the new car

here are some shots of our new car. no, it doesn't exist in america. its called a dacia logan mcv. put out by renault (french company). its a 7-seater which comes in very handy for all kinds of church stuff.

celebrating the new year ukrainian style

for our church's pre-new year's talent show, lena and i decided to sing a traditional ukrainian folk song called "Pidmanula, Pidvela" in full-on ukrainian garb. anyone living in ukraine will know this song. for those of you who don't, its basically a guy singing about how he was supposed to meet this girl on each day of the week and she doesn't show. the translation is something like this (attempting to keep some sense of the rhyme):

on monday you told me
flowers we will go to see
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on tuesday you told me
forty times you will kiss me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on wednesday i was told
we'd walk among the marigold
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on thursday you told me
in sorrel walking we will be
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on friday you told me
we'd walk among the blueberries
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on saturday you told me
we'd work together, you and me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on sunday you were saying
we'd be going to a wedding
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

chorus (repeated between each verse):

you set me up
you let me down
you've turned my young mind upside down

next, the skit part we added. the guy (me) asks where she's been all week, and she tells him she's been at Bible studies and invites him to come to church on sunday. his reply is, "lena, i'd follow you to the end of the earth!" (that's where everyone cheers :) then the last refrain is our addition, where i sing:

on sunday you told me
at church service you'll meet me
i showed up and you were found!
you didn't set me up, didn't let me down!

hope you enjoy it!

is Allah the God of the Bible?

a fascinating article on contextualizing the Gospel among muslims and the name of "Allah". any one who is interested in missions would probably find this fascinating (at least i did).

Who is Allah?

any thoughts?

a call to fast and pray for iran

this weekend, nov. 21st-23st, christian leaders in iran are calling on believers in Christ worldwide to pray and fast. recently a law was submitted in iran that would make death the mandatory punishment for all men that convert from islam to Christianity, and mandatory life imprisonment for women. the bill has passed one vote with an overwhelming majority, but has to go through a few more proceedures to be put into effect, including a second vote. please pray for our brothers and sisters in iran to have strength of faith, courage to share Christ and, if it is God's will, for this new law to be stopped. you can read more about it here. thank you.

obama vs. osama?

an interesting article from the la times on how obama's election may actually pull the rug out from under radical islamic aggression towards america (yes, pun intended ;). read the full article:

obama could change dynamics in the arab world

any thoughts? (only please spare me the "obama IS a muslim" junk, okay? ;)

for the love of gays

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

can the TV get you pregnant?

apparently, the answer is yes. recently a study was done of teens and their TV watching habits which stated:

"In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure...TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy"

the article quoted the study's lead author, giving the only humorous part of the results: “We were surprised to find this link.” really? Jesus said:

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

surprising... Jesus knew what He was talking about! we think that we can watch whatever we want and it doesn't affect us. even as believers, we justify it thinking we are "just enjoying our Christian freedom" and "its not like i'm gonna do that". not so. Jesus stated the tie between what we take in our eyes (and ears) and what comes out of our lives a long time ago and now modern sociologists have vindicated His truth with statistical studies (why is it that statistics often convince us better than God's Word?) so, next time you get ready to flip on "friends" or "sex in the city" (two shows specifically listed by the study), make sure you've got your chastity belt strapped on tight... or, better yet, consider what effect your eye will have on your body and use that remote.

happy reformation day!

that's right, not only is it halloween (the most ridiculous holiday of the year), but its more importantly "reformation day". on oct. 31st in 1517 ad, martin luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in wittenberg, thus marking the beginning of the protestant reformation. now there's a real holiday! here's thesis number 62 for you to chew on today:

"the true treasure of the Church
is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God."

making the switch

yes, that's right, i'm finally bidding a fond farewell to xanga and switching to blogger. it just seems that the large majority of friends and bloggers i know are here, so it's just the logical thing to do. plus blogger gives you more format options. (the only down side is no audio uploads on blogger as far as i know. anybody?) i'll keep the xanga site going for a while with notices when i've posted here for those who are slow to change, but eventually it will be dropped. hope to see you on the new blog!

also, here's a link to a news story about finding some ancient hebrew writing on a pottery shard near jerusalem dated to 1000 bc, about the time king david was reigning. imagine that, history verifies God's Word. ;)

personal faith and universal truth

so, i just thought i'd share some thoughts which i've been mulling over lately.  i don't take credit for them since primarily they are just some highlights out of a book that i've been reading by lesslie newbigin called the gospel in a pluralist society.  if this post sparks your interest, i'd suggest reading the book.

