h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hopefully you're reading this at least a week from now and have had a fantastic first week of marriage.

Yes, I found plenty of raw data. Anglican... a few other tidbits. I figured you were being magnanamous because you were anticipating your matrimonial bliss. I chose not to research so far as to find out your real name and such, though you did make it possible. Those are secrets that I'll let you keep.

I went to the website of your jeweler. Beautiful. My humans also purchase mostly custom jewelry. Their wedding rings are rose gold with a ruby (Gordy) and a flowing setting of three tourmalines (Sue). Yours sound really cool.

I see Sue all the time, walk on her at night while protecting her from bogeymen, lick her face at 4:00 am when I think she isn't breathing often enough. I'm pretty sure that I'm the reason she is still alive. I take good care of her. So I will tell her that you are challenged to live a marriage partnership. It is definitely worth the effort.

PS Now that you're married I'll add one last comment to the 4 rules: #4 is very true, no doubt about it, but once in a while it really is just about the wild thing and everything else is wasting precious time.

I agree regarding point 4: chivalry in bed is only a most-times thing. After you madam, no after you sir, but no I insist, well then if I may, please do...

Yes I am an Anglican, those 16th century reformers that started out siding with the Germans but ended up supporting the Greeks. The Anglicans never bought into Calvinism in all of its glory despite the fact that the prayer books of 1549 and (less so) 1662 are pretty much straight Calvinism. I think that Europe (and the US) always hankered after greatness of Roman culture but England held Greek as the pinnacle of Classical learning. Hence my slight bias in believing that the Romans were militaristic bores who imported their culture, gods and learning from Greece.

I remember you saying that you are pro-Isreal in an earlier post. Being Australian I am naturally pro-Palestinian, although I recognise faults on both sides. Given that this the current "war" could you give me One American's View?

wishing he was still wine tasting in the Clare valley with in the company of a lovely female of the species

Our Pastor began a three lesson study on predestination. He says he's a 5-point Calvinist and I think he's setting out to convince us all to become one also. I can't. The 5 points are, total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverence of the saints. Anyway, if I take Scripture as a whole as well as in pieces I can't see how anyone can be a 5-point Calvinist without throwing away either the whole idea or little pieces of Scripture.

There are ideas that conflict; primarily (to me) the idea that God picks who He will save and condemns the rest. After church last Sunday Gordy and I were talking about it and I told him about your ideas regarding original sin (not born a sinner but rather choosing to sin early in life). He liked that idea for a number of reasons most of which were talked about in one of the threads we have been on. It flies in the face of the "total depravity of man" idea. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where Pastor and the church body ends up. Most will be sheep but I wonder if all will.

Regarding Israel-Palestine (sigh) I suppose others would say that I am pro-Israel but I'm not sure Israel would. At what point in history do we start? Before the nation of Israel was formed and the Jewish people were attempting to return to their "promised land" in spite of the desires of the people and nations in that region? Or do we start more recently?

Why is it that 100 years ago a nation could conquer another nation and we would honor those borders but now we won't?

Here's my impression of history: Colonialism ran rampant and heaven knows nobody else wanted the Jewish refugees so we stuffed them into the Middle East with the British acting as caretakers (somewhat) and then watched as they decided to protect themselves and then become a nation. It was great because they weren't coming here. We sent them money because we felt very guilty about 1) not allowing them to come here (there still is a lot of anti-semitism in the US) and, 2) the Nazi persecution of the Jews and our lack of assistance.

Israel, being a nation of people not idiots, figured out that nobody was really on their side and they set out to make sure that they didn't need anyone else's help. They built themselves up militarily until they were the dominant power in the region and then decided to kick some butt occasionally to make some more room for themselves. 200 years ago that would be normal expansion. Now it is considered inappropriate. (Just like Hussein's advance into Kuwait was considered inappropriate.)

A difference is that there are still elements in the Middle East that think that the entire nation of Israel (and any Jews that might be living today) shouldn't exist. It is that stance that causes me to defend Israel more than, say, Iraq. If Iraq stays within its borders and plays nice with its neighbors and the UN (full cooperation) then it's borders should remain intact. When Israel played nice with their neighbors and cooperated with the UN they still had sniper attacks and suicide bombings.

