Another Nice Run

Ho hum.
Another Saturday - another nice six-mile run.
Not really.
Running six miles is a pretty big deal for me in my advancing age.

I am now 66 years old.
This is hard to believe sometimes.
If anyone had told me in high school that at age 66 I would be running 6 miles even once a week (as currently is the case), I would have told them that they were nuts.
But here I am, doing it.

I have retired from running about three times.
Each time thinking that I was too old to keep running.
And each time I have started a walking program, considered more "appropriate" for old geezers such as I by "health professionals", I have found that it feels like a waste of time.
I do not feel challenged physically, and I finish each session feeling like I could do more.
This latest resurrection of the activity began innocently enough, trying to find a more challenging walking course, soon progressed to running up the one mile hill, and finally, about a month ago, just getting crazy and going for the whole enchalada of the six-mile Cotton Row race course (which, for some reason, I dearly love).
(see the full story in my blog of May 8, 2010)

So, today, after an amazing session last week (six miles - no stops), I did not feel quite as strong as last week, so my breathing was more labored than I would have preferred.
But I did not have to stop to walk, even though Runner and Running Central were having a discussion in mile 5 about just a short walk to allow my breathing to settle down a bit.
But by then, I was almost finished (within 20 minutes or less), and it was mostly down-hill.
So no stops were sanctioned.

And .... no body parts broke.
No ankle attachments or connections were unhappy.
Same for knees.
My hips like to whine a bit beginning about mile three, but this is usually such low-level mumbling that I cannot even discern what exactly is the problem.

I am wonderfully blessed.
For all my ratty, less-than-ideal genetic construction (I plan to talk to God about this in heaven), I have managed to run virtually uninjured for the last six years.
The same cannot be said for many runners who are much stronger than I.
So, I am again happy and enjoying another endorphin high.
.

THE 2011 TORNADO DIARIES

DAY 1
Thursday April 28, 2011
7:12 PM

The power to Huntsville was taken down at about 4:30 PM yesterday afternoon as a giant (what we know now) F5 tornado ran north of town.
It missed my son's house by about a half mile.
It was a slab-scraper.

A state of emergency is boring.
Those of us who have been spared the tragedy that hit many others have little to do.
There are plus points as well as minus points to my plight.
Pluses
1 I am alive
2 all of my worldly goods are intact (if inoperable)
3 all of my family are alive and free of any damage
4 I have running water – hot and cold
5 I have gas to cook and to warm water
6 the weather after the storms is warm, so I am not cold.
7 I have food to last a week or so.
Minuses
1 I have no electricity – so no toys, music, etc
2 I am alone, lonely, bored.

Things could be worse – way worse.

So we/you learn to live like they did in the wild west - do what you can in the daylight, stay still and sleep when it is dark.
Seven days – that is how long “they” are saying it will be before we have electricity again.
If that is so-this year will end up with 51 weeks in it instead of 52.
There is not much to do without electricity.
I cannot work kuz I work on a computer.
No electricity – no computers
No computers – no work
No work – no business for me = boring

It could be worse – much worse – just sayin....

DAY 2
Friday April 29, 2011
12:43

Emptying out the refrigerator.
Throwing away food – this feels strange.
Drank the last of my milk.
I have about a quart more, but I do not trust its safety.
I started to read “History of the Christian Church”
8 volumes, first printed in 1858.

DAY 3
Saturday, April 30, 2011

Woo Hoo.
Today is running day.
Even though there are no stoplights and a dusk to dawn curfew – I ran.
6 miles.
No walking (except the lower half of Mountainwood Drive, as planned)
No signals.
No lights.
All the drivers were behaving themselves – stopping at every intersection with a dark stoplight , then proceeding.
I love it when we all play by the rools.

I cleaned my refrigerator today.
Cleaned all the little smudges and small accumulations of crumbs.
My refrigerator looks strange with its doors standing open, shelves empty.

Today would be food shopping day, but....
About half the food I would buy would go into my refrigerator – which is not working because we have no electricity – yet.
So, there is no point in going food shopping.
I still have some food to survive a few more days.
I ate my last two eggs this morning, so I will begin my new oatmeal and water diet for a few days.
“They” now estimate that the power will be back on Monday afternoon.

DAY 4
Sunday May 1, 2011

Breakfast = hot oatmeal + water + honey + cinnamon.
It was yummy.
It is cloudy today.
There is a chance of rain.

Driving to church today I saw many trees blown over (20+?)
Limited damage to buildings on the route that I took (I know it is MUCH worse in other areas just a mile or so from where I was)
I saw a few signs bent over, etc.

“Church” was strange today.
There was no preaching (there was no electricity at the church buildings), just testimonies.
Brother John read only one scripture – Ecclesiastes 3:1-9.
One family in the congregation lost their house in the storms.
They gave a good testimony.

After church, we had a “cook out” -type lunch (hamburgers, hot dogs, etc) for the community.
Two couples came (that I know of).
The rest of us ate well (as usual).
There was no evening service because of the county-wide dusk-to-dawn curfew.

At 11:08 PM the power came on at my house.

DAY 5
Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Good.
I am not comfortable feeling good that someone is dead, but I am very comfortable knowing that justice has been administered to someone with such evil intentions.

A half mile from my house, they still do not have power.
Some traffic signals work, some are still dark.
I went to a Walmart today which had power.
All of their refrigerated cases were empty (ALL + EMPTY).
ALL of the food had been sold or thrown away.
I bought milk (just being loaded into the bare refrigerated case as I arrived) and bread.
There were no eggs. :(

I am blessed.

The Ideal World Obama and his Friends want for you

While this view of our society has not been presented to the public in this detail, it has been presented in portions here and there by those who support Mr. Obama's socialist view. Some readers may object to some items in this list as undocumented, but rest assured, they have been published in proposed legislation or articles written by his supporters or current cabinet members.

In the society that Mr. Obama and his friends want you to live in, many choices you are free to exercise today, would not be available to you.

Easily half of your income would go to the federal, state, county, or city governments.
Taxes will be everywhere.
There will be a tax on your income,
a tax on your savings accounts,
a tax on things you buy,
a tax on things you sell,
a tax on every financial transaction you make,
a tax on things you own,
a tax on your electricity,
a tax on your house gas,
a tax on your internet,
a tax on your TV cable,
a tax on your phone line or cellphone,
a tax on your sewer line,
a tax on how much water your use,
a tax on the gasoline you use in your car,
a tax on the oil you use in your car,
a tax on the tires you buy for your car,
and tax on the size and kind of car you drive.
(You may notice that you already pay many of these taxes.)

In return, you would receive many requirements from various levels of government that would control many activities you participate in now.

You could receive medical care from government offices.
This medical care would be rationed by the government based on your age, the cost of the particular procedure requested, and limited facilities available to provide the requested procedure.
You might request a particular surgical operation but the government may only allow you to receive a drug to “control” the problem.
You would have no choice in how much you pay for you medical care – the cost would be controlled by a board of bureaucrats in washington DC.
You would not have a choice about whether to pay your medical care tax or not.
If you do not pay it, you will be fined.

For those who can afford it, dozens of free-enterprise-based medical communities will have developed along the southern border of the United States in Mexico.
This reactive free-enterprise zone will populated by thousands of American doctors and staff, who offer virtually any procedure or treatment needed by their mostly-American clientele.
This phenomenon will be matched by other similar medical communities in other nearby Latin-american and Caribbean countries for the same purpose.

You could build a new house, but where and how would be closely controlled.
Federal regulations would dictate the type of toilets, the size and placement of windows and doors, the type and size of heating and air conditioning equipment, the amount and type of insulation you could install, the type of materials and paint you could install.
Federal regulations may limit the colors you may choose to paint the outside of your house.

Most people will live in government-controlled apartments or houses.
Most landlords will be put out of business by government-mandated requirements for “fair housing” or “energy efficiency”.