the topic is that of faith and truth (as the truly insightful have already gathered from the title :), and the relationship between them.  newbigin traces the roots of modern day nihilistic thinking to the 17th century philosopher descartes (pronounced day-cart).  you might not recognize the name, but chances are you have heard his most well known saying: cognito ergo sum (in latin), translated, "i think, therefore i am".  descartes was searching for a basis for truth that could in no wise be doubted.  he finally came down to the fact that if he is thinking, that proves he exists and therefore this is the uncontestable basis for all further knowledge. 

newbigin points out that this conclusion was one of the greatest mistakes of modern history.  what it effectively did was shift the basis of truth from divine revelation to man himself.  all of a sudden man was the ultimate authority for truth and critical doubt was exalted over faith.  what this does, what this ultimately leads to, is a world where no one can know anything.  the only belief that remains is that life is without truth outside of self, and therefore without real meaning.  in other words, nihilism.

what newbigin insightfully points out is that no one can doubt anything except on the basis of a firm belief in some other theory.  every time someone criticizes the christian faith (or any other belief system), it can only be on the basis of another, contrasting belief which is held a-critically.  he points out that in fact the humanistic atheist is just as dogmatic (and actually more so) as the christian he criticizes for claiming to have absolute truth.

very often the example of 5 blind men and an elephant is used by the atheist/agnostic to try to prove that no one faith is right.  the story (if you haven't heard it), is that a king brought an elephant to 5 blind men and told them to describe the elephant.  well, each one touches a different part of the animal, an ear, the trunk, the tail, a leg, the side and each gives a different description of the elephant as like a fan, a snake, a rope, a tree, and a wall, respectively.  the point is then made that they were all right in part, but no one had the whole truth.  newbigin points out 2 problems with this story.  1) there is a king who can see and is able to see all, including the true nature of the elephant.  when an agnostic says "the blind men are like all the different religions", we must say "well, that must make you the king!  how is it that you know ultimate reality well enough to determine that all the world's faiths are not correct?"  2) the real objection that the agnostic has is that someone claims to have absolute knowledge of the reality of the universe, absolute truth.

here newbigin discusses what the agnostic (or pluralist) means by this phrase "absolute truth" - in a word, it is the position of the king.  it is what descartes went searching for: something which could never be doubted.  newbigin makes the challenge that in this sense, we as christians do not have "absolute truth".  that is, we have not seen God.  and we cannot say that it is something which is impossible to doubt.  in fact our belief in Jesus as God and the Lord of human history is just that: belief.  it is faith.  of course the Bible is very clear about faith being the way that we enter relationship with God.  but newbigin challenges that modern christianity and apologetics have made a huge mistake in accepting the "reigning plausibility structure" of the modern west.  that is, that we often try to defend christianity in a way that never calls into question the modern dichotomy of facts (usually scientific) as public truth and values as mere personal beliefs.  he argues that without faith it is impossible to know anything.  even the scientist has great faith in all the training he received, the books he read, and perhaps most of all in the concept that the universe is rational and therefore possible to study.  but there is no physical evidence for that understanding; it is a belief.

in contrast to descartes' "cognito ergo sum", newbigin quotes the early church father st. augustine's "credo et intelligum", or in english "i belive in order to know" as the right understanding.  that is, that faith is the basis of all real knowledge.  the question obviously arises, "if our trust in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior cannot be proven as "absolute truth" in the sense of something that cannot be doubted and if we do not have objective truth in the sense of the king in the parable of the elephant, what keeps someone, or us ourselves, from drowing in subjectivity and the attack that faith is simply personal preference?"

newbigin answers this by saying that our faith in Christ, though requiring a personal commitment (that it costs me something personally to believe) and therfore has a subjective element, is not merely "my opinion" because it is faith held with "universal intent".  that is, all knowledge requires this type of faith commitment (though some like descartes would like to dream of a type of truth that didn't require personal commitment to that truth to know it), but the christian truth to which we commit is one that claims to be true for all men at all times.  the truth that we have is not "objective" in the sense that it is exhaustive or without personal risk, but it is universal in its claim and scope and therefor not mere opinion.  the only thing availible without faith is nihilism (which, btw, is where many are headed and is reflected in much of the post-modern art and philosophy). 

well, i'll stop my book report now.   i myself have only read half of the book so far, but already it is, i think, fascinating and a great help in understanding how to find the right approach in witnessing to the agnostic/pluralist.  i highly recommend it for that reason, though i'll make the disclaimer that there are some things that he states, i.e., his understanding of in what sense the Bible is "the Word of God", apparent amillenialism, that i disagree with.  but that shouldn't stop one from gleaning from it what is insightful and edifying.  well, if anyone has read this book, or simply after chewing over the brief summary i've given here, i'd love to hear your thoughts on it.