Sooo... What I think is that after Sharon visited Temple Mount (which was crass but I can't understand it starting an intefadah) the Palestinians had a right to rumble a bit and say enough is enough. They deserve their own country as much as Israel did and it was taking a very long time for anything to happen.

However, their attacks should have been limited to military targets. So too, should Israel limit themselves to military targets. Unfortunately, the paramilitary groups like Hamas make it so that Israel can shoot just about anyone and claim that they are taking out a terrorist. Also, because Palestinians haven't limited themselves to military targets Israel can claim that their actions are a just defense of their own people. The fact that Israel kills far more Palestinians than the reverse can be chalked up to a better fighting force rather than a real desire to kill more people.

If the Palestinian people genuinely want peace and their own country (something that they didn't have before the nation of Israel came into existence) they can do much greater damage to Israel through peace than through suicide bombings. But they just don't seem to get that. I think they are so angry that they are blinded to the effect that peace on their part would have on world (US) opinion. If there were no suicide bombings or other attacks what excuse does Israel have to prevent a Palestinian nation? How can Israel justify rogue settlements in Gaza and the West Bank when they've bulldozed so many Arab settlements near Jerusalem.

Also, Israel could initiate peace as well. The first thing they should do is adopt a constitutional amendment stating that all men are created equally and develop anti-discrimination laws that prevent favoritism for Jews. They should also loosen up restrictions on ordinary people going about their daily work. Don't look for a suicide bomber under every coat. Stop using bombs and bulldozers when an arrest is really what is needed. Develop a cooperative arrangement with Palestinian police to turn over suspected criminals and respect the borders - even the tentative ones. Destroy all rogue settlements and piss on the Jewish people claiming that they are loosing their homeland. That level of commitment to peace might bring the Palestinians to the table and cause the Palestinian people to stand up for themselves and stop the terrorist activities within their ranks.

I doubt either group has the strength or the willpower to take the first step. It may be appropriate for the UN to step in but I know that the Israelis have an "us against the world" attitude that isn't entirely without justification. I doubt the UN would deal more fairly with them this time than they did before. Certainly the UN doesn't have the strength or credibility to handle the Jerusalem issue. And that will be the nuclear issue. Everything else really is secondary to the long-term, internationally recognised control of Jerusalem.

Ultimately that would be the way to tell if someone is pro-Israel. It isn't if I think they are doing the right things - definitely not. But do I think they should end up with Jerusalem? What does the Bible say?

5 point Calvinism. Sounds like bad news to me. For three reasons: how can one ever properly encompass God's redemption of humanity in 5 anythings; why would one trivialise God's relationship with us and our relationship with God to point form; and, lastly, should we be talking about Calvinism rather than God in Church? Theology is difficult enough without being indirect.

I read your comments on Isreal with real interest. The subject gains quite a lot of airplay here and most people's sympathy is with the Palistinians (for good, bad or indifferent reasons). Your point that Isreal's expansionism would not have raised more than a few extra telegrams in the foreign offices of Paris, Berlin and London 200 years ago is interesting. There is something that you might be in a better position to tell me though: how much does Isreal depend on US Government (not private) money to balance its budget (civil and military)? If Isreal were left on its own without targeted US aid programmes, would it survive ecconomically?

Another question, but for this neither of us may have an answer, would the Palasitinian terrorist response have been out of place 200 years ago in the middle east? My guess is it wouldn't have been called a terrorist response and to a large degree it would have been lost in the much broader (and higher) crime statistics. I can't imagine that terrorism would have been polically acceptable explanation for violence 200 years ago because it implies organisational recognition to the terrorist and hence their aims.

The early books of the Old Testiment provide an interesting perspective. They basically portray the ancient Isrealites and Judeans as a bunch of genocidal xenophobes. While this may be an unfair representation of the real situation back then, it is difficult to read the text any other way. Given that the peoples living in the area were/are all Semitic tribes, the notion that any 12 tribes among them have a special claim is problematic. Especially as which tribes were included among the set changed rapidly in composition and number depending on allegiances.

