Last night was the first time in many weeks that the hubby and I turned on the television and primetime news was on. Apparently, March is Fire Prevention Month. While we were busy in our respective workstations, I cannot help but feel bad for the mother who lost all her four children to fire. Horrible, to say the least. I just had to pause and whisper a prayer her way.

It just bothers me somehow that as much as March was coined to be the fire prevention month, how come that fire accidents is in its all time high. And we are not even done with half of the month yet! Apparently, there are a handful of commercial establishments that went down to fire as well in the previous days. Aside from EXIT SIGNS as a non-negotiable for building owners, other measures should always be taken. It is too awful to think how people get trapped in a building’s skyscraper with no clue what to do, waiting for those huge flames to eat them all up.

We are not really a big fan of the evening news, whether from the boob tube or the radio. I happen to think that what they have on are mostly too sensational for reality. But the very few times we listen or watch the news, the truth about all this fire incidents has stuck. I even found myself spotting the exit sign when the hubby and I watched a chick flick in the movie house last week.

If looking for exit signs has become like an instinct, it can’t be bad, right? Be safe everyone, especially March being the Fire prevention month. The heat is starting to seep through the skin and heat stroke being just around the corner. Let’s all enjoy the summer, sans accidents. Written in association with fire safety training suppliers.

“The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.” – Wilbur Smith

Today many Filipinos and other communities around the world that have some knowledge about Christianity commemorate Christ’s resurrection. And as majority of the world’s population throw many arguments about who this influential and controversial Man who claimed Deity while He walked this earth more than 2,000 years ago, about His death and about His claims that He would be raised from the dead, one thing that is undeniable is the huge amount of evidence available to provide illumination for skeptics who are sincerely seeking answers.

The fact or the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection can’t be denied by unbiased researchers. Based on vast mass of literature, the place of His resurrection is of geographical definiteness. The man who owned the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea, was a man living in the first 50 years of the first century and that tomb was hewn out of a rock in a hillside near Jerusalem. These available information were not composed of some mythological cloud-dust but of geographical importance. The guards who were assigned to guard that tomb were not mythological beings. The Sanhedrin was a group of men meeting frequently in Jerusalem. Jesus, was a living person, a man of history. Christ’s historicity is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. The disciples who scattered to preach the risen Christ were men among men – men who ate, drank, worked, slept, suffered and died. The resurrection of Jesus is an event in the world’s history wherein God acted in a definite time-space dimension.

Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell

Mistletoe.

This shrub has been thought to have magic power to ward evil off. Branches of which were hung over doorways to keep evil spirits out. Another pagan ritual. In Scandinavia, mistletoe has been a long time regarded as a protection against fire and lightning as it also was thought to have the power to heal and ensure fertility.

While as for the kissing under a mistletoe, it goes back to ancient fertility rites where the early Scandinavian people based their belief.

Stockings.

The custom of hanging stockings on Christmas Eve is connected with the origin of St. Nicolas. The tale has it there was a time when St. Nicolas threw some gold coins down a chimney and they landed in a stocking which was drying on the hearth.

Tree.

This symbol has no doubt evolved from a pagan tradition. Both Norse pagans and Celtic Druids (pre-Christian, ancient societies) revered evergreens as manifestations of deity for it stays alive from year to year. For them it represents everlasting life. The Druids decorate their trees with coins for wealth and various charms for love and fertility. While as the Saxons, the early Germanic pagans, were the first to decorate their trees with lights from candles.

A story is told that one Christmas Eve an English missionary came across a child who was a bout to be sacrificed beneath an oak tree to the god Odin. He rescued the child and ordered the oak tree to be cut down. When this was done, he found a small fir tree growing beside the stump of the oak tree. The fir tree then became a symbol of the Christian faith taking the place of the old pagan religion represented by the oak tree.

Europeans favor smaller trees, from three to four feet in height as opposed to how Americans want theirs as usual, big and grand.

Wreath.

These custom directs back from the United States. The Americans were the first to design evergreens and hang them on doors and inside the windows.

Clearly, most, if not all Christmas symbols go back to early pagan traditions. But I dare say that we should not allow the past wrongs of our ancestors dictate how we live presently. It is but imperative to know the cause of the things we do and if at all dictated by the Spirit, renounce all these things and reclaim (as I’ve repeatedly said in the previous article -Part 1) these things back to God. For He owns the world and everything in it.

Allow me to share with you a Psalm chapter that I remember quoting during a worship service in our old church when I was around ten years old. This further reiterates my point on the Lord owning everything and the devil having no place and nothing to claim for himself.

Have a merry and blessed Christmas to us all!

Psalm Chapter 24

 The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.  For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. His is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory.

Christmas.

