No love in Buddhism

There is no love in Buddhism.

Buddhism is non-love. To love is to rebel against the teachings of Buddha, to adopt perhaps the most serious affront to the core of Buddhism - to thumb one's nose at his insistence of denying and extinguishing desire. For love is a font of all kinds of desires, raging or responsible.

In other words, to adopt not merely a Westernized or Christianized or humanized Buddhism, but Something entirely opposed to its main tenets.

There is a deep truth here. It tells us that, deep down, we know that Buddhism demands that we lose sight of what it means to be human, what is important, and what we know to be true. All the kindly, wise-looking monks writing books and telling us to be good and kind and loving are in fact rebels - rebels against Buddha. Monks telling us not to be Buddhists, but to be humans, even Christians.

Either that or they didn't study very well.

Anyone is free, of course, to practice Buddhism. But Let us not be deluded about the core - or, rather, the missing core - of Buddhism.

Update: from reading the Comments, I think I need to clarify (but may fail miserably to do so).

I am not denying that Buddhists value love and compassion, or that Buddhism teaches these virtues. I recognize and applaud it.

What I am saying is that these virtues are a rebellion against the goal of extinguishing individual personhood, since to love and care we must value those we love as persons, and affirm their personhood as intrinsic "goods" in themselves. And if personhood is intrinsically "good", why strive to extinguish it?

To (attempt to) clarify another point: You do not need to have a Judeo-Christian worldview to make this analysis.

Rebuttal to Phipps - Hitler and Darwinism

A debate at CaseAgainstFaith:

Just read Phipps' "rebuttal" of my thing on Hitler, regarding Hitler's animosity to Christianity and affirmation - and practical application - of Darwinism.

Regarding his complaint that I gave no reference, anyone willing to take the four-year degree necessary to get versed in the intricate workings of the web might find it quite easily by following the hyperlink provided. By this subterfuge, it would be discovered that these are not merely "opinions" but referenced quotes.

As to Hitler saying that he was "doing the work of Darwin," it was clearly a foundation of the Nazi party that they were following the "scientific" method, i.e. Darwinism. "In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that 'higher race subjects to itself a lower race …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,' because it was founded on science."

Phipps is right that quoting Haeckel does not prove Hitler's views. However, Hitler's own views were quite clear.

Regarding the Pope, the facts of history now bear out that he was instrumental in saving many Jews. I am no apologist for him, but I direct readers to "The Myth of Hitler's Pope," written by a rabbi, in defense of the man. Regarding "Hitler's Pope" by Cornwell, these points from a reviewer (search for "Williamson") might be of interest:

• Jeno Levai, a Jew and leading Holocaust scholar, said that Pope Pius XII "did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences", and elsewhere: "From that day on, acting in accordance with the instructions of the Holy See and always in the name of Pius XII, the Nuncio never ceased from intervening against the disposition concerning Jews, and the inhuman character of the anti-Jewish Legislation."
• Rabbi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness (Pius XII) and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."

• Emilio Zolli, Chief Rabbi in Rome during the German occupation: "no hero in all of history was more militant, more fought against, none more heroic, than Pius XII." Zolli was so moved by Pius XII's work that after the War be became a Catholic. He took the Pope's name as his baptismal name.

• Albert Einstein noted that to prevent the Holocaust, "only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth."

• Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel (1949-52), writing during the war: "The Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the fate of my persecuted coreligionists."

• Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and second prime minister, upon meeting Pope Pius XII during the war: "I told [the Pope] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him, the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public, for all they had done in various countries to save Jews, to save children, and Jews in general. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."

• Pinchas E. Lapide, Israeli consul in Italy for a number of years: "The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the other churches, religious institutions, and rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of the International Red Cross and the Western democracies ... The Holy See, the Nuncios and the entire Catholic Church saved some 400 000 Jews from certain death." [The latter figure was officially recognized by the State of Israel with the planting of over 400 000 trees in remembrance of the efforts of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.]

