Good and Evil

Here's the continuation I promised on Friday of the thoughts prompted by my reading of Dean Koontz's One Door Away From Heaven, which hinge on the nature of good and evil. This question, this examination, this setting together for contrast of good and evil is something Koontz does often.

Unfortunately, the more I've come to understand about God's word, the more I see Koontz doesn't know what he's talking about. Thus it's no surprise that he's a best-selling author with 40 some books to his credit and a vast following of fans. And if he doesn't understand the difference between good and evil, he's certainly not alone. It is not in Satan's interest for people to understand and he works hard through his army of fallen angel-minions to see that they don't. One of his methods is to make people think the whole dichotomy doesn't exist -- there really isn't "evil" per se. It's just a perception. There really aren't demons and a devil, that's comic book stuff. (It's interesting to note that he never really goes for the argument that there isn't good, though perhaps with the rise of postmodernism he's moving in that direction -- but that's another subject).

One of the things I don't think people realize about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden was that the good was not divine good. This was not the difference between Satan's evil and God's goodness. Adam and the woman already knew about God's goodness. What they didn't know about was Satan's evil and his form of goodness.

Another thing I think many don't realize is that Satan and his followers really don't, as Koontz in his One Door Away from Heaven described, "seek only to serve entropy. They love chaos, destruction, death." Satan isn't trying to do away with God, he's trying to take God's place. He wants the power, he wants the worship, he wants to do good.

"I will ascend to heaven. I will raise my throne above the stars of God (other angels), I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (Is 14:13,14)

The Most High is not into destruction and death and entropy. The most High is into creation and order and stability.

Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer remarked in his Major Bible Themes,

"Satan is not aiming to promote sin in the world. He did not purpose to be a fiend, but rather to be "like the most High"; he is not aiming to destroy so much as he is to construct and to realize his own ambition for authority over this world-system with its culture, morality, and religion (2 Co 11:13-15). The impression that Satan is the direct cause of sin is not true because human sin is said to come directly from the fallen human heart (Gen 6:5; Mk 7:18-23; James 1:13-16)

It's this good on the part of people that Satan most wants to promote -- good performed by people, or human good. That's the knowledge that the woman gained: the idea of doing her own thing for good. Even Satan's invitation to her was to do a good thing: "Eat that fruit and it will make you wise. You will be as smart as God, and that would surely be a good thing. You could converse with Him better, know better what He wants from you, understand Him better. Be His friend better."

When she brought the fruit to the man, there's cause to think she might well have believed she was helping him out, for Paul tells Timothy she was "quite deceived." And if she'd realized she was naked, why didn't she hide from the man and cover herself with leaves before approaching him? Why did she bring him the fruit? Why only after he had eaten did they realize they were naked and go looking for leaves to cover themselves?

Human good, creature credit is what powers most religions. It's what powered the unbelieving Pharisees in Jesus' day and prevented them from seeing the truth of who He was. It is way worse than sin. Sin was dealt with on the cross. Human good blinds. Human good feels good to those who perform it. It feels right and keeps people from the truth, from freedom, from really knowing God.

Just like Cain bringing all that produce, the work of his hands, they think their good works will please God. Cain probably expected God to tell him he'd gone above and beyond, bringing an better offering than Abel's. He totally didn't get the point of the slain lamb as a picture of the offering God himself would eventually make to pay the penalty for man's sin. He didn't understand that he was depraved and that nothing he would ever do could come close to the perfect righteousness of God. He thought he could by his own actions please God.

Believers do this as well. Paul warns the Galatians about it: having come to Christ by faith, will you then be perfected by the flesh? Your own efforts? Your own good works? He warns the Corinthians of the ministers whom Satan sends out among the brethren to teach others how to be righteous. They look good. They look spiritual. They seem right. And they are not.

All of which is why the theme in Koontz's book so annoyed me. Here it is as he stated it:

"None of us can save himself; we are the instruments of one another's salvation, and only by the hope that we give to others do we lift ourselves out of the darkness into light."

He did mention God in the book. In fact, it was by the savior-angel character's bonding with a dog that the character could perceive God. If this character touched a dog while it was sleeping, he would experience the peace and joy of knowing God as the Playful Presence perceived by dogs all the time. Moreover he could teach people to do the same and by this "save the world," because in perceiving the Playful Presence they would experience joy and peace and would know they were unconditionally loved.

Jesus was mentioned in only one conversation and that mockingly. When one of the heroines is trying to get a PI to help her, she is quite pushy and he remarks at one point,

"You ought to sell Jesus door-to-door. The whole world would be saved by Tuesday."

Later in that same conversation, she says, again echoing the book's theme,

"Sometimes a person's life can change for the better in one moment of grace, like a miracle almost. Someone so special can come along, all unexpected, and pivot you in a new direction, change you forever. You ever had that experience, Mr. Farrel?"

He grimaced. "You ARE peddling Jesus door-to-door."