Your utilities will be controlled by the government.
If your house, on a hot or cold day, uses more electricity than the government deems proper, it can turn off your electricity for whatever period of time it dictates.
If you use more water than the government has determined is appropriate for your size house or family, it can turn off your water for the rest of the day.
The government will tell you when you may operate your clothes dryer, washer and other appliances.
If you own an older house, the government will specify the type of windows, insulation, heating/AC, and appliances it must have before you will be allowed to sell it.
The owner will be required to bear the cost of these required improvements.
Wood-burning stoves would be illegal – even in mountain cabins in remote locations.

Most of your electricity will come from wind-driven power-generating machines or solar conversion farms.
On windless or cloudy days, electricity will be rationed.
The cost of this “green” electricity will be three to four times what it is today.
Coal-fired power plants will be shut down or used only as back-up when the “green” machines cannot meet power demand.
No new coal-fired power-generating plants will be built.
(But the United States will export coal to other nations of the world who seek it.)
No new nuclear-based power generating plants will be built in the United States.
(But Canada and Mexico will build both coal-fired and nuclear-based power-generating plants near our borders, and sell the power to the U.S.)

Domestic oil production will be reduced to a trickle because of restricted drilling license requirement.
Most gasoline will be imported from the middle east or other countries.
Gasoline will cost $10 to $20 a gallon.
Most people will not own cars or trucks.
Busses or trains will move most people in larger cities.
The number of car companies will be reduced by half as will the number of models each company markets.
Cars will be reduced in size and power to meet increasingly stringent fuel economy requirements.
Cross-country travel by personal vehicle will be reduced to half of what it is today or less.

Air travel will be limited to only the most wealthy.
Many airports will be shut down, or reduced to cargo-only terminals.

Because of the heavy tax burden, unemployment will be a massive 25-30 percent.
Because of the large proportion of people unemployed and living in government-controlled housing, crime will be rampant.
Drug distribution and ethnic gangs will control certain areas of cities and towns.
Since personal gun ownership will have been made illegal, only criminals will possess guns.
Jails and prisons will be overflowing with criminals.
Assaults, rapes and murders will be a daily occurrence in many cities and towns.
Gated communities with armed guards will be a common feature of many cities and towns.

Government schools will be reduced to unionized baby-sitting facilities.
Learning will be relegated to a second priority after safety for the few remaining students.
Drug use, sexual promiscuity, open homosexuality, gangs and bullying will overwhelm public school systems.
With little disposable income, most parents will have no choice but to subject their children to the diminished instructional value and personal insecurity of the public school systems.
Private schools will be taxed and required to teach government-mandated curriculum, devised by the teachers unions.
These same public teachers unions will have prevailed upon federal and state legislative bodies to outlaw home school organizations and/or require the inclusion of government-mandated curriculum, to include state-controlled testing to ensure that the state-mandated subject matter was presented.

But this scenario will not last for long.
The shear magnitude of the cost of the government-run programs and the ever-shrinking economy will combine to produce a massive collapse of the American economy by 2020.
.

AN EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT

This phrase came to me soon after I heard the news that someone I was close to had died.
The news was a shock.
She was only 45 years old.

I am not sure how we came to meet her or know her situation.
It was 1984 or so.
She was 15 at the time and having family problems, personal problems, and, not surprisingly, spiritual problems.
There were problems with drugs and sex and alcohol – serious issues for a fifteen year old.
Things that I was not sure I knew how to help with.
I also was sure God could help her, but it would take her cooperation.
That was not a sure thing at the outset.

With the permission of her mother, and the girl's consent, we agreed to take her in.
I do not know how we came to this decision.
She lived with us for about two years.
Soon after she moved in she received salvation and began living the strict way we followed.
About the same time, God gave me a father's love for the girl.
This was misunderstood by nearly everyone around us – including my wife.
But it did not matter to me.
I knew what God had given me, and I knew how it shaped my relationship with the girl.
There was never anything inappropriate in me toward her.
Never.
I loved her as my daughter.
I did my best to build a relationship with her.
I wanted her to have a father that she could trust and respect.

We went through several emotional and spiritual episodes with her in those two years or so.
She ran away once.
Only to be found by that evening.
The question to her then was, “do you want to go home to live with your mother, or do you want to continue to stay with us?”
She elected to stay, even with the understanding that the relationship would now be different.
She stayed and blossomed again.

At one point we even considered adopting her.
This was discussed with her mother.
I do not remember why we did not follow through with the idea, but it was never pursued to completion.

Time passed.
Circumstances in her family changed and finally, the girl felt that she needed to return to her mother.
We understood.
It was hard to see her go.
It would be a spiritual challenge for her, as well.
Minutes after she had driven off with her mother, I remember sitting on her bed with my oldest son, who was about eight years old at the time, crying.
He wanted to know why she had to go.
I had no answer that could ease his tears or mine.
That was around 1985 or 1986.

It was not long before she stopped coming to church.
For part of the time she was with us I went through a clinical depression that lasted about two years, I gradually recovered.
To this day, I do not understand exactly why this happened to me.
It was one of the most bizarre times in my life.

About thirteen or fourteen years later, because of some (more) personal problems, she moved in with us for a couple of weeks.
She had a daughter then, who was about 12 or so.
This meeting was different for several reasons.
She was less pliable spiritually and less inclined to conform to the same strict standards we still followed.
She was an adult now.
She was not the confused, scared girl we had known before.
My wife and I, were having our own problems.
We were both interested in helping her, but the help we could provide would be different than our last encounter with her.
When she left us this time, it was the last time I would see her alive.

Then came the news this week – she was dead.
Suddenly.
Seemingly without a cause.
It had been years since I had seen her. (12?)
And I had gone months or years at a time without thinking of her.
But as soon as the sad news came to me, my mind flooded with memories of her and her time with our family.
I was surprised at the strength of my mental and emotional reaction to it.

That is when I realized the concept of Emotional Investment.
I had given her my heart – in a fatherly way, and she, in turn, had loved me and respected me as a father.
My wife had done the same, I am sure.
My wife and I had stood up to her when she had disobeyed, showing her the unconditional love she had failed to receive from her natural father.
She had submitted to the rules of the family.
Our children had loved and adopted her also.
The Emotional Investment was shared among us.

It had come from time spent with one another.
Sharing, opening up, giving, receiving, growing – individually and together.
And even though you separate and even forget about the person, you never really get away from the Emotional Investment you have made.
It is true of parents and children.
It is true of husbands and wives.
It is something that can sleep as if dormant, but just the mention of her name, and the depth and magnitude of the Emotional Investment comes alive again.
And you feel the love and commitment you gave and shared.

I felt it as I looked at the body of the woman in the casket today.
I never thought I would be in this situation.
But I was.
Looking at a woman that I had given my heart to as a father, so many years ago. (25)
Part of me did not want to look.
It was too painful.
I did not want to see her like this.

Another part of me wanted to see her again.
To rip the scab off my heart and feel the blood flowing and the pain again.
And tell her that her “other” daddy still loves her.

Her life did not turn out to be the one I had prayed for.
She never found happiness with a man, that I know of.
She continued to have problems with alcohol and drugs off and on, I heard.
And she never returned to the spiritual peace she once had, that I know of.

While some of this can be attributed to the traumatic events of her early teen years, much of it is the result of decisions she made.
She chose this life.
She chose a life that would end this way.
In spite of what the preacher said today, I do not believe she was saved.
I wish I could say otherwise.
And I hope I am wrong.
God knows for sure.
But just going on what I know about her life in recent years, I see an unhappy, unfulfilled life.
I wanted something better than this for her.
And that is part of what I did not want to see today.
An Emotional Investment is costly.