The bible, as a polical history, does not, I think, read favourably towards the Jewish peoples. The God didn't have much luck in picking their Judges or their Kings, no sooner having raised them up before having to kill them for disobedience (3 or 4 years in power seems to be about the average).

The idea that God gave the land to a group of semi-nomadic tribes that could not even identify the tribes that were in the group seems OK provided one doesn't try and replay it now. For what it is worth, I think Chritianity demonstrates that God's reconciliation of humanity frees us from this level of petty Theocracy. So in essence, I am happy to let the Bible show a continuing gradient of revelation and religious sophistication. I agree with Paul that taking random commandments out of the OT does not help us fulfill God's will.

On the other hand, I imagine that many people out there disagree with me. I noted that you raised the question of the role of the Bible, do you have an opinion? I feel as if I have ranted rather than been particularly balanced in my reply.

Yippee I have work to do! A purpose for showing up at the office each day

I will write as soon as I have time for thought and letter.

Congratulations. Do you prowl the corridors, sit outside in the sun or are you stuck in one of those funny human swivel chairs where you have to work on a computer keyboard with your paws?

Ever seen a tabby golf? I have that among other responsibilities (most of which are either standing in front of people yowling, sitting at a table with people yowling, or typing on my computer in non-auditory yowls). The remaining time is spent writing/organizing the stuff I'm supposed to be yowling about. All very fun and handed to me directly by the prez so the annoying job snatcher didn't have a chance to intervene. Now he just sits in his office and drools (like a dog!).

Quick thought on Israel/Palestine and the Bible: I don't think God chose the descendents of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob because of their worth, rather it was because they are such a good example of the depravity of mankind. But I do believe that for whatever reason they were chosen and that Christ was born from that lineage. For that reason I am more aware of their role in the tides of history than many others.
More later.

Ahh... I'm basking in pressure and expectations. It's great.

Israel and financial support. I always believed that Israel depended heavily on the US for financial support but was set straight by someone a few years back who informed me that not only does Israel no longer borrow any money from the US they also have paid off their loans. That, of course, says nothing about the amount of grants coming from the US and I'm not sure about those amounts - although my impression is that Israel is one of many countries receiving grants and not in inordinately large amounts.

I think that, even without the financial support of the US government, Israel would receive a substantial sum from support organizations here. Certainly, even though there is substantial support for Palestinians here, it in no way compares to the money being sent to Israel. Also, my impression is that private funds are sent to Muslim organizations rather than the Palestinian government whereas I think that private funds sent to Israel often make their way to the public coffers. Once again though, that is an impression rather than something that I can support with fact.

I think Israel would survive adequately without US financial support. I purchase many imported products and, for such a tiny country, some come from Israel. (Sue says they make great shoes!)

I think that even 200 years ago violence against civilians, while it was more common, was still viewed as inappropriate. Back then there was even greater expectations that military people wore military clothes and civilians were not part of the war. As you say, we can't know.

Israel and the Bible seems to be a subject dear to fundamental Christians. We are taught that the Jewish faith is the foundation of our faith and that, through Christ, much more has been revealed. It was Christ who called Gentiles dogs in the story of the Samaritan woman and Christ who directed the apostles to reach out first to Judea and then to the uttermost corners of the earth. Christ had a preferential ministry toward Jews. An inordinate number of the apostles also focused on the Jews, in fact we find in early history that Paul was in the distinct minority in reaching out to Gentiles.

Those actions are interpreted, by our scholars, to mean that God, for whatever reason, still has a role for the Jewish race to play yet today. The persecution of Jews in WWII was just one example of strong anti-semitism over the centuries. The Jewish nation certainly raise differing and volatile reactions from people when discussed. Our scholars interpret that to mean that there is focused spiritual attack against Jewish people. It's plausible to me.

The way I order my own mind is that Jews bear the image of God as do all human beings. They are no more, or less, gifted by God. They may, however, be receiving a special blessing (and curse) because of the way God has used their nation. The descendants of Jacob were designated to fulfill a specific role in God's plan; a job that is apparently ongoing. One of the roles of this people was to be the lineage of Christ. Another role was to show the depravity of disobedience of mankind.