So weird, so close to truth. Yes, your life does change for the better in one moment of grace, and it is a miracle when you believe in Christ and are made new, given eternal life right then and there. He, Jesus Christ, is the one so special who comes along and can pivot you in a new direction, change you forever... It seems amazing the words uttered by this character can be so close to the truth and yet, be derailed by focusing on the wrong object.

But this is what Satan's cosmic system and deception is all about. A little bit of truth, maybe even a LOT of truth, and a little bit of lie, and it's all distorted.

So that's why this wonderfully written book annoyed me. Because the author used truth to cloak a dreadful lie, because he even used it to slight the Lord. Instead of seeking God through his Word, through believing in Christ we are advised to find a sleeping dog. This sounds absurd as I set it down, but because Koontz is so good at what he does, it is not nearly so laughable in the story. And truth distorted by one little lie, the whole cloaked in a wonderfully appealing cloak of "rightness", has always been Satan's best work for deceiving people.

"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world..." ~ Rev 12:9

~~~

Some Things Grow Clear

I think I might have mentioned that I've been having trouble concentrating and staying with the work. I keep thinking of all these things to do besides write. And before it's time to write, I often get this feeling of oppression and discouragement. The feeling that the work is no good. That it will never be good. That no one cares. That it's all a failure. Why am I bothering, etc, etc. Unfortunately I don't usually take the time to focus on the specific thoughts behind the feelings, I just feel the feelings. And so I don't want to do the work.

Then when I do manage to get myself into the office and start to get settled, little thoughts keep coming in to get me off track. I should check the email! I need a pen. Then I go to get the pen, and stuff lying around the house in a different room distracts me and the next thing you know I'm organizing my stamps or cleaning spots off the wall, or doing something with Quigley.

Last week I asked the Lord what was wrong with me. I got the idea then that maybe all these thoughts didn't originate with me. I've heard that concept before -- Pastor has mentioned it off and on -- I just didn't really think it applied to me. Usually he mentions it in conjunction with concentrating in Bible class or praying... But now I thought maybe it could apply to my writing as well and that it wasn't all me. So I asked Him. "Do these thoughts originate with me, Lord?"

That very night, Thursday, He answered me in Bible class. NO! They do not!

Here are a couple of quotes from the speaker (Evangelist Scott Grande, standing in for Pastor McLaughlin who's had a back injury) first on the subject of concentrating during Bible class:

"When my mind wanders when I'm in class... those thoughts are distractions from the kingdom of darkness. You must CAPTURE those thoughts; lock them up in a prison in your mind... during the time dedicated to exposure to Bible Doctrine, concentrate on the Word being taught and block out all distractions. This takes mental discipline."

Wow.

Even as I was taking notes, applications were rushing into my mind: all those thoughts to check the email, the blogs, to go do X (not writing) are NOT from me. And not only are those thoughts from the Kingdom of Darkness, but I'm certain the negative ones are too -- the doubts, the "what's the use" thoughts, etc. The word tells us that Satan wants to wear down the saints. We are told not to grow weary, not to lose heart, not to get discouraged. It tells us Satan and his minions will try to do that very thing, get us entangled in the details of life, try to persuade us that what we are doing in God's plan for our lives has no worth or purpose. Those thoughts have to be recognized, captured and replaced with truth.

Evangelist Grande went on to detail potential distractions, of which several struck me as being particularly fertile ground for my enemies to plant seeds in: the desire for something easier to do than struggle with this book, the desire for attention and approval, the desire for social interaction, the hypersensitivity of caring what people think, feeling sorry for yourself when you don't have all you want... but then he hit the last one and it got me all excited: Interruptive technologies.

Cell phones that interrupt you whenever as you are trying to focus. Or...

"I'm at the computer, looking something up and the email's on. Ding! You've got mail. Ding! Southwest Airlines flight specials. Shut the stupid things off and give 100% concentration to the work."

I don't have a cell phone. And I do not have my email open. I have to open it and push send/receive to check it. Those aren't really very strong barriers though. When I sit down and the thought comes, "I wonder if so and so replied. It'll only take a moment to check," and I believe that, and don't recognize that thought for the big fat worm on the hook that it is, I'll be lured away for maybe a couple of hours.

So I've decided to set aside time (sacred="set apart") devoted to writing, and during that time I will devote 100% concentration to the writing and allow no distractions. I'm also trying to come up with some sort of opening routine for my writing time, a couple of steps to go through every time to give me something preplanned to do that I can do whether I feel like it or not: pray, stretch and read through yesterday's work.

I've only adhered to this little change for two days (Friday and Saturday) but so far the results have been amazing. It just feels different. To really know those thoughts are not little harmless, it won't take long thoughts, but deadly enemies. Vipers. The little foxes that trample the branches and thus ensure that they will not be producing any fruit.

Of course the proof is in the long term, so momentary enthusiasm means nothing. It has to be day by day...

Oh, but that was another thing he said, again referring to the study of Bible doctrine -- the daily study of it, which is commanded by the word, and essential to our spiritual growth. But we're not supposed to be living in the future. We're supposed to be living in today. So don't think in terms of "daily intake," think only in terms of today. Today I will make sure that I get in Bible Class, because it's the most important thing I will do.

So it is with writing. Today I will make sure I get in my two hours, (in addition to Bible class of course) because that's part of my calling, and I have to be taking it seriously.