American Negrocentrism

Lately I was impressed with how many laws, social customs, legal and financial elements in contemporary American society have been affected by the minority Negro population here. To be more precise, many practices and processes of American society have been altered from a normal color-blind pattern of operation, based on the merits of each individual transaction, to an unbalanced distorted process imposed either by government or certain groups in society to avoid possible discrimination against those members of society with dark skin. This has caused an opposite effect where many operations and processes are openly tilted to favor the negro minority in this country.

Let me say up front that it is true that in times past, the negro population of this country has been treated poorly by some elements of the white population. Sadly, this was true even into the 1970's. Most of the black people who came to the United States in the first 100 years or so of our history did not come here by choice. Or at least, did not arrive here with the same freedom to choose their destiny that most of the caucasian population did.

Most of them were shipped here as slaves – as property – to be bought and sold by their owners, as they would a mule or shovel. Some slave owners were horribly cruel to their slaves, others were more kind, most were somewhere in between. There are plenty of stories of all types to document these statements.

But let's put some things in perspective. Slavery is not unique to the United States in the 1700 to mid-1800's. Slavery is nearly as old as mankind. It is a fact of history that the stronger of two families/clans/tribes/societies/nations will sometimes subjugate the weaker. It was happening before the United States came into existence. It is happening now around the world in various places. And Negros are not the only race being subjugated, then or now. In many cases, it has been African groups who enslaved other Africans.

Thus, the negro slavery experience in the United States was no better or worse than that of many other people in other places or times. This is not meant to diminish the inhumanity of it, but to provide some balance to a subject that has been distorted and perpetuated beyond its reality.

None of this is stated to diminish the repugnant circumstances that slavery entails. It is repulsive to me now and has been since I learned of it as a child. This was generally true in early America as well. Most Americans were not comfortable with the institution of slavery in their territory and many worked diligently to end it. Elections were won or lost because of the issue, laws were passed in new territories and states to prohibit its spread outside of the southern states. But it took a war to force an end to the social and economic system that had developed in the south. And in one sense, the social and economic wounds of the period of slavery in the United States have never healed. We are living with them to this day. Hence, this paper.

Basically, many customs of society and policies of governments in the United States revolve around the negro minority in this nation. The lingering white guilt over our past regional experiment with slavery has caused policies and customs of our entire nation to revolve around our relatively small negro population. In a real sense, this residual guilt and constant remembrance has stood American society on it head.

Consider this: when one buys a house, part of the transaction is a government-mandated certification by the lender that it did not discriminate in its selection process because the skin color of the applicant. This is done to force banks to provide loans to some people who cannot afford to pay them back or, if governed strictly by rules of prudent risk evaluation, would not be given a loan in the amount requested. But banks were forced to do this under threat that their charters would not be renewed by federal regulators if they did not engage in such risky transactions.

Companies must certify to the government under pain of large fines and/or lawsuits that they hire a certain percentage of black applicants. The code term was “affirmative action”. In reality it is simply compulsory hiring of unqualified people with dark skin. In a similar way, companies must go through rigorous and extensive steps to fire a black employee because of these same laws.

I personally know of one black-skinned person who was kept on the payroll of a large corporation for years because she threatened to sue the company for racial discrimination if they tried to dismiss her. She was incompetent, surly, uncooperative, and lazy. She did what she was asked if she felt like it and did nothing when that suited her. I personally saw her engaged in both types of activities at various times.

Colleges have developed reverse discrimination “affirmative action” programs to ensure that they have a certain percentage of black students attending their institution, even though many of these students are not academically qualified. They are there BECAUSE they have black skin, not because of their scholastic abilities. This is a monumental insult to negro students who DO have sufficient academic abilities to attend such institutions. The dropout rate of these AA trophy students is 85 percent. A testimony to the complete failure of these type of programs to produce anything other than theatrics for the media. These are the same people who have tried to stand the laws of economics and society on their head to enforce outcome-based programs in other areas.

Virtually all federal welfare programs are aimed at the poor portion of our negro minority. We have spent trillions of dollars funding housing, food, rental assistance, recreational facilities/programs, and job training programs for them. While it is true that some white families benefit from these programs, the majority of the recipients are black. Their proportion of participation in taxpayer-financed welfare programs is far out of proportion to their percentage of the overall population.

In addition to taxpayer-financed welfare programs, the negro population receives a large proportion of taxpayer-financed services in the criminal justice system. A greater percentage of black-skinned people are criminals than all other races in this country, as measured as a percentage of each racial group. Fully, twenty percent of all black men have a criminal record. This is double the average for other racial groups in the U.S.

Crime in many negro neighborhoods is rampant (and is spread outside them, as well). Some areas are so dangerous, that the police do not go in them during certain times. To this problem, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on combating negro crime, out of proportion to that spent on crime by other individual racial groups.

There are special programs in government contracting to ensure that “minority-owned” companies are given PREFERENCE in the bidding for government contracts. Thus, a company that is not qualified to bid on a government contract because it does not have the capacity or expertise can be granted the contract simply because it is owned by a person with black skin. Again, “reverse discrimination” has stood normal economic processes on their head.

Fear of negro advocacy groups has abrogated some of our constitutional rights. For instance, when a local Housing Authority seeks to buy a property in a neighborhood (it is understood that the authority is going to place a negro family there because that is what they usually do), the citizens of that neighborhood cannot reverse the decision for fear that a lawsuit be filed by the federal Housing and Urban Development agency or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Thus, the very fundamental operation of democracy is halted, for fear of Negro-centric legal action.

These social, economic and political distortions are primarily aimed at the American negro population. The Asian-american people do not need such social/economic crutches from the government to be successful in our society. Immigrants from India do not need such special hand-outs to be successful in our society. Most Latino immigrants to this nation, legal AND illegal, do not need any special social or economic provisions to become successful in American society. In fact, the fact that so many Latino immigrants choose to sneak into this country illegally is proof that American society is basically color/race-blind and will assimilate anyone willing to work to pay their own way. These non-black people settle into poor neighborhoods and begin work or school and gradually work their way up and out of the poorer areas and into middle class neighborhoods, with little or no government assistance.

The wording in many programs may say “racial” but most people see that its application is skewed toward “negro”. And, yes, other racial groups benefit from these programs to some degree, so the politicians and the networks can say, they were not just thinking of their most vocal and self-conscious minority constituency.

While I do not consider myself a “racist”, there are many people – both white and black – who will disagree. Most of these people are not objective on the matter. They have a vested interest in perpetuating a negro race-sensitive awareness in society. For it is with this negro hyper-sensitivity that they achieve and maintain power over both black and white portions of the American society. They are the new slave masters of America.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their white apologists need a perceived poor, suffering black population on which to stand to build their power. They need to constantly remind as much of the the black population as possible that they are still poor slaves because of the racist, rich white people who control the economy and seek to keep them poor. This is exactly what “reverend” Jeremiah Wright preaches. And these people need to constantly perpetuate the guilt of the white population by reminding them of the misdeeds of their ancestors. Through this dual deception, these leaders perpetuate the slave mentality in the black minority and the guilt-generated financing by the white population.

Any comments perceived as undermining their distortion of the racial situation in this nation is immediately, and loudly, labeled as “racist”. This epithet is enthusiastically disbursed by the news media because it will increase viewer interest for a day or two or three, and thus, prop up advertising rates. Thus, perpetuating the “racist” myth, is good for business. And no politician wants to receive such a label, no matter how absurdly applied. And it is almost universally applied to Republicans by the media and those whose power base is the downtrodden negro masses, who still believe it is their lot in life to be poor.

It is the reason that Rush Limbaugh was fired from an ESPN sports program because he stated that the reason player Donavan McNabb did not receive more criticism for his poor performance was because he was black. The statement, while just an opinion, was probably true, but virtually no one accepted the statement on its merits. All that could be seen or heard was the blind screeching of the New Slave Masters on the news networks of, “racist”.