Another, I think, will be to bring about whatever God intends to bring about in the end times. From what I can get out of Revelation, the Jewish people will control Jerusalem eventually. I think their prophetic literature also indicates that everything happens at Jerusalem as well. There are many non-Jews that support their goal of gaining all of Jerusalem in part because we read that it seems to be what God is planning on anyway.

I am curious to learn more about your views on a Palestinian state. Can you expand? Also, why are you anti-Israel?

I am off to Washington DC again this Sunday and then back in the office for a day and then off again to prowl the Bighorn Mountains for 10 days. It should be fabulous. Here's a link in case you're curious. http://www.bighornmountains.com/

Your comments on the NT are very interesting. As I had understood it, only James stayed in Jeruselem. Everything in the Gospels, from the coming of the Three Wise Men to Jesus' interaction with the lady at the well (which I had read as being critical of the Jewish attitude towards non-Jews) emphasised the fulfilment of God's revelation to the world in Jesus.

Hence, xenophobia is not Godly.

If the Christ were the Messiah and the Messiah were not to be some sort of King that would destroy the Enemies of Isreal as Solomon did (but better), then what does this mean? I would argue that Jesus embraced the world order and said that it was fine as far as it went. Essentially he argued powerfully for a faith that trancendend political viewpoints (taking the word political in its widest sense). From this point of view, there is no continued notion of the Jewish People: but that there are People of God and the rest. Jews may belong to the former group without question but they do not have a privileged position in it.

Anti-semitism is interesting and very real. I doubt that I would have thought of the idea of the spiritual attack. Certainly I am aware the Jewish usury customs have attracted some resentment, but other groups that have engaged in similar practices have attracted similar ire. Also, Stalin killed more Russians that Hitler killed Jews, the Allies freed the Jews from the concentration camps but left the homosexuals locked up beside the gas chambers for three more years (since they, apparently, had deserved it).

I am not terribly anti-jewish (I am anti too-successful-lobby group and pro-irrational I know) and I do not think that the Palestinians are getting the fair end of the current deal. They did not start off being terrorists. They fought an open war and lost. The piece-meal taking of hope by their _fellow_ semites has, in my uninformed opinion, lead to despair and hence to terrorism. Killing 200 Isrealites has lead to the death of over 2000 Palestinians. I don't think that this is a fair or necessary response by a country that is better armed and considers itself more civilised that the people whose country they partially occupy.

Interesting to see how the US manages over the next three weeks in Iraq. Perhaps this thought was in the back of my mind when I asked my question. I don't think these matters are at all clear either.

It's interesting to read of our different interpretations of the same scriptures. I never took Christ's comments to be xenophobic, rather I thought that he was clarfying his mission. Christ was sent to teach the Jews. The Jews were given the responsibility to reach the world. Christ obviously loved the Samaritan women (in both stories) and he made a point to minister to Samaritans when others would not but his primary ministry was teaching and reaching the Jews. He trained and commanded the (Jewish) disciples to go (to Judea then the world) to teach, make disciples and baptize.

We know that the disciples did scatter and leave Jerusalem but we learn in Acts (and extra-biblical sources) that many tended to go to the Diaspora, Jews displaced into other countries, rather than Gentiles. It is what makes Paul the primary missionary to the Gentiles. Paul even rebuked Peter for his flip-flopping from "good Jew" to "good Gentile" depending on company.

(As an aside, I was taught that the Maggai were most likely displaced Jews on pilgrammage.)

I agree that xenophobia is never Godly.

I also agree, to a point, that Christ did change the focus or at least clarify it. The "chosen people" were not a race but rather people who believed in Christ as the Savior/redeemer. Race is completely irrelevant in terms of salvation. The Jewish rejection of Christ as Messiah served a purpose in emphasizing the unworthiness of all humans and the magnitude of grace.

