FROZEN

Frozen

I originally thought about this 25 or so years ago. The "frozen" I mention is the concept of "the chilling effect" taken to MORE of an extreme. The original "chilling effect" I noted was Stephen King's (book and) movie CARRIE. In that movie, the mother was not loving, and saw the world around her, including her daughter, Carrie, as evil. The mother was portrayed as cold and unloving; and her religious beliefs (nominally Christian) were part of what made her so cold and unloving.
That portrayal which equated Christian religious zeal with an ignorant inflexibility which made the mother a failure as a parent (cold and unloving) -that portrayal, in my opinion, inhibited some people (such as myself?) from trying to raise their children by strong religious standards, for fear that they would be thought of by their children and onlookers as cold and unloving.
Now 30 plus years later, that distorted image of devoted Christians has persisted and maybe become even more exaggerated.
However, I may be wrong, but I think perhaps current (late 2019) views have become so (ridiculously?) exaggerated- championing gender identity rights and right to whatever "sexual  lifestyle" one feels drawn to as well as insistence that those values be accepted as normal by all members of society- that some people now are starting to see that that extreme view is not really intellectually honest.
Just today, I read Wei-huan Chen's (of the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Nov 29, 2019, maybe) review of BABY  SCREAMS MIRACLE , the play by Barron. I was thankful for Chen's thoughtful review, considering the possibility that Christians could seriously and truly look to our God and the standards and guidance put forth in His Bible and try to live their lives that way with loving others as part of that.

THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF CARE AND CAUTION

The right amount of caution:
My father being an electrical engineer caused me to consider what engineering means. I learned that you have to make sure the material and the construction create a finished item that can withstand the use it will be put to. (Sorry for stilted wording.) I don't know if Dad told me this, but I have the thought from very young of the testing of material and the prototypes, planes and wings, etc vibrating in wind  tunnels in flight speed conditions for testing.
Also, my father-in-law was a bricklaying  contractor and builder; and my husband told of Papaw's regular decision to do his work extremely well using very strongly formulated mortar, wetting the bricks before starting and otherwise doing the BEST work (and organizing the work and leading his employees in this, also.)
I even remember fussing at my son when he was a child and playing too hard with a toy one time, telling him "you don't have to break a toy (or other) to find out how strong it is or is not."  Actually, I guess I was also influenced by working for a foundation engineering company, testing  samples for strength by putting them under a load and recording how much load that sample could carry before it would fail and noting that after sample started to break, it could never be as strong as before, unless it had no original cohesion to begin with.
I compare my father-in-law's building ethics to the business decisions that were made concerning the crucial parts of the monstrous offshore oil platform (Deep water Horizon) and drilling machines that failed in 2010 causing ** deaths and the ruination of a large area of Gulf of Mexico and the  Gulf coast.  Who all were the decision makers? Are there still trials going on? Do those ones yet realize that they made bad (sinful, even) decisions that caused the catastrophe? What was the risk that they decided was ok that turned out to not be ok? Why did they think it was ok to make the decision they did? I guess they never thought that they would encounter a situ where blowout preventers would be needed. Was that realistic? I think I heard that one aspect of that catastrophe was that the drilling mud was not heavy enough. Was that a combination of two or more mistakes (or sinful decisions) that did not take into account that other imperfections would make the whole array totally insufficient?
So now I think about secret poor decisions. The people  responsible for choosing those insufficient blowout preventers, or the people who manufactured, misrepresented and sold them thought their decision would remain a secret. They thought it would be ok.

KURT VONNEGUT INTERVIEWED BY CHARLIE ROSE

Kurt Vonnegut was interviewed by Charlie Rose, probably near the end of his life. The interview was kind of sad, also poignant. Especially poignant was the moment, near the end of the aired interview, where Vonnegut pulled a folded up piece of paper out of his pocket (I'm crying as I remember this moment) and after introducing it started reading it. It was some famous words of Jesus, maybe the beatitudes (Matt 6). And after he read them, Vonnegut commented on them. Maybe he said something like, "if only all those who call themselves by Jesus' name would really follow these words."
To me, that dramatic moment by Vonnegut was a plea on his part after he felt he and others have tried to encourage "goodness" and kindness in people and seen their efforts fail. Long after I saw that interview (it still lingers in my mind.) I read some of a biography of Vonnegut and learned that he was raised in a "free thinker" branch of Christianity and maybe had not even studied Christianity very much.