It should be stated for further clarity and balance, that many Americans with black skin are not part of these distortions. This group could be as much as half the black population in the United States. Many have risen from poor beginnings to become productive members of our society. They do not see themselves as once-removed slaves and doomed to be wards of the state. Many grew up in middle class homes and have a value system dissimilar from those who live in the urban projects on the public dole. Children of these families are more focused on academics and career. And the young men know how to dress so that their pants stay above their buttocks.

Those in the previous paragraph notwithstanding, because of all of the above-mentioned distortions, it is sadly ironic that many Negros have become economic slaves to the white tax-paying population. The very outcome they have been (over)promised, and which then seek to avoid has been built around them by their leaders and “protectors”. A significant proportion of black Americans see themselves as unable - or are unwilling - to join with the productive majority of society, and are content to live off of the provisions given to them by guilt-responsive white politicians funded by the taxes paid by the majority of the white population.

So, in a sense, nothing has changed since 1860, except that negro slavery is no longer limited to 15 southern states.

Scriptural Unity vs COG "Unity"

When I ponder various issues, I sometimes write my thoughts as single statements or questions. This method/format often helps me organize my thoughts and clarify details or confused thinking. The following is such an exercise....


1 The acceptance of “the truth” has been used as a method to create division, for fear of allowing “false doctrine” into the “true” church.
2 As the Church of God, we should never compromise our understanding of the truths of the Bible revealed to us, for any reason.
3 We should open our fellowship and interactions with other churches to include those who are saved there, even if they do not “believe like us”.
4 We should acknowledge our different understandings of the scriptures, discuss them, search the scriptures together that relate to them, but maintain active fellowship between individuals in the other groups (churches).
5 “Correct” doctrine should not be the test of fellowship between professed believers.
6 Said another way, the use of “false doctrine” as a reason for division is not always scriptural.
7 Question: Which doctrines are important enough to divide over, and which doctrines are not.
8 Is unity between believers more important than agreement on doctrines?
9 While false doctrine (beliefs, commandments, practices, theological and spiritual constructs not based on correct interpretation of the bible) can (and has) destroyed the spiritual life of many people, this is not necessarily so for every “false” doctrine.
10 Which is more damaging to the body of believers, division, or failure to understand all Biblical content exactly alike?
11 Some doctrines allow believers to continue to commit sin and still believe they are saved (from sin) and going to heaven.
12 This is intolerable to other believers who see salvation from sin as not allowing any more sin in their lives.
13 Holiness, or sinlessness, is a Biblically defensible requirement for all believers, and is generally acknowledged by both sides.
14 But even those who subscribe to holiness doctrine acknowledge that young believers might/will commit sinful acts ignorantly until they grow in scriptural knowledge about such transgressions.
15 So, what is the difference? Some believers commit sins innocently and are still saved, others commit sins because of doctrinal (mis)understanding, and may still be saved.
16 Conformity to an erroneous doctrine may be viewed by God as the same as innocent ignorance to scriptural commands.
17 Who really knows how God judges doctrinal/biblical misunderstanding in people?

………………….

Personal Spiritual Priorities:

1 Obey God (read: God’s spirit and word (the Bible)). Ecclesiastes 12:13
2 Accept all other professed believers (assuming no sinful/offensive behavior).
3 Comply with the local church congregation practices (assuming no conflicts with the above).
4 “Live at peace with all people as much as you are able”. (Hebrews 12:14, Romans 12:18)
5 Do good to all people especially to those of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10)
6 Do good works (this requires personal time).
7 Keep the unity of the spirit as we all come to the unity of the faith. (Ephesians 4:3-13)
8 Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 19:19)

NEW CAR FEVER

This is to confess that I have developed a case of new car fever.
This is strictly an emotional malady because there is no logical reason for me to NEED a new(er) car.
I lay the blame for my illness on the designers at Hyundai and Kia – sister companies, based in Korea.

I never thought I would be lusting after any Korean car brand, but I am.
It started with the 2010 Hyundai Sonata.
The previous version of this car looked okay.
I liked it.
It was conservative but had no bothersome traits.
I liked it enough to think positively about it without wanting one.

But when I saw the first pictures of the 2010 Sonata, I was stunned.
I loved it.
It looked sleek and swoopy and daring.
MUCH better-looking than the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry.
And since then, I have seen several driving around and they look even better in person.
They did an excellent job on this piece.

Then came the 2010 Hyundai Tucson.
They swooped it up, too, and I liked it also.
Then came the 2011 Hyundai Elantra.
They turned this rather bland vehicle into a junior version of the Sonata.
And I liked it also.

Then Kia released the 2011 Optima -their version of the Sonata.
It looks like a big BMW – only sleeker, and cleaner.
Wow.

Then I saw the 2011 Kia Forte line.
They generally match the Honda Civic in size and performance, but look WAY better.
AND... they make a 5-door hatchback model.
I very like hatchbacks.
I have had two and have been very happy with them.
(Honda no longer makes Civics in a hatchback configuration.)
Although Honda makes good (read: durable) cars, no hatchback Civic models and dorky looks have them at the bottom of my wish list.
(the Honda Fit is a hatchback, but is too small, gets only average gas mileage, and looks like the Pope-mobile.)

THEN (ta-da) I saw the 2011 Kia Sportage compact SUV (or cross-over or whatever they want to call it).
To my eye it looks even better than the Hyundai Tucson (its corporate cousin).
And the more I saw of it, the more I wanted one.
It looks WAY better than the Honda C-RV and gets WAY better gas mileage.
That pretty much did me in.
I wanted a new car.
One of THESE new cars.

So here I am, stewing in new sheet metal envy.
There is just one problem....
I don't need a new car.
The one I have is doing just fine.
I even still like the way it looks – sort of.
But it is eleven years old.
It has 104,000 miles on it.
It might break some day.
(my last Honda was 13 years old and had 250,000+ miles on it when I sold it. Still ran like a top.)
I still like it - sort of, but I am tired of it.
Actually, I was not tired of my present car (a 2000 Honda Civic hatchback, BTW) until I saw the new Hyundai's and Kia's.
And I like the 2012 Ford Focus hatchback, too. (never thought I would like a Ford...)

Then there is the financial issue.
I could afford a new car payment – but I don't want one.
I will not be able to pay cash for a new car like I did my present vehicle.
My investment decisions have not been blessed with the increase that they were in 1999.
So I will have to encumber myself with a car loan and its associated monthly payments.
Most likely, this is doable, but I do not like the idea of having another large debt.
And Dave Ramsey would frown on this transaction.
But I want a new car.
Certainly it will be my last.
I may not live to see the final payment. (sorry, kids....)

So, what to do?
I am still arguing with myself and playing with EPA numbers and annual costs to try to logically justify such an illogical, un-necessary purchase.

The Lexingtons

[the following is a chapter from my still-in-progress autobiography.]

The Lexingtons

For about three years I was a member of a small musical group. Given my shyness at that time in my life, this is still amazing to me. First, some background:

In 1958, a new musical group called the Kingston Trio had the number one-selling song in the nation, “Tom Dooley”. This song was not a rock and roll tune as was typical for the times. There were no electric instruments in it. In fact, there was a banjo in it. It was the beginning of a wave of popularity for a simple style of music called “Folk Music”. It was played with acoustic instruments and simple vocal harmonies and much of the material was old songs written in the 1700’s, 1800’s or early 1900's. The person most responsible for the popularity of “folk” music was Harry Belafonte who had several popular songs in the late 1950’s. They were a mixture of folk and calypso styles of music. Calypso is a style of music common in the Caribbean islands. End of background.

I first learned of the Kingston Trio while visiting my natural father, Frank. He had their first album. We played it and I liked it. A few weeks later I bought a copy for myself. From then on, every four to six months a new Kingston Trio album came out and I bought a copy as soon as I could. Interestingly, I had heard “Tom Dooley” on the radio but never liked the song. It was often requested by our listeners, and we sang it for them, but I did not like doing it.