And if the Gospels were the end of the story I would probably say Jews have no remaning specific purpose in God's plan and are no different than any other people group. But there is Revelation and Jews appear to have a continued role in the story - down to a specific counting of believers within the individual tribes at one point in the narrative. (Ever notice that the tribes change from the OT to Revelation?)

I understand that much of what I know of eschatology is based on other people's opinions but that doesn't change the fact that the tribes are listed in Revelation and the numbers refer to descendants of Jacob counted at some time in the future. That fact alone tells me that Jews still have a role to play.

I don't mean to imply that it is a privileged role. I think anytime God selects someone for a task there is an element of both blessing and curse (for lack of a better word) and that is the case with the Jewish people. They have experienced both extremes of blessings and curses not typical to any other people group. I just don't think it is a coincidence.

So I am wary about the way I allow myself to think about the Jewish race and subsequently the nation of Israel. I wasn't joking when I said that I believed a large element of US support for Israel was based on the idea that we preferred them there rather than here.

Regarding Stalin vs Hitler. Stalin killed political enemies whereas Hitler targeted primarily races - Jews and Gypsies. (I understand that it is all killing but I think the motivation was different.) I would say that some of the African conflicts are similar to the racially motivated massacre of the Jews but I can't think of any other race that has endured the number of racially motivated massacres that the Jews have.

I agree that the Palestinians are not getting their fair end of the current deal. I keep hoping that the Palestinian people can put forward a true statesman that can cut through all the bull and force Israel to the table. In too many people's eyes (at least here) Arafat was, is and always will be a terrorist at heart. We have heard too many speaches to his own people where is message is "kill the Jewish dogs" while saying in English that he wants peace.

From a US perspective, we would say that a better armed and trained army will lead to more effective killing, hence the 200/2000 numbers. Ironically, I would think it should lead to more effective arrest and capture - something that I haven't seen as yet.

The Palestinians would also increase the credibility here if they would quit asking for known bombers to be released from prison. Do they really think those people are necessary for governance? If they want them released because they are "freedom fighters" then where is the credibility that, given their own nation, they will commit to a permanent peace. Or, when the next idiot visits their holy site, will they declare another jihad and the international community is forced to step in because Palestine, a sovereign nation, can't or won't control its own people and submit to international standards of peace.

Iraq... did I not say that in the end this would bite us in the butt? Oh well. At least my brother's tour is done soon. Of course, politically it would be best for things to settle down into a beautiful, smooth running government in about 9 months. Maybe that is why things are going the way they are. A little unrest, some dead heroes and a somber president with compassionate messages do a lot to hide a hideous budget deficit and slow economy. If the prez's team can pull Iraqi peace off about the same time the economy turns and 8 months or so before the election (all very possible) then he's a shoe-in for another 4 years. The harder the job looks ahead of time the better he looks when everything works out. I don't really think that is the intent of our current crew in the whitehouse but you never really know.

Well, it is good to sharpen my mind to think about these things again. Vacation was great. We actually saw a timber wolf in the wild. That was very cool. We also did a lot of hiking and a bit of whitewater rafting. We tried individual inflatible kayaks too. What a blast! I would live out west if I could make a living at it. In the meantime it is good to be home.

Good to see you back. You didn't get your paws wet when rafting did you...



PS: I will reply to your post tomorrow (with luck) - nasty deadline today.

PPS: Happy birthday (although by my notions of time, you have already had it).

Thanks for the birthday wishes. I tihnk I mentioned that my family does very little for birthdays so it will mostly be a non-event. Gordy, Sue and I celebrated our family birthdays over vacation.

This year is a little different though because I reconnected with my biological mother and siblings last October. I'm curious to see what, if anything, they do. Diane (my birth mom) has lived a life _very_ much outside my realm of experience. She was thrilled to find out how excellent my family/life is but I think there is some sadness as well. She certainly never experienced the same level of love from her parents and was unable to show it to the children she kept. When we speak she seems uncomfortable. We have little in common other than blood. I think even the things we have in common come out stilted because we're both trying too hard. Anyway, it is good to know her, even if we never develop much of a friendship.

Oh, and yes, I definitely got my paws wet - as well as every other part of me. The water was cold (10 degrees C)! I jumped in at one point to go swimming and it took my breath away. Needless to say, I jumped back out as quickly as possible. It was _very_ refreshing.