• Pinchas E. Lapide, Israeli consul in Italy, again: "When an armed force ruled well-nigh omnipotent, and morality was at its lowest ebb, Pius XII commanded none of the former and could only appeal to the latter, in confronting, with bare hands, the full might of evil. A sounding protest, which might turn out to be self-thwarting - or quiet piecemeal rescue? Loud words or prudent deeds? The dilemma must have been sheer agony, for whatever course he chose, horrible consequences were inevitable. Unable to cure the sickness of an entire civilization, and unwilling to bear the brunt of Hitler's fury, the Pope, unlike many far mightier than he, alleviated, relieved, retrieved, appealed, petitioned and saved as best he could by his own lights. Who, but a prophet or a martyr could have done much more?"

Hitler's own words clearly make him an enemy of Christianity, as I have shown. To say that he wanted to create this church or that should arise questions about the beliefs of this church, rather than blind faith that he meant historic Christianity, which he abhorred.

Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."

If Phipps regards Hitler's "Positive Christianity" as Christianity, well ... not much could convince him otherwise.

Phipps says:

In any case, Darwin did not speak of "higher stages" of evolution. This is coming from Hitler's own mind.

This concept is in the mind of anyone who has ever learned about evolution. This is evident from, for example, calling this or that life form "primitive", or Darwin's concept of "favored races", "the higher civilized races", etc.

Darwin's theory of natural selection talks of the "survival of the fittest" but it defines "the fittest" as those who survive.

Are you sure Phipps is not a closet creationist? He has just confirmed a major creationist charge (although it is a lament that has also been made by noncreationist scientists, as documented amply in Bird's "Origin of Species Revisited"), that Darwinism is nothing more than a useless tautology: "survival of the fittest" = "survival of those who survive".

It doesn't claim that those who survive are superior to those who died, only that some species survive and some don't.

If his claim is true, Phipps has just demolished the foundations of natural selection, which depends on the conservation of beneficial mutation. Not that I'm complaining.

Again, I must re-explain what I clearly stated - the serial killer of my challenge is not mentally unbalanced; he is merely a rational evolutionist who rightly views others as competition. Having this now re-explained, I invite readers to seriously consider this challenge.

Wright's claims about morality deriving from evolution are touching, but ultimately vapid. If this were true, our condemnation of Hitler has no more force than Hitler's condemnation of the Jews. For which morality is superior - simply that which survives? What if Hitler or Japan had won? They had moral codes which protected their own people, too. I don't imagine that Phipp agrees that female circumcision is moral, although the cultures that practice it are still surviving.

As to other cultures being moral, I'm sure you're aware of the Christian position that God has not "left himself without witness," but dispenses "common grace" to all peoples, as C.S. Lewis has written about; and that we do not deny that other cultures and peoples might also have various aspects of the truth, though not the whole truth. This has been the Christian view since ... quite a long time, at least since . However, some views, such as Buddha's, may work out to be quite unpalatable and incoherent, as Ravi Zacharias demonstrates in his new book, "The Lotus and the Cross". 

Phipps' claim that Darwin and Hitler had opposing views concerning race are simply after-the-fact rationalizations. Historically, Darwinism has always led to racism, as in Australia (aborigines) and America (eugenics, Ota Benga, etc.) ... no surprise, because Darwin himself felt similarly:

Charles Darwin himself, though strongly opposed to slavery on moral grounds, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote on one occasion as follows:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." ⁽Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316)

That he felt this was a good thing is evident by the fact that he felt this was "progress."

Perhaps Darwin's views on women are better ...?

Darwin concludes that men attain,

. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).

Phipps' explanation of Hitler's anti-Semitism does not explain how the Jews are not "images of God," nor does it reconcile how Jesus and his followers were Jews. There is probably no help for anyone who finds Hitler's own reasoning cogent; and if anyone truly considers Hitler to be a Christian, then perhaps he is arguing against a phantom institution to no avail. It is strange to see that there are those who are ready and willing to take Hitler's claims about his deeply Christian beliefs at face value, by faith (since his actions and other words, e.g. his aim of destroying the Church, speak otherwise). But faith is not the surpreme virtue.