The evening that changed my life came when me and several friends (male and female) went to see the Kingston Trio and the Dave Brubeck Quartet at the Hollywood Bowl in 1962. I came away from that evening with a desire to learn to sing and play that kind of music on the guitar. A neighbor kid, Terry Parker had received a cheap Stella guitar a year or so before for Christmas and seldom played it. I offered to buy it for ten dollars. He agreed, and I had a guitar. It only had four strings on it, so before I could learn to play, I had to buy a new set of strings. I did and the journey began.

I practiced almost every afternoon or evening, learning to place my fingers on the strings in just the right places to make the chords. Pressing on the strings was a bit difficult and after an hour or two the ends of the fingers on my left hand were purple from the abuse. But I kept at it. And after a few months I could play along with many of the songs on the Kingston Trio records I owned.

(the following is based on a history of our group I wrote around 1965)

In the spring of 1963 a folk singing club was formed a Canoga Park high school, in response to popular demand. Shortly afterward, a small group of volunteers was requested to sing at an upcoming Friday night “Sports Night” (a school social event of games, music and dancing)

A group of seven from the club performed. It was a sloppy performance in my opinion. The material was well-known generally to accommodate the limited rehearsal time for the performers, rather than to please the audience. I was embarrassed by the poor quality of the performance.

Among these seven was the son of Mrs. Shank, the teacher/sponsor of the folk singing club, Erik Shank. Though he had graduated the year before, he was included in the group because he could play the banjo. (an almost “required” instrument for playing folk music at the time.)

In spite of the sloppy performance, the group was well received and was asked to sing again a couple of weeks later at another Sports Night. For various reasons, the group diminished to four members, all of whom had participated in the previous performance. Me, Jim Sinclair and John Gretzinger played guitar, while Erik played the banjo. We sang four songs.

Whereas the first group of seven had been a hastily formed association with divergent musical interests and motives, the latter group of four had more in common. John and I went to the same church. All of us had similar tastes in folk music.

(the reader should understand that the folk music audience in those days had two factions – the “purists” and the “commercial” patrons. The purists, the smaller of the two factions, insisted that old folk songs be performed exactly as they have been since they were written, with the most simple chord structure and harmony. They disliked the more commercial form of “folk” music, and openly criticized those who performed it. The common features of most “authentic” folk music was bad singing, boring arrangements, and long songs that told a story. The commercial fans cared less about “purity” of performance or arrangement and just wanted to hear good acoustic music, even if the “folk” song they were listening to had been written a few months earlier by a commercial writer and only sounded like it was an old song.)

We in the group were all of the commercial persuasion. And we all liked the Kingston Trio – the leaders of the commercial folk music fad.

I may have been the first one of us to seriously suggest that we form a permanent group. This was done after the group of seven had performed but before the foursome had played. This is a strange desire from someone so shy as myself at that time, but I enjoyed singing and playing this kind of music. (I must have really enjoyed it to overpower my shyness!)

It was agreed that the group would be only a hobby. We never expected to earn any money and no one was going to quite his job to become a “star”. The goal was to become as good, musically, as possible and perform in the local area. The group started out as a foursome but Jim soon dropped out because of his busy schedule. This left the trio of Erik, John and me. We briefly discussed finding a replacement for Jim. But we reasoned if the Kingston Trio was successful as a trio (duh) then we could be successful as a trio.

If you were going to be a group in this field, you needed a name. Finding a name for the group at this time was difficult. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of wannabe folk groups in the area, as well as professional groups springing up all over the country to capitalize on the folk music tidal wave.

For one of our early engagements in November 1963, we called ourselves The Chanteymen. The name was my idea, taken from a type of folk music called a “sea chantey” – songs sung by sailors as they worked. None of us was too taken by the name. It was in January 1964 that we settled on the name, The Lexingtons. I was the one who came up with the name, I think. Again, we were not completely happy with the name but it was the best we could find in the blizzard of folk groups at the time.

If I was going to play in a folk group in front of people, I needed a better sounding guitar than my plywood Stella. I saved up my money and soon bought a Martin D-18. It was not the model I really wanted (I really wanted a Martin D-28 but they were very expensive) but it was a Martin – the same brand that the Kingston Trio played.

It may be difficult for you to imagine what it was like back then. Imagine going into a music store to buy an acoustic guitar only to find just five or ten acoustic guitars in the whole store. Most of them were cheap “learners” like my Stella. Some stores we went into had none! Zero. (The waiting time for some models of Martin guitars was over six months. For certain Gibson and Epiphone guitars it was three months.) The fad-driven demand for guitars was so strong that Martin had to build a new factory in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. There was a world-wide shortage of rosewood – used in making some guitars.

Unfortunately, I soon found that my D-18 sounded too loud and bright with weak bass. I wanted a more mellow sound. I tried all sorts of things to modify the sound of my Martin – different picks, different strings, stuffing the sound box with foam or cloth - but nothing worked.

We worked all summer of 1963 putting together a one hour program of songs. Most of the material was from the Kingston Trio but there were a few songs from other similar groups. Our first engagement was at a Hootenanny (the term for a gathering where folk music was performed) at the Lutheran church that John and I attended on September 1, 1963. We did nineteen songs, twelve were from the Kingston Trio. [I should point out that we did not use sheet music or notes to help us remember the words of our songs during our performances. We sang all of our material from memory.]

This endeavor was so important and satisfying to me that I started a scrapbook – something I have never done before or since - and recorded most of the events and songs that we sang. I even saved the little three by five cards that I taped to my guitar to remember the program. Somehow this scrapbook has survived forty-four years of storage and moving. Somewhere late in this process, I wrote a narrative about our little folk group, from which this article is based.

On September 15, just two weeks later, we performed again at a church function. This time it was the Annual Ice Cream Social. We sang three songs as well as three “sing along” songs requested by some adults to better engage the audience. The following month, on October 30, 1963, we played at the Annual Father and Daughter Funfest at the Lutheran church where we played four songs.

A few days later, on November 3, 1963, we played at a special Hootenanny for the youth group at Saint Luke’s Lutheran church. We called ourselves the Chantymen and did seventeen songs for the mostly female audience. I was beginning to like this idea of mine even more than I thought I would.

The following month we played at the Canoga Park High School French Club dinner, doing thirteen songs for the mostly female audience. About this same time we played at a Jewish Temple social event, a dance and dinner, if I recall correctly. We played five songs. The dates of these two events are not recorded. They were to be our last gigs with John.

John was forced to drop out because his parents thought there was too much difference in our ages. John was still in high school while Erik and myself were now in college. None of us were happy with this situation and we parted on good terms.

It was during this time of hunting for a new member that an important relationship was formed. A young man from the Lutheran church I attended expressed his interest in playing in a folk group. He about my age and his name was Dave Griffey. During some casual playing we found that he was a good guitar player (better than me) and a good singer (also better than me). We would find that he had a sense of stage presence that added more energy and sparkle to the more laid-back nature of Erik and myself.

He and another guy, Mike Lanphier, joined Erik and I to practice for a performance at the 1964 Cleveland High school Talent Show on January 3,1964. This was the first time we billed ourselves as “The Lexingtons”. Being a new group, we were nervous and because there were four of us, the technical people decided to give us two microphones. This spread us out on the stage and made us look like two groups. We sang two songs. Afterwards, word from friends in the audience ranged from they “could not hear” us, to “we sounded bad”. After the performance we found that only one of the mikes was turned on. We were not happy with this performance.

On February 3, 1964, the four of us played in a small club called The Pump Room. I do not know how we found out about this venue. It may have come through Mike. I have only vague recollections of this place (somewhere on Ventura Boulevard with blue lights shining on the building and a water fountain/pool outside?). We sang three songs. After this Mike left the group. He had a new girlfriend and between school and other activities, he did not have time to practice with us.