Julian?!? Strange signature when I'm used to seeing Lighthouses and PTs.

(It definitely is a "You're not from 'round here." name.)

Hmm, must have left my mac unattended while typing. It does happen occasionally.

Work has gone bannanas and I am finding it difficult even to keep up with my work email.

I have, nevertheless, been thinking about how God works in the world and how this affects the politicians' art of the possible. Would God, a new testiment God, award a city to somebody for a religious reason? Does anybody deserve Jerusalem? Is the temple that is rebuilt in three days a politically extant temple or a spiritually extant temple?

I have doubts that God would declare void a nuke going off in the middle east - I reckon it would explode. Further, tribes migrate: where they end up at the last trump is a cosmic game of musical chairs. I don't believe that any war can be declared a holy war on the grounds that it will fulfil a prophesy. The Byzatines believed that they were the new Kingdom because they were motivated by Christianity and they survived for 1100 years as a continuous government (longer if you count the whole empire - 500BC to 1450AD under the rule of the Consuls - impressive). But it turned out that history kept going long after they stopped participating in it.

I conclude, I suppose, by saying that those who are friends, ememies and indifferent to God will continue to fight over Jerusalem and somebody will hold it for a time. To participate in God's Jerusalem will involve negotiating with God and not with Ceasar (or his mates Dubya, Blair, Sharon or Arrafat). That was what the Jewish hierarchy didn't get about the kingdom of Jesus and, possibly, Pilate did.

I'm not sure that God will award Jerusalem to the Jews. I just know that Revelation says that in the end times the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the OT sacrificial system will be reinstated. I am assuming only a Jewish Jerusalem would permit that. (This isn't the 3-day reference but a later one in Revelations.)

As far as anybody deserving anything - No. No people, race or individual deserves anything other than the (spiritual) wages for the work they've done. Thankfully God never gives us what we deserve. Rather for anger he pays with mercy and for disobedience he pays with grace.

I agree that, for purposes of salvation, Jewishness means nothing. But I believe that, for purposes of God working his divine will in the world, Jewishness does still have meaning. God isn't only a NT God. He is the God of the entire Bible. We have a saying, "The new is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed." The events of the OT still have relevance. Understanding what it means is the difficult part.

I don't believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a holy war in which God has told the Israelis to destroy the Palestinian people. Nor do I think that there is some worth meter that says Israelis are worth more than Palestinians and so deserve to win. Frankly, I don't think it is possible for either side to win. I'm sceptical that either side truly wants peace. I think you're right: Jerusalem will be fought over and held in the future just as it has been in the past, provided that the events of Revelations are not yet happening.

Does the Orthodox Church teach anything about eschatology? Do you study or have sermons on the end times? We do. Not all the time or even regularly but in the 15 or so years that I've been an adult and active in the church I've been in three separate studies of the apocolyptical passages. There is a _whole lot_ that we cannot know about what was written. (Even though some would say we can know I don't agree.) But there are some things that seem less pictoral, more historical, that maybe we should take as it is written. I do know that I would rather make the mistake of believing too much of Scripture than believing too little.

I think that some of the differences in our opinions about God tend to stem from how we view God's working in our life. I guess I'm enough of a Calvinist to believe that God is very actively involved in the minutia of humanity. I struggle with the whole "Why does God let (cause) bad things to happen to innocent people?" issue but when I inspect Scripture in context I have to face the fact that Paul and others believed that not only does Christ save us but he also refines us through a daily process of testing and teaching. God has clearly said that he uses both believers and unbelievers in the working of his will. In light of that world view, surely it is understandable that I would believe that the Jewish race is still part of God's plan. My impression of your belief is that God is a bit more hands off in your day to day life.

Speaking of negotiating with God, didn't you know that Dubya has already done his business with God? Interestingly, a professed (if not real) Christian faith in God seems to be a prerequisite for presidency. Also, we have never had a Jewish president or VP. When Joe Lieberman ran with Al Gore part of the buzz was whether, being Jewish, he would be electable.