~~~

Sarah Palin

Wow! I am so impressed, so jazzed. I didn't hear her speech last night, but I read it online today and heard parts of it delivered in a video montage. It made me cry. I think from the pleasure of hearing so much common sense and of having so many of my values echoed. She is very cool. I loved the line about McCain being the only one of the men on the ticket who has actually fought for us. The only one who has ever really fought for us "in places where winning means survival and defeat means death."

I love that she has taken part in butchering a moose, that she rides snowmobiles... but mostly that she is so direct, and hits the issues straight on and clearly and also that she isn't afraid to take it to her opponents. The community organizer bit was hilarious. And so was the part about the Styrofoam Greek columns.

I love that she doesn't whine or complain, just jumps in to get the job done. Actually I had heard of her before last week, because we have a subscription to Alaska Magazine and there was an article on her a few months back. They mentioned the birth of baby Trig and his Downs Syndrome then; and also that she might be considered for the VP position.

She's dealt with a lot of difficulties, and is now going to be dealing with...the media. Though she may over match them, actually. Today I read somewhere that the media has finally found someone it's own size to pick on: a 17 year old girl.

As always though, I find these media frenzies to be fascinating. Its power much as I disdain it, is still very real. The photos, the videos, the words of supercilious commentators, the magazine covers, the endless criticisms and condescension coming through the air at us (well, except for the magazines). The lies, the distortions, the half truths, the omitted truths, the incredible overblown claims some of the candidates make when they have nothing to claim... it blows me away. I just cannot conceive of baldly lying like that, when the truth is so obvious or so easily proven. But I think I'm beginning to see that truth isn't always obvious to everyone, and bias can serve as very effective blinders. People really do tend to believe what they wish to believe.

And I find it interesting that today I should be looking at all of this and tonight the lesson began with reading from Eph 6:10-14.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of darkness against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places... all of those categories of demons of varying ranks.

"We have a strong, organized, intelligent enemy..."

And I thought about the nature of the attacks on Sarah Palin, and how we as Christians would do well to examine and take note of them, for it is a very open, overt illustration of how our enemy attacks us. Indeed, I believe the same source is responsible for both attacks. Not that the individual people who make the statements are demon possessed, though some may be. No, it's the whole system of thinking out there. A system that people suck up, partly from being continually barraged with it until they come to believe it, partly, as I said, because they want to believe it.

It's amazing to see the media machine go on the attack. Don't line up with what they believe to be true and right and they fling the actual issues out the window and go for their victim's jugular. Ad hominem attacks are the order of the day. And it doesn't even matter if the attacks are true. The only objective is to destroy.

I'm not saying Republicans are exempt from this behavior. I think it's one common to humans in general, one that has its origins in the thinking of the ruler of this world, Satan, the legal Adversary, the accuser of the brethren. The whole system that is attacking Sarah Palin stands as a small example of the much larger system that attacks God. Assaults and denigrates His character, impugns His motives, says He's something He's not, ignores His good works, looks for any excuse to blame and vilify. This larger system is across the board, varied, complex, subtle, and all around us. Its proponents work tirelessly to accomplish their goals, not just with non Christians but Christians too...

Which is one of the reasons we need to have our minds renewed with His thinking through Bible study on a daily basis.


~~~

Quigley Update

Well, once I gave the whole affair over to the Lord and stopped trying to take care of it myself, He took care of it.

Quigley came home from his walk with Stu last night just fine, and Stu had gotten another stool sample, similar to the one I had, but in more quantity. Quigley drank and we gave him a bit of Pepto-Bismol as per Internet advice. Then he ate a small bit of rice and chicken, and was much more alert and lively than he'd been all day, playing around and generally being a nice dog. Right before bed he ate another bit of rice and chicken and we decided we didn't need to bring him in this morning (Thursday).

I do think, however, based on the way he's acting today, that he really wasn't feeling well yesterday and was indeed more lethargic than normal. Today he's been very interested in food, hanging around the kitchen, pressing himself against me as he tries to get close to the counter, pouncing on bits of ice if they fall from the freezer, none of which he did yesterday. Today I've already had to lock him in his crate for chewing on the rug, and just now had to chase him out of the office for trying to chew the cardboard boxes of my bookmarks. Whereupon he went outside and wrestled with a large, plastic dog-biscuit can. Again, not how he had behaved yesterday. He's also eaten three times already, and ends by looking for more.

Yesterday, he literally just lay around, getting up only to change rooms. When I put him outside, he lay down where he was.

Also, I have to fill in a bit of back story regarding my experiences with dogs and diarrhea. Our first dog got colonitis one summer when we were staying in Flagstaff -- squirted puddles of bloody diarrhea and had to spend a couple days in the hospital. Our third dog had bloody diarrhea from parvo and had to spend a day in the hospital. Most recently, Bear had diarrhea and vomiting during an acute attack of kidney failure on a Saturday, and I was advised to withhold water and food and wait for the doctor on Monday, when it turned out what I should have done was bring him in immediately for sub-Q fluids. So I'm kinda prepped to get weird about diarrhea that's bloody and doesn't end.

Not that that's any excuse for freaking out, just that I can see I have a weakness there. Of course I have a bigger weakness in repeatedly thinking I have to solve the problems and head off the disasters I'm envisioning, when I should be bringing them to the Lord.