I should point out here that we were very serious about practicing. We tried to practice two or three times a month, and several times during the week just before a date. Each rehearsal session would last from two to four hours. And we sang most of that time. We worked at it. We had fun and laughed a lot, but we were serious about our sound. We wanted to sound as good as the professionals. We worked on our harmonies. We also spent a lot of time on beginnings and endings – starting and stopping together. These were exercises in timing – critical to a polished sound.

At the same time, we did not want to sound exactly like our mentors, The Kingston Trio. We wanted to develop our own style and sound. Basically, we used the material we borrowed from the professional groups as a base on which to build our own sound. This rather rigorous schedule put off our less motivated members who had other things going on in their life. I add this to dispel the possible impression that the guys that left our group were less talented or capable than those of us who stayed. Not necessarily so. Erik and I just worked them too hard.

On May 22, 1964, The Lexingtons – as a trio – performed at the Lutheran church Pot-luck Dinner. For reasons now forgotten (job?), Dave could not join Erik and I for this engagement, and John Gretzinger filled in. Blast from the past. We sang three songs.

On June 14, 1964, Dave rejoined Erik and myself at the annual Lutheran church Bar-B-Q dinner. We sang five songs that evening. Then Dave, busy with a summer job and other personal business (perhaps there was a girl in there somewhere) left the group. But this was not the last we would see of Dave.

The search for a new member began with a newspaper ad and several three by five cards posted on bulletin boards in area music stores and colleges. One ad for a new member paid off. A young man named Tom Drosman called me one evening. The interview was brief and we made an appointment to audition him in my back patio. We found that Tom knew some of the songs we sang, could sing okay, play guitar passably and he liked the Kingston Trio style of folk music. He was “hired” and we started to practice to get him up to speed on our arrangements.

Our first engagement with Tom was at the annual Ice Cream Social at the Lutheran church in September 1964. We sang four songs. Soon afterward, Tom introduced Erik and myself to a friend of his, Bill Botticher (pronounced “bettiger”), an acoustic bass player. After a rehearsal wherein Bill joined us to see if we could work together, he became the sometime fourth member of the group. Bill was an excellent bass player, had a good sense of humor, and had a good ear for music that provided valuable input to our arrangements as we worked on new material.

The new group of Erik, Steve, Tom and Bill played at the Canoga High School French Club Christmas dinner, on December 21, 1964, doing 12 songs and two encores (!).

My quest for the “perfect” sounding guitar culminated in my buying an Epiphone guitar from a music store called Zepp’s. This was done by violating the golden rule of guitar buying - never buy a guitar without hearing and playing it first. I did this because he had the best price I could find for this instrument model in a seller’s market. With no guitars in his store, the store owner took my money and ordered it from the Epiphone factory. The delivery date was from sixty to ninety days. After a couple of months, I called Zepp’s every Saturday morning to inquire if my guitar had come in. Finally, one Saturday the answer was, yes. Erik and I drove over to the store and picked it up. Finally, I had a guitar that I liked. I sold my Martin to Tom. He was thrilled and I was too.

On January 15.1965, we played at a Canoga Park High School Sports Night, doing nine songs, and again, two encores.

After this last event, Tom became increasingly preoccupied with a new female companion and it was difficult to schedule our long practice sessions. Finally, we told Tom we had to have someone we could count on. Unable to promise this, Tom left the group. The breakup was amicable but disappointing. Erik and I began – again - look for another, more dependable - and available - member. Bill agreed to stay with us, much to the delight of Erik and I.

The replacement for Tom was a familiar person – Dave Griffey. His schedule was different now and he wanted to get back with us. After a couple of practice sessions, this new/old group (including Bill on bass) played another Canoga Park High School Sports Night on March 19, 1965, singing seven songs plus an encore.

On April 11, 1965, Erik, Dave, Bill, and myself played at a little folk club in Hollywood called The Garret. The program was open (only) to amateurs on Friday or Saturday night, and each person or group was limited to a maximum of three songs. Most of the acts were solo kids singing dreary Bob Dylan antiwar dirges, or their own whiney compositions of similar ilk. Knowing that this crowd was composed of many “purists”, we wondered if The Lexingtons would be booed off the stage.

After putting our name on the program list, we went out in the back parking lot to tune up and practice one last time. Big mistake. The weather that evening was unusually cold for southern California – about 40 degrees. Our breath turned to fog as we sang. After bringing our instruments in from the cold to the warm little club we waited for our turn to play.

When our name was called and we crowded onto the little six by six stage and hit our first chord we realized we were badly out of tune and spent the next minute or so in front of the restless crowd re-tuning our instruments. (steel guitar strings are very sensitive to temperature. Tuning our instruments in the cold and then going into a warm club caused the strings to warm up and stretch out of tune. It was a lesson we never forgot.)

We did three songs (two of them Kingston Trio covers) and, to our surprise and delight, we brought down the house. The crowd called us back for two encores. The owner/manager of the club was not happy. She evidently felt that we were professionals that had crashed her little amateur program. We knew better and left the club elated. It was the greatest of compliments to be accused of being a professional group.

On May 22, 1965 we played at the UNICO National Dinner at the invitation from, of all people, Tom Drosman. (UNICO is an organization that celebrates the heritage of Italian Americans) We played four songs to a huge crowd of several hundred. I was terrified at the ocean of people sitting at the dozens of tables in the big auditorium. We were largely ignored but received several compliments from a handful of attendees after our performance.

Our next gig came on September 14, 1965 when we played at the UCLA Phi Kappa Sigma Fraternity rush party. We did three sets of six songs each. In between sets we visited with some of the college guys and several of our girl friends who came along. Back stage, we sang along with some of the rock and roll songs that were played as background music for the party.

We sang two or three songs at a talent show at Canoga Park high school. I did not record when this event took place, but it seems that it was late in our short career. The highlight of the event was when we were singing “Hard Ain’t It Hard”. I was supposed to sing the second verse as a solo, as usual on this song. It was a fast song and the group was getting into it, I was pumped and ready to do my part, but when I stepped up to the microphone, my mind went totally blank. I could not remember any of the words I was supposed to sing. I had been listening and singing this song for four or five years. I knew all of the verses by memory, yet, at this moment I stood there looking at the packed auditorium, helplessly strumming my guitar along with the rest of the group, wishing I could disappear under the stage. At the end of my blown verse, Erik looked at me with a murderous expression as he joined the group in the chorus. I had no problem remembering the chorus as I sang along. In fact, as soon as I stepped away from the mic, I remembered my verse – too late. It was the only time in all of our performances that something like that happened to me.

Our last engagement as a group was on October 1, 1965 where we again played a Canoga Park High School Sports Night. We sang five songs and did one encore.

The Vietnam war was raging and my student deferment had been changed to 1-A – prime meat for going to war. At the suggestion of my dad, I paid a visit to the local Army recruiter and enlisted in the United States Army. I was scheduled to go in on February 14, 1966. The Lexingtons were finished.

During the three years that the group had been together, popular folk music had changed. It had evolved from re-done mountain tunes and pseudo folk compositions played on acoustic instruments, to a blend of contemporary/political songs performed with electric instruments and drums. This shift in “folk” music is widely credited to Bob Dylan, and he surely had some influence on the evolution of the genre. But he was not the first to employ an electric instrument to folk material. The first to do it was a southern California club singer named Trini Lopez, who released a version of “If I Had A Hammer” on his album “Live At PJ’s in Hollywood”. We heard the song many times and disdained the sound of electric instruments and drums on “our” songs. That was rock and roll. We liked rock and roll, but we did not like the blending of folk and rock and roll instrumentation. Unfortunately for us, most everyone else did.

The effect of this release, and others, was to sweep the base of popularity for acoustic folk music out from under the style of music The Lexingtons played, leaving them (and hundreds of groups like them) with no one to play for.

