3) We are free/physically determined and there is no God

So, that's what i was thinking about earlier. if there are other resolutions, do tell, but i haven't been able to think of them.

I realize the questions above have been wrestled over for centuries, and that there are no easy answers. But I'm definitely interested in any thoughts you might have. Leave them in the comments thread. Thanks!

I was asked the following question by a college student recently: Why should we pray?

Here's where he was coming from: God already knows everything. God gives us what we need. What purpose does prayer have?

The quick answer I gave was that God commands us to pray, and that it's an important way for us to know Him more and commune with Him. And last weekend our pastor made the point that God uses our prayers, somehow, as a means to His pre-ordained ends.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, though. What would you say to a young, intelligent and conflicted College student who asks "Why should I pray?"

My lovely wife told me that she had a dream last night and that she thought that it "meant something." I'm a pretty weak dream interpreter, so, sadly, I didn't really have any profound insight for her.

I do think, though, that God frequently speaks to people through dreams. For the past few years I've had "God dreams" on a semi-frequent basis. I can't quite put my finger on what makes a dream so obviously from Yahweh, as opposed to just a random Ronald-McDonald-walking-through-the-street type dream, but I do know that some dreams I have simply resonate with me, and I feel like I know that God is trying to tell me something.

A good friend of mine seems to be gifted in interpretation of dreams, so after a big dream I often call or email him to get his thoughts. Most of the time I think his interpretations are pretty much right on, but other times I've dismissed his thoughts in favor of something else I think God is trying to tell me. It's not an exact science.

What do you all think? Has God ever spoken to you all through dreams?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ~ Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda

I saw this quote as the heading of an editorial a while back... and since we also have it in our quote rotation here at thinklings, it got me thinking, "Did Goebbels really say that? And if so,what did he mean?"

So here's what I found out from some internet research. It is listed at a quote website although I don't know if you can even trust websites anymore. It bugs me to run into quotes without a reference to when it was said or where it was written. (Though I've been guilty of just listing the author without saying where I found it myself.) I wish that everyone would say where and when a quote came from. In this day and age where anyone can say anything on the internet or in an email, it is all the more important. I'm a real stickler for authenticity and I try never to attribute a quote to someone unless I can personally verify it.

And so the quotes website I link to above may be just proliferating a myth. I never found an actual citation for this quote. I did however learn from wikiquote, if that can be trusted, that a similar quote is often misattributed.

Misattributed
* But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. -o Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler.

* (multiple alternatives) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. // If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. // If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. // If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth. // If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
o no reliable source; probably misquotations of the Big Lie idea

The "Big Lie" idea was not Goebbels revealing some secret of Nazi propaganda. (At least not willingly.) His point in context was that it is the British who are lying. Oh the irony, that this quote has been repeated so often and attributed to Goebbels that it doesn't seem to be questioned anymore.

The following is an authentic Goebbels quote. Or at least I think it is, becomes it comes from wikiquote and the actual original source is cited.

That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

* "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik" ("Churchill's Lie Factory"), 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 364-369
* This and similar lines in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf about what he claimed to be a strategem of Jewish lies using "the principle & which is quite true in itself & that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily," are often misquoted or paraphrased as: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

Here's my conclusion: It looks like Goebbels never said what is attributed to him at the top of this post, or the more common, "If you tell a lie often enough (or big enough) it will be believed."

And if he did say that or something like it, I don't think he meant it as it appears - Like the inside secret confession of a Nazi propagandist...though that implication makes it rather delicious for the modern day propagandist...er opinion writer. Drawing a conclusion from the actually verifiable quotes and speeches of Goebbels, if he did say anything like this, he most likely meant it as a criticism of what his enemies were doing. (i.e. claiming that Jews and the Allies were the liars.) He was not admitting that he was a purveyor of lies. (Although you and I know he was an evil liar, that's probably not what he meant.)

Here's a pretty good selection of Goebbels speeches and articles.

So doubting that he said it in the first place, and believing that if he did, he was actually criticizing Jews or the English, I will never use that quote again. That's my take.

If there's one thing I hate more than a made-up or misattributed quote, it's a quote taken out of context. Imagine how shocked I was when I learned that when Mark Twain said, "It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that trouble me, it's the ones that I do understand." He meant something entirely different than how many pastors and books had quoted it to me. I had heard it quoted as meaning that rather than Christians spending too much time on the difficult passages, we should spend more time dealing with the parts we do understand. i.e. we should spend more time obeying, and less time worrying about who the sons of God were that married the daughters of men.