~~~~

A Warning from our Pastor

On Monday, as we were making our various ways home from the New England conference, our pastor sent us all an email warning which said, in part:

All of you are now going to face brand new challenges, especially from our best friend's enemy - BEWARE!

The conference has not ended; THE CONFERENCE HAS JUST BEGUN.

So I got home Monday night, we took Quigley on his walk and he had runny, watery diarrhea. Well, maybe it was stress, we thought. Or something he ate. No biggie. He seems to get diarrhea somewhat regularly, though not usually all watery.

But the next day, he still had it. Sometimes it was thicker than others and in late afternoon he left one that had blood in it. So we fed him a bland diet of rice and chicken. He loves rice and chicken and gets all excited just when I'm making the rice. He gobbled down a whole batch of it last night. Then we took him on his walk and though he stopped frequently, he never left enough to even pick up.

This morning when things were a little bit more formed in his first two droppings, with no blood n them, I thought he was getting better. Then he refused to eat. No rice, no chicken, no yogurt (which he loves) -- he wasn't even very interested in the treats during our (very brief) training session. And he seemed very lethargic. Finally I called the vet, and was told to withhold food for the rest of the day and bring in a stool sample this afternoon or tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

Well, when I went out around three o'clock and found he'd just had another squirt, and it was very runny with blood now mixed throughout, I collected as much of it with a spoon as I could (about a tsp) and put into a ziplock bag and took it to the clinic for sampling.

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to do both parts of the test, though the part that was done didn't show any bacteria or parasites (the other part still could, which means we still don't know anything) (which seems to be the story of my life when it comes to medical tests, both for myself and for my dogs). When I was asked if Quigley was being normal in all respects except for this, I said no, and told about his lack of interest in eating, the lethargy, and the limited drinking. That wasn't good, and I was advised to bring him in tomorrow, along with another stool sample, because he might need to be watched or get fluids.

The additional complicating factor in all this is that it turns out my husband doesn't think Quigley's acting particularly lethargic. Apparently he's been acting like this for the whole week I was away. If he's still eager to take his walk, and able to do so, then he's behaving as he has been for the last 9 days. If that is so, then we don't need to bring him in tomorrow (Thursday) and have him watched and get fluids but can go ahead with our original plan to wait until Thursday night/Friday morning to see if he's going to get better before going in to the vet at all. Arg.

I can soooo see that this little affair has been orchestrated to produce maximum uncertainty and confusion and distraction. Why am I not surprised? (Our battle is not against blood and flesh...) If I'd not been gone a week before this happened, and Quigley had suddenly gotten the diarrhea and starting acting like this, then it would have been different, because the behavior is strikingly different from what it was before I left. If he'd not gotten the diarrhea and was acting all mellow and stodgy like he is, then it would be easy to believe that he is finally "maturing" into a typical adult hound. (Even the not eating wouldn't be all that alarming because sometimes in the morning he doesn't eat much) Instead... we have confusion, inconclusive tests, disagreement from different perspectives, the pressure to try to see into the future and from that predict the best course of action, tension, the huge temptation to worry... DISTRACTION!

Well, I was warned. And now have opportunity to apply all the doctrines I've learned, especially last week. And what I know is... I have no clue. I don't know what's wrong with him. I don't know what is going to happen. I don't know what he needs. I don't know what to do. I can't stand not knowing, and I can't stand all the waiting in uncertainty. Which is probably why this test is here. Again.

So I have to put it all into God's hands and not think about it. Even if I make wrong decisions, He can still take care of things. It's His plan that matters, not mine. One of the things we learned last week was the importance of really focusing on and believing and living in the fact that He loves us. That He loves me. Personally. Specifically.

When you know that you are loved with the kind of love He has for us, that would drive Him to send His Son to the cross, that would drive His Son to agree to GO to the cross -- and that this One who loves you is the creator and ruler of the Universe -- what can there possibly be to worry about? He will handle it. He wants you ... He wants ME to trust Him with all of this and forget about trying to work it out myself. He really and truly does not need me to help Him with all my attempts to peer into the future and make the "right" decisions so as to avoid a possible disaster, to demand we do things my way because "I am right." How do I know I'm right? Maybe I'm not. I have no clue.