And so, through the rising din of electric music, Steve, Erik, Dave, and Bill played their last engagement together in the same building where the group had started. Their last notes, and the group, drifted away and were quickly forgotten by all but a handful of people, scattered by the winds of time and circumstance, never to be resurrected again.

(Pretty poetic, huh?)

New Picture for my blog

Since I was able to visit my sister in Portland over the Christmas holiday, and we were able to go to the coast one day during my visit, and we were blessed with a beautiful (if cold) day at a famously picturesque spot, and the weather was excellent for picture-taking, and we were blessed with a beautiful sunset, and I was able to take over 150 pictures of the area in various shades of bright sunlight, and I was able to take several pleasing pictures of the sunset, I thought I would replace my previous heading picture of the Oregon coast with a new picture of the Oregon coast.

So I did.
Hope you like it.

This is also my new desktop image.
The location is Cannon Beach.
And, yes, I did tweak the colors a bit, but not as much as I did on the picture that was here previously.

By Request - Some Thots on Romans 5

The following is a response to a request by Chad and Jamie.
...............................

WARNING! Some of what you are about to read is considered heresy by many Christian theologians. Consider carefully what you are reading before you accept any idea presented herein.
..............................

The following is a portion of a larger Bible study on why all people are sinners. In the course of this study, using only the Bible as my source material, I came to a conclusion that I was told later was heresy. This paper is currently under review by a minister and will be published on the internet later. Your comments and questions are welcome.
..............................

Let us examine one of the most extensive passages of scripture on the subject of sin.

Romans 5.12-21

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

From these verses we see that:

1 Sin (disobedience to the known commands/law/will of God) entered the world through Adam. (v 12)
2 (Spiritual) death entered the world through this act of disobedience. (v 12)
3 Death has spread to all people because all people have sinned. (v 12)
4 God does not charge people with sin where there is no law (standard of behavior). (v 13)
5 Spiritual death exercised an oppressive influence over people from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. (v 14)
6 It did not matter if people committed sins different from that of Adam, death still was the result. (v 14)
7 Adam is a pattern of Christ. (v 14)
8 The gift (of salvation from sinning) is different (the opposite) from the first offense (sin). (v15, 16)
9 The first offense caused many to die. (v 15)
10 The gift and the undeserved favor of God covered many. (v 15)
11 The one offense of Adam caused condemnation. (v 16)
12 The free gift (of salvation from sinning) brought justification (judicial innocence, acquittal) to many people. (v 16)
13 The actions of Adam caused death to exercise a dominant influence over many others. (v 17)
14 The actions of Christ caused an abundance of undeserved favor to be available to those who choose to receive it. (v 17)
15 The actions of Christ caused the gift of righteousness to be given to those who choose to receive it. (v 17)
16 The actions of Christ will allow those who choose to receive it to reign in this life. (v 17)
17 Because of Adam's offense, condemnation (judicial guilt) came upon all people. (v 18)
18 The righteous act of Christ caused the free gift (of salvation from sinning) to be available to all people. (v 18)
19 The righteous act of Christ caused those who receive it to be judged innocent before God. (v 18)
20 Adam's disobedience caused many to become sinners. (v 19)
21 The actions of Christ caused many to be judged innocent. (v 19)
22 The purpose of the Old Testament law is to expose, define and measure disobedience. (v 20)
23 The undeserved favor of God more than offsets the effects of sin. (v 20)
24 Sin exercised a dominant influence through/with death. (v 21)
25 The undeserved favor of God has reigned in righteousness resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ. (v 21)

Note that, according to this passage, sin did not spread to all men, death did (v 12). It says, sin entered the world (v 12). Obviously, the term “world” does not mean the dirt and plants and water of the planet, it means the people living in the world. Logic tells us that "sin" was not simply floating around in the air. The concept or principle of sin entered the world for Adam and Eve when they decided to commit a single act of knowing disobedience to the command of God.

Here is a point to consider: when did “sin enter the world”? Was it when Adam and Eve committed their first act of disobedience, or when Adam and Eve were created and given the ability to make moral/spiritual choices? Was “sin in the world” only after the incident at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or was “sin in the world” prior to that event in the form of potential? Are not all children potential sinners from the day they are born? The answer is yes. But this is not the same thing as an inheritance of a “sinful nature” as many espouse. It is simply the result of bad moral/spiritual choices that will inevitably be made.

And verse 12 says that all people have sinned. From this we understand that other people committed acts of disobedience after Adam and Eve did. And because all people have disobeyed God, spiritual death has spread to all of us. Sin and death are linked, but not as some have presented it. The concept described here is the reverse of what many Christian ministers teach. We must be careful to read what these verses say (and do not say). It is easy to interpret these verses as saying what we think they should say to support a preconceived concept.

What this passage does not describe is a cause of why or how all people after Adam sinned. Nowhere does this passage say that anything sinful was inherited or passed on genetically or spiritually. That all people are or were sinners is not at issue. The key question is WHY. And why all people are sinners is not described here.

Verse 15 is of special interest. It says that many died because of Adam's sin. Does this not teach that the spiritual/moral choice of Adam and Eve affected all people? Be careful. Paul is presenting a logical moral comparison. Read the rest of the verse. It says that “...the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.“

Does this mean that just because Jesus died as the complete sacrifice for all sins of all people that all people are automatically saved? No. We know from other scriptures that each person must engage with God/Christ/the Spirit in an act of repentance and conversion for the benefits of Christ's sacrificial death to be effective in our individual case. In the same way, just because Adam and Eve were the first sinners, they did not affect you and me directly. It is only when we participate in the same sort of activity that they did (disobedience) that we receive the same consequences that they did. So, in copying Adam's transgression we all die, just as he did.

The Greek word translated "reigned" in verse 14 is "basiluo". It means, to rule, to exercise authority, to influence, to force compliance.
The term "sin" is translated from the Greek word "harmateeah", and means, an offense, sin, to miss an intended mark, to err, to miss a prize or reward.

SOME RANDOM THOTS ON ORIGINAL SIN AND HUMAN DEPRAVITY

WARNING – Some of what you are about to read is considered heresy by many Christian theologians. (I don't care)


Those who study the Bible with the motive to codify its facts, themes, principles, and doctrines – theologians – have generally settled on a few basic teachings about God and people.
One of these has been named “Original Sin” after the first act of disobedience of Adam and Eve, the first people on the planet.

Related to this is the popular notion among said theologians of the spiritual/moral Total Depravity of humans. Meaning, that all people are totally and helplessly sinful, rebellious and morally bankrupt. They are incapable of thinking or doing anything good (as defined by God) and, thus, are hopelessly doomed to go to hell when they die. That is, unless God himself, intervenes in some way, with some mechanism/process/person to provide an escape. This concept includes the requirement that people are so completely unspiritual and devoid of moral will, that God must give them the impulse to recognize the workings of God, the will to repent and the faith to believe that God even exists and will do what he has promised.

These two basic concepts are supported by various and numerous scripture passages, some providing more lucid validation than others. The link between Original Sin and Total Depravity for many students of doctrine is basically that the sin of Adam and Eve changed them spiritually and, thus, their offspring and descendants, including you and me. So, stated another way, you and I are Totally Depraved because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the garden of Eden 10,000 or so years ago.

This is like you being held liable for a car wreck because someone stole your grandfather's car and hit another car. Even though you were not in the car, you were related to the owner of the car and, thus, you are responsible. So, Adam and Eve messed up way back then and now you and I are Totally Depraved. Too bad. This is believed by many Christian theologians in spite of the absence of a single scripture verse that specifically supports this association.

To be clear, there are many scriptures that support and/or describe the Original Sin. And there are many scriptures that support and/or describe the Total Depravity of people. But there are no scriptures that link the two concepts. Despite this, the invisible link is commonly believed.