Perhaps I need to repeat this: Hitler said that religion was an

' ... organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. ... it's impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies ... [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples ... Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion."

I submit that he really could not be any clearer. To those who find the task of reconciling his different statements (about being a Christian vs. viewing Christianity as a recently introduced, organized lie imposed upon his people) too daunting, I suggest more effort than simply ignoring one of the two.

Lastly, perhaps it is not accurate to say that Hitler was an atheist. He was perhaps a pagan and surely a Darwinist.

Reply to Chris Smith's "Why Christians Must Steal from Secular Morality"

A reply to "Why Christians Must Steal From Secular Morality"

(Note: this version may be slightly different from the one posted at that site, but not much so.)

In his essay, Chris Smith says that

The Bible does nothing and can do nothing towards inculcating moral behavior on its own. Christians must steal from secular moral systems, and then merely graft their 'God threats' on top of this moral system. This is necessary. And the reason for this is simple: there is no morality in the Bible and there can be no morality in the Bible, because the Bible holds that 1) ALL 'sins' are equivalent (destroying any moral sense) AND 2) all moral behavior is immaterial, because works cannot save a person, AND finally all people are damned from birth.

In reality, Christians realize that some actions are more moral than others. They realize that moral actions exist in a hierarchy, and that rape is far worse than stealing a pencil. Yet the Bible holds that all 'sins' are equal, as all deserve the same punishment.

From this we see that the premises of Smith's argument are that

the Bible holds that 1) ALL 'sins' are equivalent (destroying any moral sense) AND 2) all moral behavior is immaterial, because works cannot save a person, AND finally all people are damned from birth.

So if any of these premises are shown to be false, his argument fails.

That (1) is false is evident to anyone who is even passingly familiar with Dante's Divine Comedy, and from his own words. In general, Christianity throughout time have never held all sins to be morally equivalent, although sometimes some are confused by Jesus' words on the subject, as Smith apparently is. Dante's work reflects the normative Christian understanding that there are differing levels of reward in heaven and punishment in hell, because of God's dispensing of true justice. Smith recognizes this: "In reality, Christians realize that some actions are more moral than others." If Christians believe this, perhaps Smith should have wondered if it is because that's what Christianity actually teaches, and has done so for hundreds of years. One should also wonder how Smith could have missed this, if he had bothered to find out what Christianity actually teaches rather than what he thinks it teaches.

Some are confused by Jesus' teaching about murder and adultery, taking it to mean that hate is equivalent to murder, and lust is equivalent to adultery. However, all he is saying is that even what we are tempted to regard as harmless or lesser or tiny or private, "I'm not hurting anyone" sins are far more serious than we think. He never equates their moral weight.

So, nowhere does the Bible teach that all sins are equivalent and therefore deserve the same punishment.

Now on to (2), which is really a mini-argument. He argues that (a) we cannot be saved by works, (b) therefore all moral behavior is immaterial. But (b) does not follow from (a) at all. Just because works are ineffectual, we cannot conclude that they are meaningless.
It is true that the Bible describes our vain attempts to save ourselves on our own terms are "as filthy rags." But this is a warning that something else of a different magnitude is needed, and our dire need for that something. The price that God himself paid on the cross - the terrible suffering Christ endured - underscores this warning, and has become a timeless, concrete demonstration of God's love for us. It is also a condemnation, for it reveals the hardness of heart that must be willed to reject such a hard-won salvation.

Are our works before salvation meaningless? In many of C.S. Lewis's stories and thoughts, he suggests how salvation may even work backward in time to our earlier deeds. In one story in particular, he suggests that even good works done in service of another "god" might be counted as service to the true God. The overarching theme is that God is more generous than we think. Is this true? Seen in the light of the Cross, it's easy for me to believe.

Food for thought: If you believe in "TULIP predestination", perhaps our good works may be symptoms of God's saving power already at work in our lives.

The claim that "all people are damned from birth" needs more serious consideration. There are several interpretations of this. Certainly most Christians would not believe that stillborn or aborted babies are sent to hell. But are they?