So in researching the quote for something I was working on to make sure it was authentic, I found out that Twain was actually criticizing the Bible! When he said that the parts he understood troubled him, he was talking about God commanding the Israelites to slaughter men, women and children. He was explaining why he didn't believe the Bible was the word of God, and criticizing how awful it was.

So how about you? Can you shed light on the authenticity and meaning of the Goebbels quote?

Is there another quote that people use all the time that is wrong, misattributed or out of context?

And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. - 1 Thessalonians 5:14-24

I love that passage . . .

The other Thinklings will have to bear with me on this one, since we spent a (relatively unfruitful for them, I'm sure) hour or two at our last Moot discussing this, and I'm still struggling.

A good friend of mine posted something to this effect on Facebook tonight: "You are already saved, healed, redeemed, restored. It's not about 'better'. It's about Jesus". I thought about commenting on his post, but thought it might be better to just bring this question up here. What's the place of Sanctification in a Christian's life?

You see, I know what he's saying. I even agree with him. But . . .

a) I think there's a false-dichotomy here. "Better" versus "Jesus"? Why are they opposed? In my view, they go together.

b) I have for my entire Christian life believed that being a Christian means being sanctified. And being sanctified means progressing, all through your life, into a closer and closer reflection of Jesus, culminating into that moment when we see Him and become just like Him.

c) To me, every step closer to Jesus means I'm in a better place than I was on the previous step.

d) You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure. I believe that Jesus makes you better. And this is that continuous process that we call "sanctification". I sense that, for a growing segment of my friends, this is viewed as an almost carnal way to look at things. I never knew that other people felt this way, until recently. So I'm re-examining. If I've been wrong my whole Christian life, I need to correct that.

There are some disclaimers I need to add to this. "Better" fits in just fine for me with the "I once was dead, now I am alive" truth of the Gospel. Because I believe alive is better than dead.

In addition, I don't believe that we are guaranteed better circumstances once we become a follower of Jesus. I believe that quite the opposite, from a worldly point of view, is promised for the follower of Christ. In fact, one of the nagging worries of my life is the fact that my circumstances are so good. I can't square how good I have it with how bad I'm supposed to have it, and I think this may point to a problem in my Christian walk.

I've been asked several times recently, when harping on this subject: "Do you think being a Christian made Paul's life better?" My answer is a shouted "YES!". I really do, and I think Paul saw his life as better as well.

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. - Philippians 3:7-11

I'm interested in your thoughts. Jared/Bird/Mark - I'll understand if you choose to not take part in this post. I've already busted your chops enough on this subject. :-)

Happy New Year everyone!

I'm absolutely horrible at predicting the future. I know God will be faithful. Beyond that, I don't have specifics.

But what about you? Do you have any predictions? If so, leave them in the comments. Your prediction can be about anything: world events, politics, the church, sports, the economy, etc. Also, are you "glass half full" or "glass half empty" about 2010?

I'm interested in what you think, and any scripture you may want to provide.

Here's the prompt: recently, I've read more and more negative reactions in the God blogosphere regarding the effect Jesus has on our lives. Here's the basic scenario.

1. An example is given of a teacher teaching somewhere (often times in the writer's memory of childhood) that if we would just accept Jesus everything will be awesome.

2. A counter-example is given, from the writer's own life and the lives of others, or of characters in the Bible, showing how awful life can be when you're a Christian and that you're not guaranteed to live problem-free.

3. The teaching that Jesus will make your life better is thus dismissed. It's often not said exactly that way, but that's the gist.

This bothers me no end. For two reasons.

1. It seems impossible (in the blogosphere especially) to ever take a balanced run at heresy. If heresy teaches that Jesus will make my life awesome, the only effective response, evidently, appears to be to correct that with "Jesus will make your life worse". Falling off donkeys is what we do best . . .

2. This is based on a straw-man contention that there are no places on the spectrum between "Christianity will make you hate your life" on one end and "Christianity will get you a Porsche" on the other. To assert that you fall somewhere between these two, but that Jesus has definitely made your life better, will result, usually, in either an accusation of lying ("C'mon, man. Don't act like you've got it all together. You're messed up, just like all of us") or get you tagged as a Prosperity Gospeller.

I forgot another problem, perhaps the most important one:

3. It dishonors the work of Christ to assert that all of His grace poured out on the cross and all the spiritual blessings given to us in the here and now, plus restoration of relationships, provision, healing, etc., don't result in "better" and don't far outweigh any hardship that being in Christ causes.

As a disclaimer, I tend to often times not pick up nuances.