Bonfires, book bannings, caveats and reservations

Bonfires, book bannings, caveats and reservations

I was recently reading Kurt Vonnegut's collection of talks and writings called FATES WORSE THAN DEATH, as well as some of the authorized biography of him by Charles j. Shields. Vonnegut was sensitive to and had a strong and particular view about censorship because one or more of his books were banned from school libraries.

What I want to speak of here is the need for those that have read books and have opinions about them -the need to express those opinions, hopefully IN the book itself, rather than allow that book to continue to exist and influence others without the one who has read it and is passing it along to others including his or her beliefs that disagree with the book itself.

In the history of civilization, books have previously been considered somewhat "sacred" because of the difficulty in the past of manufacturing them; and because they are a public forum. People were not supposed to write in books.

It is interesting to contemplate the value that we unconsciously or consciously put on books because someone thought the information or wisdom or entertainment value of a created work was enough that enough people would purchase the book to pay back the costs of publishing it and pay the author also. Also, . . . the assumption we make (I'm speaking for myself, personally) that because someone owns a book, that one had read the book and endorses the values put forth in that book. Can I tell you what book specifically I'm referring to? It is Gloria Steinem's book *****. I was young then - not yet twenty. I thought I was supposed to learn from it. That book led me in the wrong direction for a number of years. (As an aside, let us also acknowledge that Gloria was beautiful, glamorous and intelligent- looking. She was a good representative for the values she was promoting. Too bad that the values were not good. I do want explore here, now, however, that Gloria and her cohorts were in part extending a belief system that is native to the United States of America: that personal freedom and the pursuit of it are noble good things. That belief system carries with it the implication that "limits" are bad, especially man-made limits.

My perspective on books is that I personally was influenced negatively by some ideas in a book that was owned and displayed by someone whose opinions I valued. In my naive youth, I thought that since this person owned *****, that she endorsed everything in there. I didn't think to ask her if she, in fact, did endorse the thoughts .

MOON: FULL CIRCLE

Moon: Full Circle

This post is about the moon being the first thing I identified as God telling us about Himself.

As a young person, I loved to see the beauty of the Moon. It looked like a luminous pearl up in the sky.

At some point , I started to understand and appreciate how wonderful it is that the moon, which is smaller than the Earth,  can look to us to be the same size as the sun, which is so far and so huge. It didn't have to be that way. It could have been that the moon was smaller or, or the sun could have been larger. But No! They appear delightfully and transcendently equal in size.

Also, when Earth's scientific community sent out machine explorers to learn of other planets and their moons- and the exploring machines sent back pictures- we all saw the pictures of Uranus' moons, which were not uniform and beautiful like our moon. I said to myself (and God, and others, I hope) "it didn't have to be this way! We could have had a moon that did it's job as tide- maker, etc. without being beautiful. But God made it exceedingly beautiful!" -Such a contrast to the other moons in our solar system.

And then this year we had, in Texas and other places, an extended complete "blood moon" lunar eclipse. When I saw the moon without its stunning pure, intense, white illumination from the sun, lit only by the scattered light reaching it from earth and space dust, that moon looked so earth-bound and plain (like a wad of chewed up chewing gum?) with all its pinkish gray color and the nonuniformities visible in the subdued light of that eclipse, I said to myself, "hurry back sun illumination. I don't like this less beautiful picture of the moon." So I learned then that part of the moon's beauty was its brilliant lighting by the sun. God is good! Thanks be to God! Glory to God!

AHAH! part one

Ahah! part one

That term is similar to "Eureka!"
It means that suddenly I realize or learn something that can make a big difference in my life and in the world.
I had an "Ahah! moment this morning. We Christians consider that sometimes when we suddenly realize an important or helpful truth- especially if it is after we have asked our Creator, God, for help- that it is God Himself who has communicated this truth to us.

So, this morning's ahah! moment was about the story of Jesus, found in JOHN 8:1-11.

The most well-known phrase in this story is when Jesus says, " If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." A group of Jewish religious leaders had caught a woman in the act of adultery and brought her to Jesus and insisted that He pronounce a sentence (of death) on her.
Jesus had a better way. He said, "let the one who is without sin throw the first stone."