Instead of insisting that they are, we must approach this question (and indeed all others) from the starting point of God's nature: perfectly holy, just, righteous, loving, and merciful. If you believe perfect justice and love somehow demands these babies should be in hell, then you would believe that is their eternal destiny. But I would wager that most of us recognize that this is somehow fundamentally unjust. In that case, we would be reassured that this is not their destiny.

What, then of us? Could we not apply the same reasoning to ourselves? In light of the above, if we did so, our conclusion would be different, because we have actually (and not just potentially) sinned, and are subject to the real moral laws and consequences of doing so. Just what these consequences might be are another topic, but I would recommend Lewis's The Great Divorce to any serious seeker who wishes to stride beyond the puerile conceptions of hell. (Not meaning that the concept of hell is puerile, but that our concepts of what hell is like may be puerile.)

At this point, some might agree that all Smith's premises for this argument have been shown to be flawed or false. Some will not. But I would like to point out some other ... points. :-P

Smith claims that "the Bible holds that man is worthless." However, the message of creation in Genesis and salvation through Christ has historically told us the opposite: that man, being made in God's image, has intrinsic worth. (Some argue that it is this worth that necessitates moral punishment for his choices ... but that's another can of worms.) In addition, Christ's suffering and death tell us that we are far from worthless; or that, even if we were, we are now imputed tremendous worth, even if it is undeserved. That's why, as one famous ex-agnostic once observed, it is Christians that run leprosariums, not atheists or humanists, despite all their professions of superior moralities.

As for his list of supposed moral teachings of the Bible, he is confused about what the Bible prescribes and what it describes. This distinction should rule out many in the list. Others, such as God's commands to wipe out some peoples, deserve more serious thought and should be discussed in a separate thread. But as a starting point I would recommend viewing "Dogville", starring Nicole Kidman. I would not recommend that any aspiring atheist try to grapple with this issue until they have watched this film. (Of course it would be better to take the time to actually study one of many accessible books on Christian theology so that one may understand what one criticizes, but our generation is famously lazy and would rather watch TV. Thankfully there are some things worth watching. Note: watching this film was an ordeal for me, but it raised some very interesting questions.)

Smith complains that the Bible teaches that "One is forced to obey, or be destroyed." But what if that is indeed the way morality works? What if the real moral consequence of sin is something terrible that God would rather you'd avoid? One might as well complain that "it's cruel that we are told not to play on the freeway, else we would be destroyed." In that case, the person telling you the rule to be obeyed is doing you a great service. Someone who told you that truth, knowing you would mock them, might even be doing it out of love.

Relatedly, Smith says, "Christianity can only undermine matural [sic.] morality....through it's infantile use of external threats." Again, the above applies - you can hardly fault someone for warning you about real dangers. What is infantile is ignoring real threats because we don't like them.

Kohlberg's system is cute, but like all other purely secular systems, it falls flat on its face in the face of (no pun intended) the Serial Killer Challenge, as I have described elsewhere. The killer has logically decided that Darwinism implies that we (or at least those in the know, wink wink) compete to extend our gene pool at the expense of others. He has captured and securely immobilized you, and has given you two days to convince him not to kill you. You present Kohlberg's system. The killer has seen its ilk before, and recognized that these frameworks are purely artificial with no more imperative force than someone saying "I don't like broccoli", and are just someone else's imaginary obstacles to his logical, Darwinist goal to be top dog - and slits your throat. He eats some fava beans and continues with his plans for his forced impregnation of as many females as he can.

Sometimes belief in hell has produced these terrible effects, but this is due to bad teaching. The doctrine has been abused. But abusus non tollit usus: the abuse does not annul the proper use.