Finally, you may notice that I didn't give any examples. I have some, but I didn't want to point them out/link to them because I realize I may be being unfair (my rants often are).

So, your thoughts. Does Jesus make life better? Does Jesus make you better?

As a corollary, if you believe the answer to those two questions is yes (as I do), is it wrong to teach it? Is there a way of teaching this without giving people the wrong impression that Jesus is the fix for all of life's problems (note: I think he is, but I realize that his fix is longer term and better than my short-term wants).

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts/correction/and help with the nuances.

Ok, I'm in a good mood. Really. But I wanted to see how others might answer the questions listed below.

For the record: I think about this more than, I would imagine, most people do. But I'm not a morbid person, at all. And I'm not depressed. So I don't have a good explanation as to why. Although I do have a theory that, in general, green-seeing dudes think about this more than yellow-seeing chicks.

Anyway, here goes:

1. What are the ideal circumstances you'd like to have around your eventual kicking of the bucket?

My answer to this is a compound one, and the answers are in the exact opposite order that they should be, but here they are:

a. I'd like to die before anyone else in my immediate family does, with all my wits still intact and my family all gathered around me and plenty of good words spoken, prayers shared, and memories reminisced.

b. I'd like to die doing something heroic (I think about this quite often. It's fun to think about, for me . . .)

c. I'd like to die as a martyr for Jesus.

2. What are your biggest fears vis-a-vis buying the farm?

Again, mine is a compound answer:

a. Dying in any one of the ways listed above, but flunking the whole thing by being a big coward at the end.

b. Dying whilst on the . . . um . . . facilities.

How about you? Leave your answers in the comments.

If you dare . . .

Calling all geeks!

Previously I had been using an old version of Palm Desktop to serve as my calendar and address book. I've actually used that program for more than 10 years, and it's time for me to move on.

Do any of you guys or gals out there have any recommendations? I'm thinking about Google Calendar (which I already use on a limited basis), but it would be nice to have an address book and calendar that sort of talk to each other, if you know what I mean. Unless I'm missing it somewhere, Google Calendar doesn't seem to offer an address feature.

I need some suggestions -- preferably with links!

Please leave a comment telling me how you would pronounce the name Evangeline. Here are your options:

A) Evange-line (the last syllable rhymes with wine)
B) Evange-lean (last syllable rhymes with mean)
C) Evange-lynn (last syllable rhymes with win)
D) None of the above

Please don't read other people's responses and let them sway you. I want to know what you think. Don't look it up; just give me your gut feeling on it.

Please respond with the way you'd pronounce the name and what state you're from (or country if you're not in the USA).

Thanks!

if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.

What does that verse mean, really? I hear it quoted a lot. And usually, (actually always), the speaker is quoting it in the context of the moral culture war in America.

They'll quote the verse and say, "If Christians will pray, then God will heal our land" and by that they mean America. And by "heal", from the context of what else they say, they seem to mean will fix our moral problems. (I really like what Jared says in his sermon. "We like our heathens well-behaved."

I just got yet another email, citing this verse, that says,

Our nation is/has been on the slippery slope for a long time. If you look around you will find corruption, greed, moral decay, and a steady move away from the things that made us great. The principles upon which this nation was founded are no longer our backbone. However, we can reverse this trend.

Here's my question for you: How does a Christian under the new covenant interpret that verse properly?
Read the rest of this entry . . .

1. Do You Have A Facebook Page?

2. How Often Do You Check it? (or do you just leave it on all the time?)

3. Do you accept friend requests from anyone who asks?

4. What are your criteria for accepting friend requests?

5. What is your facebook philosophy?

6. Why are you on facebook?

7. Do you post tons of pictures, and status updates and other stuff about yourself or do you just kind of lurk and watch what everyone else does?

8. Do you have facebook friends that you don't actually know in real life?

9. Has facebook helped you find old friends?

10. Have people found you through facebook that you wish hadn't?

11. Do you understand this article? Can you explain it to me?

the company announced today that it has begun making status messages, photos and videos visible to the public at large by default instead of being visible only to a user's approved friends.

12. Does the above article concern you?

13. What else can you tell me about your facebook experience, habits and philosophy?

My wife just told me that one of her many theories in life is that a woman is either a cook or a cleaner. I guess she's speaking mainly about women who are married with kids, but I'm assuming the idea can be transferred to any woman out there. (With regard to men, she didn't offer a theory, but my anecdotal observations of men, including myself, would lead me to believe that 90 percent or more of men are not cooks or cleaners. In other words, we don't mind living in grungy apartments and eating fast food.)