What I do know is that while I definitely do not have all the facts, He does. What I know is that nothing happens in my life that He did not choose, down to the smallest detail, to be a part of His perfect and wonderful plan that provides ultimately only His highest and best for me. If I don't understand, well, that's part of it. Because more than anything He just wants that trust. He wants me to know who He is and then to trust Him in that, regardless of what sight says. And He wants me to bring to Him all my concerns by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving...

So right now I have no idea what is going to happen. Except that I think I'm going to go eat dinner now, and maybe I'll manage to get in a bit more work on Enclave this evening before it's time for bed. As for tomorrow? One day at a time.

~~~~

Thoughts on the Battle

Christian speculative fiction is often about the battle between good and evil. In fact, so is much secular speculative fiction. It's certainly a battle I write about in my own books.

It's also a battle I believe really exists. That being the case, it doesn't seem too likely the enemy would want such literature out in the marketplace, revealing their existence and tactics to whoever. Over the years there has been much lamenting over the fact that Christian fantasy doesn't sell, much talk of what to do to make it better, to get people to read it. But maybe the battle isn't against flesh and blood, but against "the spiritual forces of wickedness in the atmosphere." Maybe, if there really is a battle, books that illuminate it are automatically going to be a hard sell, ignored, overlooked, etc. If there really is a battle, maybe that hard sell should be the expectation, not a surprise.

After all, how do you reconcile the idea of great public popularity for a novel that puts forth Christian ideas with "If you were of the world, the world would love its own, but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." ("Hates," here, meaning "loves less," or "prefers against.") How does wild and widespread acclaim mesh with Lk 6:26 "Woe to you when men think well of you"?

And what about I Co 2:14 "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised."

---

Cut-Off Paper Clips

This morning I was supposed to take my mother to the outpatient services at the hospital to have an MRI. Yesterday in planning our timing, I said I would aim to pick her up at 7:40 barring any more crises (like the matter of the baby bird last week). But that, of course, having a dog, a crisis was not wholly unexpected.

And I'd just posted yesterday some of Sun Tzu's principles of strategic keys to victory.

So of course, there was a crisis. Yesterday I tried to fix my broken purse shoulder strap clasp with a cut off paper clip, a cockamamie idea whose efficacy and wisdom I even wondered about at the time. The spring had come out, you see, so the little latch had nothing to hold it in place and the strap came off the D-ring every time I set the purse down. So I cut off the end of a paper clip, squeezed the "U" end into a "V" and stuck it into the spring hole, holding the latch in place. That seemed to do the trick and I hung my purse on the back of the dining room table chair where I always do.

Later, Quigley had some sort of weird fit there, chasing his tail, biting it, tugging on it, going round and round as he caroomed off the walls, the dog crate and maybe the purse, though it was on the opposite side of the chair. Then this morning, as I was getting ready to go and all was progressing smoothly, Quigley suddenly romped from the dining room into the living room with something. He was tossing it about, falling down, rolling around, having a good old time as he often does with stolen things like socks, pens, a hair clip, a hair scrunchie and just as often, a piece of his chew. Since his reaction to me trying to see what he has is now to run away (grumble, steam) I decided to head him off by getting some sausage to offer him as a bribe. But as soon as he saw me coming he ran, chewing on the mystery object, and when I tried to get him, he scrambled under the coffee table, chewing even more. I had to haul him out by his hips. By the time I looked in his mouth, I found nothing but a few slimy bits of food. Whatever he'd gotten, it was gone.

"Fine!" I told him. "Eat whatever you find lying about and if it kills you, at least I won't have to deal with you any more!"

I put him outside, and about eight minutes before time to leave I picked up my purse, set it on the table, the strap fell off and I realized the cut-off paper clip "stay" was gone. I was immediately absolutely sure that was the mystery item he'd found earlier. And eaten. The three quarter-inch long metal V with two points on the end was now making its way through his digestive tract where it would surely penetrate delicate intestinal walls and kill him! I searched frantically in the dining room but found nothing. And I had to go.

So I went. While waiting at the hospital for my mother's hour long procedure to be completed, I called the vet. They'd see him on an emergency basis ($70 fee for that) and I set up an appointment. Then I went back to my chair and started thinking and talking with the Lord.
It just seemed like a set-up. I didn't know for sure Quigley had eaten the paper clip. It only seemed as if he had. And to have it all happen right before I left is so typical of events designed to test, whether from the Kingdom of darkness or from God Himself, making things look like they're one way, not giving me any way to be sure and forcing me to trust Him for some pre-ordained period of time. It also played in that I had to sit there in that waiting room alone for an hour, helpless to act, free to brood. I did not. I had brought a book and read it, determined not to spend any time imagining something that might turn out not to be true.

When I got home I prayed the Lord would show me where the paper clip V was, if not in Quigley's gullett. I looked thoroughly through the dining room now. Nothing. I cleaned the table, I moved the chairs and dog bed... nothing. I finally got the counter brush and began to sweep around the table legs and in the corners closest to where the purse had been. I swept up small wads of dog hair, two staples, some bits of gravel and dirt... no clip. So I moved to the other side, which seemed quite unlikely, swept at the crack between two cabinets, and all along the front. Then I pushed all the dirt into the dustpan and examined it. Still nothing. So I went back to the cabinets and there was the clip. As if it had fallen from the ceiling. Hallelujah! Thank you Lord!