When the doctrine of hell is abused, that abuse serves the very purposes of hell (fear, despair and hatred) instead of the purposes of heaven (faith, hope and love).
On the other hand, fear is sometimes good and necessary. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov 1:7), though it is not the end. (Love is that.) George MacDonald said, "When there are wild beasts about, it is better to feel afraid than to feel secure." Fear is reasonable and useful even in little things; what is more reasonably feared than hell, if it exists? (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 1994 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli)

Smith says that "True morality is internal." Many of us would agree, at first blush. But the problem is, whose insides are the standard? Who decides which rules are fair or unfair? Who decides what price is to be paid for social order? Who decides what counts as order? Does the Animal Farm system of the former Soviet Union count as order? Does majority rule? Who dictates that a valid morality should include such sentimental things as "inclusiveness and responsibility to others"? Who demands that a better morality includes "concern for all nature"? If my internal morality is different from yours, then what? In the end, it degenerates into rule by threats and force.

However, Kohlberg does us a service in suggesting why the Bible tells us about punishment and reward - we may need it to get started. Most Christians start out with wanting to avoid hell. Some then want to do good for rewards' sake; some skip this and go on to the last stage, doing good for its own sake. This has also been the historic Christian teaching. (By "historic" I of course do not mean simply that it was taught at one time or another by some Christian or other, but that this has been the Christian view throughout the history of the church.)

Finally, some thoughts on hell for those who have never dared open a book on Christian theology (from Kreeft).

Hell seems contrary to justice as well as love. For the punishment does not seem to fit the crime here, either in quantity or quality. What is the relation or proportion between hell's unthinkable, infinite, eternal torments and earth's thinkable, finite, temporal sins? The same sort of relationship as fifty years of torture to a three-year-old's theft of a cookie. How can finite sin justly merit infinite punishment? How can temporal sin merit eternal punishment?

Reply: There are three charges here:

(a) Temporal crimes do not merit eternal punishments,

(b) Finite crimes do not merit infinite punishments, and

(c) Mild crimes do not merit such intense punishments.

a. Eternity is not quantitative. It is not more time, or even endless time. It is another dimension than time, just as time is another dimension than space. Whatever we make of ourselves in time is destined to be "fleshed out" into the dimension of eternity. To use a crude image, if we make squares of ourselves in time, we are cubes eternally; temporally blueprinted triangles go to the sculptor to become eternal pyramids. The relation between earthly choices and eternal rewards or punishments is not like the relation between crimes and prison sentences, but like the relation between a foundation and a building. It is not external but internal. In a sense, heaven or hell is the same thing as earth; the same life, the same person, only with another dimension—somewhat as life after birth is the same life, the same person, but with more dimensions. Souls in time are like boats on a river, all destined for the ocean of eternity. It is a structural internal necessity, not an imposed external reward or punishment.

b. Hell's punishments are eternal, but not infinite. Only God is infinite. Souls, sin and punishment are all finite. Just as one saint is more saintly, more great-hearted, more loving, and therefore more able to contain God's joy in heaven than another, and in this sense is naturally "higher" in heaven than another, so one sinner is "lower" in hell than another (i.e., more deep-set in despair and pride and hate). There are limits.

c. The intense images of physical torture are meant to suggest something beyond themselves: the privation of God, source of all joy and meaning. The unimaginable thing suggested by the imaginative images of fire is more awful, not less, than the literal misinterpretation of the images. Physical pain comes in degrees of intensity; the privation of God is total.

Hell's punishment fits sin's crime because sin is divorce from God. The punishment fits the crime because the punishment is the crime.

Some thoughts on Regeneration Before Faith (or vice-versa)

Our church just underwent a mini-crisis regarding whether the church's official position is rbf or not. I had previously shared my own journey from fbr to rbf, "kicking and screaming."

(Note: rbf = Regeneration before faith; fbr = Faith before regeneration)

What is clear is that there are two camps, both composed of brothers and sisters who are serious about their faith and service. How do our respective positions affect our service and devotion? In what ways will they differ? Both sides suspect the others' views will theoretically prove detrimental, no matter how slightly, but in reality I expect we will serve and worship in almost exactly the same way. rfbs will think that bfrs may not care about evangelism as much as they, but this is not the case; and bfrs may think that fbrs have a lower view of God's sovereignty, but I very much doubt that this is ever in their minds.