This story is pivotal to my local church right now. There are members of my church who, along with me, believe that God still has standards which He wants us to live our lives by; and the standards are similar to those in the Bible. Others in my local church believe that homosexual marriage is now acceptable to God. (I think that is what those folks believe.)
So , what has been perhaps inhibiting me from engaging in discussion with those who embrace "homosexual is OK" is the truth that my own life is also sinful; and therefore I don't have the right to say that this other is any more sinful than my own brand of sin.
The above referenced story is probably the one we Christians think of as teaching against picking out one person or type of sin or people group to tag as being wrong or sinful or evil and ignoring other sins.
Now I come to the "ahah! moment":
In that story, there was a life in the balance. Jesus was NOT  saying "he who is without sin can speak against this sin". We have been acting like that IS what Jesus said.

I'm going to have to think and pray to God about what this all means. You can too.

YOU MAY NEED THIS ONE

You may need this one

This is my own personal interpretation of one of the stories about Jesus. I have not heard this interpretation of this passage before. I wasn't going to publish it, because I'm rather unsure about my  idea on this (since it does SEEM to contradict some of the statements in the passage), and because I think that the Lord generally wants to give revelations to each of us individually to let us know how much He loves us.
But I'm putting this interpretation out there for you to agree or disagree with, and maybe to be encouraged with:

Jesus was in a crowded house, teaching and healing. Four friends brought their bedridden friend to Jesus. They had to climb up on the roof, break open the roof, and lower their friend and his mat down to Jesus cuz' that was the only way they could think of to get friend to Jesus for healing.
The one who told the story, Matthew?, called the man "paralyzed" and said Jesus healed him. And maybe that was what happened. BUT Jesus' words in this case were: to the man lying on the mat, "Your sins have been forgiven."; To the crowd, especially His critics and enemies, "which is easier to say: 'your sins are forgiven'? or 'get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of man has authority to heal-, (to the paralyzed man AND for the benefit of the crowd) get up, take up your mat and walk."

So I notice here that Jesus does not specifically say, "Be healed."  He DOES refer to His authority to heal and how important that is as a sign of God's confirmation of what Jesus has claimed about Himself.
So I'd like to put forward my thinking in this. What if the man was not actually paralyzed? What if the man was just pretending to be paralyzed? Or partly pretending? We have heard of that sort of thing going on in more recent times. Maybe it was a possibility then, also.
So, if the man, in truth, was not paralyzed , but was faking it, he would have known whether or not Jesus knew the truth of the situation and his heart by what Jesus said. He personally would not have been convinced of Jesus' specialness if Jesus had simply said "Be healed!" when in truth what the man needed was to be truly known and forgiven. The man's heart would have remained untouched by Jesus. But, by making His first words to the man "your sins are forgiven", Jesus signaled to the man that He knew what the reality was and did this without "outing " the man. Indeed, if Jesus had tried to tell the crowd "Hey people, this man is faking!" The man would have had really bad feelings toward Jesus on account of Jesus making him look bad in the eyes of the community. Plus, this would have left the power in the situation in the hands of that man. He later could have- since he personally had not experienced Jesus' supernatural power- "relapsed " and said Jesus' healing didn't last! (Oops! That's not exactly right, is it? I said something that was not logical conclusion to previous two sentences. But let's continue.) If the man WAS a faker, Jesus saying what He did say was proof to the man that Jesus could read his heart, which is a supernatural thing just as healing is.
The way I came to this idea about the man brought to Jesus by his four friends was: 1)I was taught to carefully read the story of each of Jesus' recorded healings and to appreciate that Jesus healed each individual differently according to what they needed in order to receive His gift and according to the particular situation; 2) I had been studying with my neighbor Sister Kim's group about another healing that Jesus had done; and that other healing was quite different in its particulars from the one in telling of now.
The other healing is of a woman who was in a crowd around Jesus, who needed healing, but was too ashamed or scared to come out and ask Jesus to heal her. So she secretly touched Jesus' coat while holding the  thought that THAT would be the way she could be healed. Well, she WAS healed by touching Jesus' coat, but Jesus would not (in that case) let it be a secret, anonymous healing. He said, "Who touched My garment?"
Why did He do that?
Sister Kim had put much thought into that story, considering the afflicted woman who was healed. She came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the healing to be public for two reasons: 1) So the woman would not feel that she had "stolen" a healing that "belonged" to another, but rather that healing was truly for her! (Because God loves her.) and, 2) Jesus wanted to help her draw close again to her community after her having been shut out of "polite society" (she could not attend any temple services with the ailment she was afflicted with. I don't know what else she could not do.)