I canceled the emergency vet appointment, and re-affirmed the concept that torturing yourself with what-ifs is always a bad idea. So is cutting up paper clips for any reason when you have a dog like Quigley. My purse clasp is now held together with duct tape, that wonderful all purpose adhesive/fastener! And the cut up paper clip V has been glued into my journal as a reminder not to be so stupid again. Though maybe I should fasten it with duct tape as well! In fact... I think I'll go do that right now.

----

The Art of War

Principles from The Art of War by Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception, therefore:

When capable, feign incapacity;
When active, feign inactivity

When near, make it appear that you are far away
When far away, that you are near

Offer the enemy a bait to lure him in;
Feign disorder and strike him

When he concentrates, prepare against him;
When he is strong, avoid him

Anger his general and confuse him;
Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance

Keep him under a strain and wear him down.

When he is united, divide him

Attack where he is unprepared;
Sally out (erupt or bust out) when he does not suspect you.

These are the strategic keys to victory.

And these keys will be used by the Enemy against all those who are moving forward in the Plan of God for their lives. It's important to remember these things, so we can be aware of them when they are used against us .

2Co 2:11 ... so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

A No-Brainer

Today, more from Richard Lewontin, reviewing Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark in The New York Review of Books.

Sagan's intent in his book is to present science as the only accurate source of "truth", not through analysis, but exhortation. And, "if the exhortation is to succeed," says Lewontin, "then the argument for the superiority of science and its method must be convincing, and not merely convincing, but must accord with its own demands...Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer."

"First, we are told [by Sagan] that science 'delivers the goods.' It certainly has, sometimes, but it has often failed when we need it most. Scientists and their professional institutions, partly intoxicated with examples of past successes, partly in order to assure public financial support, make grandiose promises that cannot be kept."

He cites the War on Cancer as an example of one such grandiose promise "which is as yet without a victorious battle." Despite all the money spent, and all the new and great discoveries touted as the long-sought after cure, we still, years later, can do no more than treat the disease.

"Second, it is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology [the study of the nature of knowledge, in particular its foundations, scope, and validity] any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations. There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become "observations" we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed."

In other words, they are biased. They have a pre-concieved framework that guides their conclusions. The scientist on the panel who sought to "make the data fit" the conclusion she "knew" was right, was not unusual at all.

Lewontin continues: "Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited..."

So basically then, he's saying that they throw out the stuff that doesn't fit the notions they are trying to put forth. Rather like the news media, and polititians. Probably other disciplines as well. So much for the noble search for truth.

The standard form for scientific papers is to first state a theoretical question, followed by the description of a proposed experiment to answer it. After that comes a description of the actual observations the experiment produced and finally, a section that discusses those observations and the conclusions they lead to. It is here, says Lewontin, Harvard professor of Zoology and Biology, that "a great deal of energy is often expended rationalizing the failure of the observations to accord entirely with a theory we really like, and in which proposals are made for other experiments that might give more satisfactory results...

"Nor is this a problem unique to biology. The attempts of physicists to explain why their measurements of the effects of relativity did not agree with Einstein's quantitative prediction is a case no doubt well known to Sagan."

Finally, Lewontin addresses the claim that "that there is no place for an argument from authority in science," which is, as I mentioned yesterday, a joke. Though there may be much self-criticism within a particular discipline, "when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty," admits Lewontin, "they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan?"

So, in the end, for all the claims that science is the "correct material" and "the only begetter of truth," "the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world," it really boils down to faith for most of us. And who will we put our faith in? The word of fallible men, demonstrated far too often to be unreliable, or the infallible, unchanging, eternal word of God?

To me, it's a no-brainer.

Karen

Faith in Science

Last week I did a lot of reading of evolutionist and atheist viewpoints and came away from it rather surprised. We're always being told that science says this, and scientists say that, that their viewpoints are based upon facts, logic and a rigorous application of the scientific method. They are today's seekers of truth, we are told, and their conclusions are the result of rigorous and impartial investigation.

Years ago at a science fiction convention I attended a panel discussion wherein some scientists first expressed a different approach -- "You know how you get hit with an insight," one of them said, "and you just know what the truth is and what the answer to your hypothesis is going to be? Then you have to just make the data fit." I sat there agog. Did she really just say that? That went against everything I had always believed science to be. So strongly did I cling to my belief that science really was an honest endeavor to find the truth of the natural world and its functions, that I chalked the remarks up to one eccentric individual.

Apparently she's not as unusual as I believed.