The best resolution of this issue is for those who hold this issue to be so important to, as Pastor ___ suggests, get together to study the Scriptures, with the appropriate study helps. I hope this will happen sometime in the future. I can understand some apprehension about being "dominated" by our fearsome pastors, but we have nothing to fear from trying to understand and discern the Scriptures for ourselves with the benefits of scholarship. I am sure we have enough knife-fighters and martial artists to maintain order. (inside joke)

I received a couple of comments yesterday to the effect of "Oh, you're a Calvinist." However, as Pastor ___ described his own position, mine is due to a study of the Scriptures only, trying to see how the Scriptures cited by both sides can be made into a coherent whole. (I had read R.C. Sproul's book about election and TULIP some years ago, but I would be hard pressed to remember it; and, in any case, after reading it, I had the same objections to his presentation as do the fbrs.)

My intent in adopting fbr was honorable enough; I thought that rbf could lead, theoretically, to a kind of spiritual apathy. If God has chosen, why do we need to do anything? And I was defending God against charges of being cruel or arbitrary or unfair, charges which arose when considering rbf. I could interpret or explain away many passages that seemed to support rbf. "Dead in trespasses and sins" didn't convince me; could just be a metaphor. Paul could just as well have written, "choking in trespasses and sins ... drowning in trespasses and sins ..." However, I could not harmonize my view with some very significant passages. "You did not choose me, but I chose you ..." (Not to mention a whole chapter, Romans 9).

The weight of the Scripture began to erode my view. Finally it seemed that I was upholding fbr only because of the supposed implications of fbr, rather than the Scriptures. Could it be that I was wrong, then, about those implications? (Maybe.) Could the reality actually be (far) more complex than that? (Yes.) Does the hawk take flight by my wisdom and spread his wings toward the south? (No.)

With you, it may begin or end simply with this choice: which has more priority, my human experience and objections and reasons, or God's revelation? I can't rationally explain Creation or the Trinity or the Incarnation, but I believe them, not because of one or two cryptic verses, but because of the combined weight of Scripture. What, then, about rbf?

There was also a huge problem, in my mind, with grace. The Scripture says, repeatedly, that there is no reason whatsoever for us to boast about being saved. But why did I choose Christ, and that other person not choose Christ? Was I smarter, more childlike, more honest about myself, more open to the truth, more humble? If so, I was saved because I was, in some teeny, tiny way - better. And if so, there was some reason to boast - not that I would, of course, nor would any of us. But still, there it was - a reason to boast. Salvation by merit. Teeny, tiny merit, but merit nevertheless.

Unless even that faith was from God. (Eph 2:8-9)

As my original view slowly gave way, my mind still resisted the conclusions and implications. As I examined the basis of my objections, I saw that it was my view of God which led to the implications which made rbf seem arbitrary and fatalistic. Or, to put it another way, when I was saying that rbf was arbitrary and unfair, I was really saying God was arbitrary and unfair. I had to ask myself, "Does God do things that don't make sense?" No. "Does God elect or not elect people willy-nilly, by throwing dice?" No. "Does God will for as many to be saved as is possible?" Yes. Once I started from the certainty that God is not arbitrary but is loving and merciful and wise beyond my understanding, my objections began to fade.

Now allow me to say this: the mystery is that our experience seems fbr. We never knew when or how God started his work in us. As far as we were concerned, our choice was freely made. And all our other choices are, in our experience, free. As I mentioned, human experience does not negate the Scripture, but the juxtaposition of the two - regeneration and real choice - does magnify my awe of God and the subtlety of his ways, which are truly higher than ours.

Lastly, I talked with a fbr-er (you know who you are!) before the meeting, and he mentioned that it was interesting that my "journey" to rbf was so arduous, and that I was dragged into it "kicking and screaming" showed that it's a hard thing to accept. Well, it was hard for me, but I know many kinder and gentler souls for whom it was easier. But at the end of the conversation, I'm sure we both knew that we were both still nuts, but still brothers.