Reading the paper yesterday I saw that Australia was on the list of countries that the US warned of possible terror attacks. Better get out your fridge magnet. (Although I'm guessing that SA is a bit safer than some of the other more populous parts.) Several months ago we heard that Madison was a possible terrorist target due to some of the research going on at the University. Made me feel raht spaeshul. (It did not, however, make me change anything. Please note I am resisting the urge to launch into a joke about hauling out the guns.)

Certainly Israel cannot really want peace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/01/international/middleeast/01MIDE.html?th

An extraordinary article. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. However, as an Australian, I can't say it altered my nationality biased held views. No I don't think that the Isreali's want peace for the same reasons that the Europeans didn't want peace with the native tribes of North America or Australia until there was no longer any conceivable threat (which was well after they were no longer any sort of actual threat).

But to your other point. I am enough of a calvinist to buy into Spencer's Fairy Queen and take a non-literal interpretation of Jeruselem. But it follows then that I am also not quite certain who the Jews are now. Reading the OT doesn't help a lot: it seems they were whoever they said they were at the time.

But your $64 question deserves an answer. How much does God interfere with the lives of us hoomans. I think quite a lot but not in the way Calvin (or maybe even Paul) thought. I hear God, when responding to prayers for the survival of Coyote, speaking in a Scots accent "But Cap'n I canna change t'laws of fuzux". I don't see the finger of God moving peices on the human game board. In the case of terrorist, they must be allowed to sin! What right have I to ask that they loose the freedom to participate in God's grace and do the right thing? Anyway, maybe terrorists are more sinned against than sinning (have you read today's Doonesbury where Dubya is quoted as saying "He was buying yellow buns, I know it").

I take the common view that sin and pain and hurt and abandonment and etc are awful and not nice. I reject the view that God imposed them on the world through original sin: people make their own choices. I don't think God imposes anything on anybody. As soon as God determines on single thing, no matter how tiny, the consequences ripple accross the Universe and everything is determined until entropy takes over again.

So how does God change things. Certainly a prayer for a sick child who dies is not the fault of the quality of the prayers, the amount of them or the background of the person who payed them (that way madness lies). Good health cannot, therefore, be seen as a sign of God's favour (the hubris of the Byzantines and, possibly, the Isreali's and, more probably, Dubya).

It depends mostly I supose on what God is. If God can change then God can change things. If God is the same now and for ever, unchanging and indivisible then God is that place where we find stillnes, compfort and perspective: a place common to everyone that is the same now and for ever.

Then God's changing things becomes profound as only from God can one see oneself with the same eyes that one sees everything else. Change becomes imposed because one gains perspective. Once one has felt God, there is no going back (one can go forward to evil but never regain one's old sense of self.

But this is my view. Others may feel differently. Maybe I should stop reading Eastern Christian History and stick with Augustine. I suspect the eastern and western churches split not because the West excommunicated the East, but because the Western "deus ex machina" God was too naive for words.



PS: I have been reassigned. I may not get a lot more time but I will have some. I look forward to posting marginally more frequently!

You mentioned Native Americans. How interesting. Listening to the news this morning I had the exact same thought. Perhaps America is over-generous with Israel because we see a bit of ourself in Israel, the conqueror. Those pesky conquered nations never go quietly or completely away. The longer you oppress them before you have to commit to a treaty the more you gain. It isn't just about threats to sovereignity. It's about _complete_ control. Did you hear that we threatened to reduce the amount of our loan guarantees to Israel by the cost of the wall? Apparently world opinion occasionally influences even us.

Who are the Jews? Perhaps, even today, the Jews are who they say they are. The descendants of Abraham are, I believe, something entirely different. Doonesbury... With all of the various news articles and such that I read, I almost never catch Doonesbury so I missed the "yellow buns". Sinning and terrorism - Now there's an interesting thesis subject. I bet it would fly at an Episcopalian seminary.