But I began to ponder this link of Original Sin and Total Depravity. There is no doubt that the first – or Original – sin took place. Genesis 3 describes it in detail. It even describes some of the ramifications of the act, both implied and actual. Other scriptures refer to it or are phrased as if it happened. But the Bible does not specifically state that all the descendants of Adam and Eve will be Totally Depraved – or even partially depraved. In fact, it states nothing about this. Nothing. Anywhere.

In fact, Genesis 3 clearly states that the “first” sin was not committed by Adam or Eve. It was committed by the snake, almost universally understood to be the devil. He told a lie to Eve to entice her to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All the theologians seem to ignore this detail. If they did not, they would be referring to the sin of Adam and Eve as the Second Sin. But I digress.

How or why does the Original Sin result in my Total Depravity? It would be so if God said it was so, but he does not. This is not to say that I was (prior to my repentance and conversion) not a sinner. Or that I was not Totally Depraved. Or Partially Depraved. Or 37.925 percent Depraved. The key question is, why was I Totally Depraved? Was it because of Adam and Eve or because of something that I had done?

The Bible provides some help here. It is rich with scriptures that portray people as being sinners, sinful, rebellious, “stiff-necked”, undone, as wandering away, etc. But there are a few verses that indicate that people are not completely sinful or guilty of sin in all circumstances.

Romans 2:14-15

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Romans 5:13

13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. )

Even though both of these references are fragments of sentences, a full reading of the context of each will prove that I am interpreting them accurately.

Basically, both of these references state that guilt for sin is relative. Said another way, there are two types of sin – that which we are charged with by God (imputed), and that which we are not charged with by God. Technically, both actions are sin (the violation of a law or command or will of God). How can we sin and not be charged, you ask? Because God says so. It is when God knows that we are ignorant of a command (“law”) for that particular act/thought/emotion/motive. Morally or spiritually, innocence is simply ignorance. Here is another scripture on this concept:

James 4:17

17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

So, culpability for sin is related to knowledge of the will/commands/law of God. Still skeptical? Lets take the logical reverse of this statement and see how it reads:
“Therefore, to him who does not know to do good and does it, to him it is not sin.”

The concept holds up both ways.

How can this be? This is one way the grace – undeserved love and favor – of God overrides a spiritual/moral law of God. This makes sin relative. Not by our human measure, but in God's omnipotent view of justice mixed with love and grace. You doubt this?

Consider the following scenario: You are a saved person, doing your best to obey all the will/commands/law of God you know about. You know that you do not know all of God's commands, but are trying to obey all that you know of them. While in church service one Sunday morning, a point is mentioned during the sermon that speaks directly to you. You learn that the Bible says that a certain matter should be handled in a specific way. You know that you have not been handling this matter in this way. You realize that all this time you have been committing a sin by handling this matter in this way. You may or may not be condemned by the Spirit of God to repent, but you are urged to change the way you handle this matter from then on. This is a common scenario. It has happened to me several times. I know of many others who have had this same experience.

Some questions -
Was handling the matter in a way not prescribed by the Bible a sin?
Yes. The Spirit of God clearly pointed this out to you.
Was it a sin before the believer (you, in this case) found out about it in the church service? Yes.
Was it a sin after the believer (you, in this case) found out about it in the church service?
Yes.
Why were you not bothered by the way you handled the issue before you went to the church service?
Because you were ignorant of the Biblical command/law on the matter. You were innocent. Not willingly ignorant. You were not trying to avoid certain knowledge to ensure your ignorance/innocence. On the contrary, you were seeking to learn as much as you could about the will/commands/law of God because you loved him and wanted to please him as much as possible. Part of you welcomed this new information, even though you felt badly that you had been violating God's law/command in this area. Because of this, God did not charge you with sin in this specific area. However, from this point on, if you fail to obey this new knowledge, you will feel condemnation because God will charge you with transgression of a (now) known command. From now on, you will have to repent for violations of this command.

Some refer to this as “walking in the light” (1 John 1:7), or “progressive revelation”, or “sanctification”. It is the process of growing progressively more holy, or more like God. This comes, first by more knowledge of the law/commands of God and, through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, the ability to obey this new knowledge. While it is more than just new knowledge, knowledge is part of walking in the light/sanctification.

Here is another way to look at this principle: God knows what every sin is. Let's say there is a total of 100 different sins any person could commit. That is all the sins any human can be guilty of. When someone comes to God to repent, they may be guilty of 50 of the 100 sins. God knows exactly what these 50 sins are, when they were committed, how often they were committed, etc. But because of the imperfect memory of this person, they can only repent of 10 of the 50. They either have forgotten that they committed some sins or they did not know that the things they did were sinful in the first place. One cannot repent of something they are not aware of. But when God forgives this person, he forgives them for all the 50 sins that he knows the person is guilty of. They now have a clean slate in the view of God. No sins. None. Zero.

But as this new Christian goes about living his/her new life, they unknowingly repeat some of the 40 sins they were forgiven of. These are not part of the 10 sins that they repented of, these are part of the 40 that they did not repent of because they did not know about or remember them. This is not because they are willingly disobedient, it is because they are ignorant of the law/commands of God in this area. Because they are ignorant/innocent of these sins, God forgives them through his grace. He does not condemn them or charge them (impute) with these other 40 sins. Yet.

Over time, as the new believer reads the Bible, goes to worship services, builds new relationships with other believers, God through the Spirit brings these other 40 sins to the attention of the new believer, one at a time, and instructs him/her to stop committing them. Not only does the Spirit of God instruct the new believer about these 40 sins, he gives them the spiritual strength to overcome them. Over time, the 40 unrepented sins will become 39 and then 38, and so on. Thus, God only charges a person with sin he/she has knowledge of, even though God knows all 100 possible sins, and the 50 sins he/she had committed, and the 40 sins he/she has not yet repented of.

It may be that a person may never repent or stop committing all the sins that God sees. Again, this is not because the person is rebellious or actively disobedient, it is just because they are ignorant of the law/commands of God in these areas. This is where the grace if God comes into play. This is why all of us need the undeserved love and favor (grace) of God, even after we are saved. The grace of God covers the sins we are not aware of.

Does this mean that people cannot live holy, as God commands?
No. But it does mean that the holiness of believers is relative, just as sin is. This issue is not whether holiness is commanded or achievable – it is clearly taught in the scriptures. The issue is, what is the nature of human holiness.
Can a human be as holy as God?
No.
Can a human live a holy life as commanded by God?
Yes. But that is not the same as being as holy as God is.

God is holy by nature, humans are not. Humans are holy by regeneration. We must be born again. But people are still subject to temptation; God is not. People are still subject to failure, temptation and sin. God is not. So, even though people can live in a holy way according to the commands of God, they are not holy by nature, as God is. Thus, holiness is relative just as sin is relative..

Professor Calvin and his students are both correct and overly protective of the concept of the moral depravity of people. Their fear, it seems, is that someone will (incorrectly) read in the scriptures and/or believe that some people can, by their own moral strength and will, do enough good, in either quantity or magnitude, to earn eternal salvation with God. Thus, the Calvinists exaggerate the magnitude of human moral depravity beyond what is pictured by the scriptures.

I understand their concerns and sympathize with them to some degree. But I will not tie my logic, and my theology, into unscriptural knots defending a principle that the scriptures do not support to the same degree.

To say that humans are capable of doing some good is not the same as saying that humans are capable of earning sufficient merit in the view of God for salvation from sin. There are numerous and clear scriptures that specifically disallow this. Given the strong scriptural antagonism for salvation by works, the fear of this concept should not be reason to distort the doctrine of human Depravity.

So, the sins of Adam and Eve did not cause the moral/spiritual depravity of all people, just their own. People caused their own depravity by their own acts of sin. And, conversely, even though people are capable doing some good, this in no way allows then sufficient merit to earn salvation from sin and entrance into God's heaven for eternity.

Class dismissed.