Christian Songs that Need to be Rewritten, #1: Prince of Peace

(by Michael W. Smith)

You are holy (You are holy)
You are mighty (You are mighty)
You are worthy (You are worthy)
Worthy of praise (Worthy of praise)

I will follow (I will follow)
I will listen (I will listen)
I will love You (I will love you)
All of my days (All of my days)

I will sing to (You are Lord of Lords)
And worship (You are King of kings)
The King who (You are mighty God)
Is worthy (Lord of everything)
I will love and (You're Emannuel)
Adore You (You're the Great I am)
And I will bow down (You're my Prince of peace)
before You (Who is the Lamb)
I will sing to (You're my living God)
And worship (You're my saving grace)
The King who (You will reign forever)
Is worthy (You are ancient of days)
I will love and (You are alpha, omega)
Adore You (beginning and end)
And I will bow down (You're my Savior, Messiah)
Before You (Redeemer and friend)
You're my Prince of Peace
And I will live my life for You

What's wrong with it, you ask? Look at the lyrics. What is it about? The title and chorus say "Prince of Peace," but the rest of the song is totally generic and not about this at all! There's nothing else in the song to tie it to the idea that "You're my Prince of Peace." You can substitute any other name or title of God instead and it will still be as relevant as "Prince of Peace" - in fact, many other choices would be more suitable.

A critic compiling his list of the 100 worst pop songs ever used this criteria to include Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire": a list is not a song. Is this a fair criticism? I think it is in this case. There are too many worship songs which are just endless and meandering lists of God's names and/or attributes. There are exceptions when the list is beautifully set to a suitable melody, but this isn't one of them.

It may be OK as a private worship or meditation, but it's not focused or coherent or polished enough for corporate worship.

We need to worship with our minds, not just with catchy or upbeat tunes.

Update: one sister points out that the alternate title of the song is actually "You Are Holy." That actually worsens the problem, as "You're my Prince of Peace" then ambushes us, jumping out with no context - unless you could simultaneously follow the women's part, which mentions "Prince of Peace," and which is written as a driving, monotonous, throwaway part. Someone else said it's a fun song to sing.

Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell

Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell
by Boyce Rensberger
Edition: Paperback

A fascinating look at the mind-boggling complexity of cells - miniscule factories seemingly totally controlled by and communicating with each other through the interaction of amazing molecular machines.

Even more mind-boggling is the author's blind faith that this arose through chance and evolution, thus such intellectually and scientifically vacuous statements like, "evolution solved this problem by" ... useless sops to fundamentalist Darwinism, and totally useless scientifically. Nowhere are such statements elaborated upon; the existence of the first cell is assumed, thereby glossing over one of the greatest frustrations in current biology. He sprinkles such religious statements liberally throughout, instead of questioning, as Behe did in "Darwin's Black Box." However, his accounts of the scientific details of the cell are fairly clear and fascinating, with some neatly done illustrations; and so this book becomes, unwittingly, a perfect companion to Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."

His scientific rigorousness is spotty - but not unusual for an evolutionist. In keeping with outdated evolutionist "science", he presents Haeckel's now-discredited, faked embryo drawings as proof of evolution ('Embryonic fraud lives on', New Scientist 155(2098):23, September 6, 1997).

But the further one reads, the more the skeptical mind is inclined to question, "How," "When," and "Why". For example, he describes the intracellular transportation network early on. This leads us to question, when reading that this molecule or that vesicle has to move from here to there, just how does it do this, what means of locomotion does it employ, and how is this orchestrated purely in terms of proteins and such? He does a generally good job of anticipating these questions, although each answer adds to the implausibility of the system developing by chance. But the more interesting question, "How did these systems originate?" is glossed over with "It evolved."

Elsewhere, he says that the processes of life are "no more mysterious, though often far more complex and wondrous, than the crystallization of water molecules into snowflakes. ... their formation is obviously no miracle." A strangely scientifically naive view (but not uncommon among fundamentalist Darwinists), he has ironically missed the point of his own book.He does not realize that his very own descriptions of the workings of the cell, to the open, skeptical mind, most certainly do point to a miracle.