Have you read the Chronicles of Narnia? I find, to my chagrin, that I often find large chunks of my theology in children's books. No Augustine for me! Give me Aslan. Actually, there's a line in The Last Battle where the Tarkaan (who is in heaven) asks Aslan (the Christ equivalent) where Tash (the Tarkaan god - very vile) is. Aslan replied that while the Tarkaan believed he was serving Tash all his life in actuality he was serving Aslan because he strove to live the most honorable and righteous life he could. Aslan said, "When you were evil, you were serving Tash. When you were good you were serving me."

So, if I were a good little Baptist I would know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God controls everything and directs it in its minutia. Someone explained it to me this way. God controls everything, to the degree that he directs our breath, our thoughts and every action. To me, this is a Calvinist viewpoint.

I had someone else explain to me that Calvinism is looking at humanity through the eyes of God:
Totally depraved - God knows that we will all sin.
Unconditional election - God picks us. We have no special worth.
Limited atonement - Because everyone comes to God by being drawn to him, then Christ must have died only for those God drew.
Irresistible grace - Everyone God draws to him comes.
Perseverance of the saints - Once saved - always saved. Failures are temporary because God picks us and we cannot change that. If a person truly stops believing then they were never elect to begin with.
BTW - the TULIP acronym was drafted by Calvin's detractors not Calvin himself.

I've said before that I have several disagreement with this theology, but when you say that this is how things are from a divine perspective rather than a mortal one, I'm at a loss. Maybe God does see it that way. I don't know. I can only know how things appear to me based on what I've read in scriptures and what I've observed in life.

Unquestionable power - unfathomable desire - undeniable contrary choice - unavoidable aliteration (Baptist humor)

Unquestionable power - There is no doubt in my mind that God has the power to control the minutia of life, the universe and everything. He's the omni-God. He has demonstrated his power in many ways throughout history and, I believe, in specific moments in my life.

Unfathomable desire - Supposedly God loves me and desires a relationship with me. The bible says so and I've experienced said relationship sufficiently to believe that to be true. However, just because God loves me doesn't mean that what I define as good will be what God calls good for me. Therefore even though I think it royally sucks that I am 39 years old and childless, if I believe that the relationship with God exists and that God loves me, then I have to accept that what sucks to me is jim-dandy with God -- or at least something he's not inclined to do anything about. Who can know the mind (or will/desires) of God? (I'm pretty sure that's scripture.) But I can't deal with the idea that God is saying to himself, yes, Hermi needs a good dose of humility, so I'm not going to give her any kids. I think my childlessness is the result of a fallen body unable to produce a healthy child. Could God override that state? Yes. But did God will me to be in this state? I can't accept yes as an answer for that question. I can't believe that God desires to inflict pain on someone he supposedly loves.

Undeniable contrary choice - I go through life with opportunities to obey God and build the relationship or deny God and destroy or ignore the relationship. It appears to me that these are my choices - every one of them - good and bad. I certainly am not aware that I am being led one direction or another by anything other than my own desires.

So does God direct my decisions? Maybe, to the degree that the relationship, and the value that I place on the relationship, directs my decisions.

Are terrorists sinners? When they are serving Aslan, no, when they are serving Tash, yes. I guess that it is all about the relationship and what I do with it. Thank God for children's books to put it in a way that a feeble feline pea-sized brain can comprehend.

It sounds to me as though you are saying that God's change occurs through a moving toward or away from God. All other change events are not God-induced? This would be a more peaceful viewpoint that one that blames everything, good and bad, on the direct will of God.

I am still working through this issue and probably will be, to some degree, my whole life. I have been indoctrinated that God directs my every move without my knowledge. He planned for the choices, both good and bad and will work out his will in them. Sometimes it makes for a strained relationship between God and me. And I do still think that God directs events globally, at least to some degree.

I hope your job change was one you wanted. I am moving forward also, tentatively, with attempting to step up and out of my job. It will be a long process if it happens at all.

One last note in this looong missive, Gordy injured his back yesterday. Nothing makes me hurt like a loved-one in pain. I'm sure that someone will quote Romans 8:28 to me on Sunday. I hope one of the things God is involved in will be to give me the ability to keep my mouth firmly shut.

Getting most of one's theology out of the Narnia books does fly at Episcopalian seminaries!