Her theory is that as a young woman a gal gravitates toward either a joy in cooking or a joy in cleaning, and that's what a girl tends to focus on as she becomes a woman with a family. In rare instances a woman can also be neither one of those options or both, but the vast majority of women are either cooks or cleaners.

My wife admits she's a cook. She hires a gal to help her clean the house every couple of weeks, and she does keep the place pretty tidy, but she's not a compulsive cleaner who feels a need to have everything spick-and-span all the time. On the other hand she's an amazing cook and she can make the tastiest food that just explodes with flavor in your mouth. She's right; she's definitely a cook.

What do you all think of her theory?

Kind of a strange question, but it arises from a conversation I just had with eldest daughter. Have you ever examined how you think? For instance, when you think of a week, what do you picture? Do you picture a calendar, or a circle, or a stack of blocks? I've heard some people who are very musically gifted say that they picture different musical keys as distinct colors. I've heard that it's common to see the key of C as a vivid red. I never realized people thought that way.

How do you envision the passing of time? Do you think in shapes and colors? When you're reading a book, do you picture the words, or a scene, or something more abstract? How does the past appear to you? Do you see yourself as in a video camera, or do you see the past through your past eyes? What about the future?

Do you hear a voice in your head when you're thinking? Is it your voice, or someone elses?

What do you "see" in your mind when you listen to music? How about when you think of numbers or letters? When thinking of letters, I see large letter-shapes of different colors and fonts in my mind.

Another example: when I think about computer programming (something I'm decent at), I picture spheres in three dimensional space; spheres in communication with one another.

How about you? Do you have any interesting ways of thinking?

We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made.

No, not this one (especially not these days) . . .

I'm asking the question: What's the best blog you read, and why?

I read a couple of blogs. Not many. Some encourage me. Most just shake me up. I'm wondering if there are any gems out there I'm missing.

So, what's the best blog you know, and why do you like it? I'm looking for something new.

Leave your suggestion in the comments. Thanks!

Some relatively new friends of ours invited us over to their home for dinner Saturday night. Unfortunately we weren't able to make it. What was surprising to me, though, was that I think that was the first time in about a year and a half that we had been invited over to anyone's home.

My wife Brandi loves to be hospitable. She loves to cook, make the house ready for guests, roll out the proverbial red carpet, et cetera. Due to her inclination toward hospitality we've had people over to our home at least 30 times over the past year. And her bent toward hospitality makes the contrast all the more apparent to me. Are people just not hospitable anymore?

I think for a variety of reasons our family may unintentionally intimidate people into not inviting us over (for example, we have three kids and two of them have special diets). I can understand people's apprehension with specialized diets, but by now we're used to taking the kids' food with us wherever we go, so it's no big deal to us. That's all conjecture anyway. I really have no idea what the deal is, and maybe it's a variety of issues.

What I'm really wondering is whether in our busy, cloistered, independent, self-sufficient, private lifestyles, Americans -- and especially American Christians -- have lost site of what it means to be hospitable?

What's your experience with this sort of thing?

Do we?

I've always assumed that most people who proclaim a faith in JESUS Christ consistently and actively read the Bible. I'm starting to think I may be terribly wrong about that basic assumption. I'm starting to wonder if Christians are as biblically illiterate as the rest of the world.

Even when I was in rebellion, I still had a love for the Bible. I would read it and it would resonate with me to my very core. Now that I, thankfully, try to walk in the light on a day-to-day basis, my love for the Bible hasn't changed, but my understanding of Scripture has grown by leaps and bounds. It's like scales have fallen off of my eyes. I still have a long way to go, and as the Apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy, I am the Chief of Sinners. But if God can put a love for Scripture inside of someone like me, then there's hope for anyone.

The Bible is a treasure. Up until 500 years ago, and up until the general population became mostly literate, believers didn't even have an opportunity at the privilege of having a copy of the Holy Scriptures. Things have changed, thankfully. Much has been given to us.

Do you read it? Seriously, do you? If not, why not? Do you not know where to start? Does a lack of understanding frustrate you? Does it bore you? Do you feel that you need help somehow? (In any case, the Thinklings are here to help! Especially the pastoral guys like Phil, Jared, and Bill. Just leave a comment. I'd love to hear from anyone on this.)

When I first became aware of the blogosphere I thought it was a great idea, though I had no idea how far it would spread. I love reading opinion, and I remember, way back in the day, devouring the op-ed pages of the newspaper. The blogosphere is an op-ed page times infinity, basically, and you can find as much opinion as you want. You can drink opinion until you burst.