My reading of last week included Richard Lewontin's review for The New York Review of Books of Carl Sagan's 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. (Lewontin is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Biology at Harvard University, and the author of several books.)

Sagan's book, from what I can tell, is basically a treatise on how people need to think right in order to know the truth. Not surprisingly, I agree! However his idea of "thinking right" and mine are not the same. He is trying to convince people to stop believing in "superstitious nonsense" and accept science as their new god and religion. Of course he doesn't use those words, but almost.

Here are some quotes of Lewontin's review (with my comments):

"First, no one can know and understand everything. Even individual scientists are ignorant about most of the body of scientific knowledge, and it is not simply that biologists do not understand quantum mechanics. If I were to ask my colleagues in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard to explain the evolutionary importance of RNA editing in trypanosomes, they would be just as mystified by the question as the typical well-educated reader of this review."

(So then the implication is, we must take it on faith when Scientists assure us that this "proves" evolution)

"Second, to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out. People believe a lot of nonsense about the world of phenomena, nonsense that is a consequence of a wrong way of thinking. The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.

"Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons.

"Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world. To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test."

And yet, in his earlier paragraph, Lewontin said that the vast majority of us lack the knowledge to really understand the specifics of whatever a discipline of science is telling us. Even scientists in other disciplines remain ignorant and must accept the claims of their fellows as fact purely on faith.

Again, he says himself, toward the end of his review:

"Carl Sagan ... has devoted extraordinary energy to bringing science to a mass public. In doing so, he is faced with a contradiction for which there is no clear resolution. On the one hand science is urged on us as a model of rational deduction from publicly verifiable facts, freed from the tyranny of unreasoning authority. On the other hand, given the immense extent, inherent complexity, and counterintuitive nature of scientific knowledge, it is impossible for anyone, including non-specialist scientists, to retrace the intellectual paths that lead to scientific conclusions about nature. In the end we must trust the experts and they, in turn, exploit their authority as experts and their rhetorical skills to secure our attention and our belief in things that we do not really understand.

And they denigrate Christians for having blind faith! Then turn around and say it's okay, so long as you're believing in "science." I don't think I've ever seen so clearly the spiritual aspect of the science belief system. Nor have I seen so clearly that it is indeed a belief system.

Karen

Evolution and Creation

A fellow believer called me awhile back, one who also has a degree in the Life Sciences, and asked how I reconciled the natural record of science with the biblical account of Creation.

Let me state my view on the world's origins first. I believe the seven day account in Genesis to be a literal account, not of creation but of the renovation or rehabilitation of the earth. I believe that God the Son created the heavens and the earth in the blink of an eye long before the account that begins in Genesis 1:2. Some call this the Gap "Theory". I don't consider it a theory since it's been demonstrated through scripture quite satisfactorily for me.

My timeline then is that in an instant of time God created the heavens and the earth as stated in Col 1:16. Some time previous to that He had already created the angels, inferred from Job 38 where it says, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth...when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of god shouted for joy?"

The greatest of those angels, Lucifer, son of the dawn, the morning star, was the Lord's right hand man, guardian of the throne of God (Eze 28). He was and is the most beautiful, talented, clever, personable and intelligent creature ever to come from God's hand. That was not enough for him, though, and even though everything he had came from God, even his place above the other angels, arrogance crept into his heart. He wanted more. He wanted to take God's place, says Isaiah 14:12. He started a revolt and the scriptures indicate that he persuaded not just a third of the angels but all of them, to follow him.

There was a big battle, God won and offered a form of salvation to them all. Two thirds of them came back. (Jesus is said in Rev 4 to be the only holy one in heaven. If any of the angels hadn't fallen, wouldn't they be holy, too?) Those who refused were tried for their rebellion, found guilty and sentenced to the Lake of Fire. (Mt 25:41)

At that point Satan appealed his sentence and God fixed the ruined earth as a place for his new but lower creation, man. Using man God would reproduce the entire conflict on this theater we call earth, and demonstrate to all the angels that He was indeed just in his actions. This is inferred in part from the fact that the sentence has already been pronounced (see above) and yet will not be carried out until the end of human history. (Rev 20:10)

(This is a vastly oversimplified summary of the doctrine of the angelic conflict and all the scriptures that point to it. If you are interested in a more rigorous -- and convicting! -- study, I recommend the 57 hours of teaching my pastor has given on the subject, which you can find here.)

All this to say, on the one hand, that since there was a time when there was no man on the earth, yet there were cities, and a time when the earth was perfect before it became tohu wa bohu ("without form and void," the phrase found only one other place in the Bible and that's Jeremiah 4:23 describing a ruined battlefield) there is plenty of room for a lengthy natural history predating man's entrance on the scene.

To be continued...

Have a great weekend
Karen

Transformers

Last Friday we finally saw Transformers, a film I wanted to see when I first saw the trailers for it -- and was thwarted first by my broken leg and then my broken arm.