My interest in the blogosphere became wedded to my interest in technology and programming, and thus, coming out of a conversation at an EntMoot in late 2002, the Thinklings was born. It wasn't long until I was writing blog software meself.

The blogosphere, in other words, keeps me pretty busy.

But I wonder . . . is the blogosphere a worthwhile pursuit? Three of my four kids blog as well, and are bombarded with the avalanche of opinion too. I hadn't planned on that (it didn't cross my mind, frankly) in 2003, but they are now teenagers and one almost out of his teens. I have wondered if, on balance, it was better when I was their age and we didn't have the internet complicating our lives. (Jill and I stalk their blogs and facebook pages, of course :-).

The first huge blogospheric brou-ha-ha I was exposed to occurred around Thanksgiving, 2004. Unfortunately and grievously, it was a huge, public, multi-blog slander-fest between people who will all stand as adopted sons and brothers before the same Lord and Redeemer one day. It was ugly. I didn't know that kind of ugly could happen in the blogosphere. It shook me.

Some blogs I read are very edifying. Others are not. Many of them have negative things to say about the church (this is the Christian blogosphere I'm referring to). Some are full of snark. Some are full of complaints. Of course, many of the complaints are valid. But I wonder how effective complaining on a blog is. Many blogs set themselves against each other. And much of what you can read is unrestrained. The internet is the one place one can be both a bully and a coward at the same time.

I recently had someone very dear to me tell me that the Thinklings has made her less enthusiastic about studying the Bible. I think her reasoning is along the lines of "what's the use? I won't be able to arrive at a firm conviction without soon reading that others disagree, or think people who hold that conviction are naive, or dislike (and ridicule) the Bible study author, etc." That shook me too.

Through the blogosphere I've found that a lot of things I thought were helpful or benign are seen as great dangers by others. People I've admired from my past (James Dobson, Max Lucado, Beth Moore) are reviled. People who I had no firm opinion of, but who I admired for their talent and skill (Thomas Kinkade, and a host of very talented CCM artists, for example) are ridiculed, demeaned, and slandered. These people are all "part of the problem".

I wonder, sometimes, what would have happened to my new-found faith when I was 19 if the blogosphere had been invented then. If I had jumped into the Christian blogosphere as a new believer, would I have emerged intact?

Though I think I've remained the same guy in "real-space", I've found my blogospheric personality is not nearly as kind or patient as it once was. I've become more cynical, at least when expressing myself in HTML.

On the flipside, the blogosphere has been huge in maintaining dear friendships, has gained me new friends, and has made me think, and think deeply. This hard work of thinking has helped me have a much better grasp of theology than I had before. As my faith in humans has waned, my faith, trust and hope in God has increased. I'm thankful and hopeful that there will not be a blogosphere in Heaven :-).

I think that in many cases the blogosphere has become a great avenue for reform in the church, and that gives me great hope. The blogosphere has given some of my real-life friends and blog friends a venue for sharing their excellent thoughts and superb writing skills with the world, almost for free. I've been able to get a peek into my kids' inner thoughts, and have been able to observe, over their shoulders as it were, their struggles and triumphs.

There are blogs I read that edify, encourage, and challenge me greatly.

In total, I'm hard-pressed to tell whether this phenomenon of the blogosphere has, on balance, been a good or bad thing.

It's something I've been wondering about. A lot.

Why in the U.S...

is milk sold in gallons, but soda in liters?

I think a gallon is 2.8 liters, right? So why not sell a gallon of soda? Or a half gallon instead of a "2 liter"?

Nothing else in the US is measured that way. Even soda cans themselves are measured in ounces (as opposed to mililiters). But when you buy a big bottle of soda it's measured in liters. Why?

I'm puzzled by the inconsistency demonstrated here by using both the English and Metric systems. So another way to ask this, is: why are bottled sodas the only American liquids measured according to the metric system?

And while I'm asking how do Europeans measure the above beverages?

In this interview N.T. Wright explains some of the differences that he has with John Piper on justification. (Click here for more on the Piper-Wright justification brouhaha.)

Do any of you armchair theologians out there have a problem with this statement by Wright:

Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.

Driving home yesterday, I heard this guy on the radio quoting the above statement from Wright and going off on Wright like a maniac. (I don't listen to that guy's radio show too often, because he's, well, annoying and arrogant.) The guy essentially accused Wright of quasi-heretical views by claiming that "justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person lives." In other words, since Wright emphasized a need to "work out your salvation," he's a damnable heretic.

The radio guy also dropped U-bomb on Wright, alluding to a hint of closet Universalism in this statement by Wright: "I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death."

What do you all think?