I'd always loved the way my son's transformers worked and the way the ones in the movie changed looked even cooler. It is a kid's movie, and in my opinion, walks a fine line between too kid-oriented to watch and pretty good. It does a lot of things right. Shia LaBeouf, who plays the lead, is an intriguing actor, reminding me vaguely at times of a very young Russell Crowe. I love the soundtrack. There are some very funny parts. And the transformers were very cool to watch as they shifted forms and engaged in their battles.

Even more interesting to me were the places where the film touched on elements of the real angelic conflict. A friend suggested it provided a cool visual aid for spiritual concepts in that you are watching these huge, powerful superbeings engaging in violent conflict over the right of humans to be free to live their lives. One is even assigned as a personal guardian of the hero. (Though I admit, I had some believability issues when the guardian's name was revealed. "But that was one of the transformers real names, Mom," my son informed me. Still... Bumblebee????)

Other things that struck my fancy:

At the end, the bodies of these huge robot warriors are dropped into a deep trench in the ocean, where pressure and frigid temps would immobilize them -- reminiscent of Bible's mention of an abyss under the sea, place of imprisonment of angels following their defeat in battle.

The main transformer villain was found frozen in the arctic, and was kept frozen as he was studied -- the secrets taken from him allegedly sparking our human "discoveries" of the microchip, and other things I can't recall. The Bible says that in the end times it will be like the days of Noah. In those days fallen angels walked the earth in physical form, and according to the Book of Enoch (an extrabiblical writing classified as pseudapigrapha but useful in learning what people thought about such things at various times) were said to have given men technological information like fire, medicine, astronomy, astrology, metalworking, etc.

The transformers' ability to take on form of common machines/electronic instruments and move amongst people unnoticed (the good and evil ones) also echoes angelic operation. Since they go among us unseen. The Bible even says (Heb 13:2) we are to be hospitable to strangers, because by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

So I guess overall I'd recommend it. It was a fun way to spend a couple of hours and I came away with some cool images and also, fabulous writing music roaming through my brain.

Grace,
Karen

Ghost Rider

We watched Ghost Rider with Nicolas Cage last Friday. I like Nicolas Cage, but this movie... I spent waay too much time muttering, "What?!" "Oh that's ridiculous!" "How idiotic!" "Don't they know anything about the angelic conflict?"

In defense I suppose some would say, "It's just a comic book, for crying out loud. No one takes those seriously. Everyone expects them to be ridiculous. After all look at the Ghostrider guy -- he walks around in jeans and boots and a leather jacket and gloves but his head is a burning skull. Not only that, when he drives his motorcycle down the street, he generates such heat and power that he leaves a trail of ash and burning wreckage and for some reason the wind of his passage overturns cars. Yet his clothes don't burn. So you can't expect anything in it to be serious, realistic or to make sense."

Well, certainly those expectations were met!

Still, it bugs me for that very reason that the devil is so often the subject of comic book type stories. Do we assume from that that the devil is not to be taken seriously? An adversary fit only for ridiculously unrealistic comic book material? There aren't people who can spin webs with their hands, after all, nor men of steel who can fly, nor women who can turn themselves invisible. So... the logical conclusion is that there's no devil, either.

The thing is, in all the superhero flicks, the people are often acting more or less like people, struggling with issues that can be considered serious -- crime, tyranny, assault, murder, general nastiness, the desire to destroy. True, the villains are all exaggerations of reality (though I think perhaps Saddam Hussein could give a typical comic book villain a run for his money) but the motivations that drive them find their roots in human greed, cruelty, power lust and sin. And always they are opposed by a hero, a man of integrity and power who can stand up to the villain, defeat him and save the world. Cliche those may be, but they are important truths of life. Because we all desire a savior and if we believe in Jesus we can be liberated. Not only from sin, but from the darkness of the devil's world system.

I guess my problem is, if you're going to put the devil in, and call him that, the character should have some remote connection to the real thing. If you're going to create someone who is really nothing like the devil, you should call him something else. Of course in the way the Ghost Rider story is set up, that'd be a bit difficult.

Still, some people will learn all they know about the devil from movies and comic books. This one says that he's a wimpy, smarmy, wildly inconsistent guy in a priest coat with red eyes who lives in hell and can "steal" souls by, apparently, getting unsuspecting good people to sign a contract with him. Now they are his, and totally at his mercy. He gives them great powers so they can go out and round up evil people and bring them to him for... well, I don't know why. Power? Punishment? It wasn't clear. Maybe it didn't matter. Maybe the only thing that mattered was watching Nicolas Cage get a flaming head and ride his motorcycle... Which admittedly was entertaining. I liked his chain whip as well...

The worst of it, though, is that God really has no place in the movie. There is some lip service, but in the end it's the people who are strong and good of heart. They are the ones who will fight and defeat the devil. In their own strength or even, far worse, in the strength of the powers they've acquired from the devil. I think that's probably what bothered me about it the most. That I'm supposed to admire that and find it a clever turn around when I only found it nauseating.

So. I don't recommend the movie, though as I said, Nicolas Cage was entertaining, and there were some funny bits in it. And of course when the old cowboy type ghostrider appears on his horse, that was very cool. But the theology? Straight from the mind of the devil himself who, as his first line of defense, would like everyone to believe that he doesn't exist except in comic books. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Grace,
Karen