“Christmas” comes from the old English Cristes masse, meaning ‘the festival mass of Christ’. Christmas as people know it today is an incredible mixture of customs and traditions from many different times and places. Some come from the Romans and others from different parts of Europe. Some even come from pre-Christian times.

Why December 25?

We know from several writers from the third century onwards (including Hippolytus and Augustine) that arguments like these were being put forward in attempt to decide on the dates of the birth and death of Jesus:

‘The spring equinox is March 25, and it must also have been the first day of creation.’ ‘The first Good Friday, the day when Jesus died, was on March 25, the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan.’ ‘Jesus must have been conceived on the same date as his death.’ ‘If March 25 was the date of the conception of Jesus, he must have been born on December 25. He was therefore conceived at the time of the spring equinox and born on the winter solstice.’

Although this kind of speculation seems unconvincing to people today, it’s very possible that it was convincing to many in the third century, when this style of argumentation was widely accepted.

Advent.

The period of four weeks leading up to Christmas marks the beginning of the Christian year. The Advent wreath originated in America. This circular wreath, made out of evergreens, carries four candles, with a fifth in the center. One is lit on each of the four Sundays of Advent, and the fifth on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.

Bells.

It is traditional to ring church bells on Christmas Day to greet the birth of Jesus, and at midnight before New Year’s Day to ring out the old year and ring in the the new.

Candles.

People originally lit candles during the mid-winter festival to represent the light and heat of the sun. A pagan practice. Later they were given Christian meaning, and were regarded as symbolic of Jesus, the Light of the World.

Carols.

Believe it or not, these originated in the Middle Ages, with a strong rhythm and refrain. They came to be popular songs sung at church festivals, especially at Easter and Christmas.

Christmas Cards.

These date back to the time when the Penny Post was started in England in 1840. Cards were first produced in larger numbers in 1860, and they soon took the place of the traditional New Year cards. They became even more popular when, from 1870 onwards, cards could be sent in an unsealed envelope for a halfpenny. The custom soon after spread to other countries.

Crib.

The nativity crib or better known as “Belen” in our vernacular. As far back as the eighth century there had been a permanent crib in the Church of St. Maria Maggiore in Rome, where the pope would celebrate Mass at Christmas, using the manger as an altar. But it was St. Francis and his followers who made the idea of the crib so popular. He set it up in a cave on a hillside outside the town of Grecchio in Italy on December 24, 1224 using an ordinary manger filled with hay, real people and animals.

Santa Claus or Father Christmas.

This character has evolved over a long period of time. Gathered new elements, a number of times changed radically as it travelled from one country to another. It turns out that “Father Christmas” who represents the spirit of Christmas, had no connection whatsoever with St. Nicolas (a.k.a. Santa Claus).

The original St.Nicolas was the Bishop of Turkey during the fourth century. He came from a wealthy clan and used his fortune to help the poor-but only in secret ways. (That’s why Santa shows up when everyone is sleeping! ) After his death, the secret of his generosity was revealed and that started off the custom to give presents secretly on St. Nicolas Day, which is December 6. He later became the patron saints of children, especially that of the orphans. As it later evolved, Sinta Klaas was taken from New Zealand to the United States where his name became Santa Klaus. He now has evolved from the original Bishop to someone who rides a sleigh pulled by reindeers with names to boot, who travels yearly from the North pole.

Gifts.

The custom of gift giving at Christmas goes back to the Roman times of exchanging gifts during the Saturnalia feast. It was a feast when the rich give out money and clothes to their poor and lowly neighbors, and they received in return garlands, tapers or some grains of incense. That’s how the present day got the idea of exchanging gifts. But during the Roman Empire, Christians probably refrained from practicing that tradition as it was associated with a pagan feast.

Many present day religions abhor the tradition of Christmas because of the many pagan practices it has originated from. Fact remains that even as Jesus declared victory when He rose from the dead, there is nothing that the devil can claim to be his in this world. We do the tradition of Christmas in remembrance of Christ’s birth period. It’s a celebration in itself even as it leads to His death on the cross thirty three years after. Because it signifies man’s Saving Grace being here at last. So why not reclaim what were used in the past for whatever feasts of whoever gods to glorify God?
Origins of Things About Christmas, Part 2 will cover the origins of mistletoe, stockings, Christmas tree and the wreath.

I am breaking this entry into several parts. One post will not suffice for an issue as controversial as this.

Let me start this off by saying– I know I can go around the world and back but I can never find the words to describe the overflow of joy in my heart being out of the dating scene (as the world knows it) and knowing that I am in the marriage the Lord has for me. It is only but fitting to dedicate this entry to my husband, Jeff. Happy 6th Anniversary, Mahal! You are God’s greatest gift to me, next to my eternal security in Him.

For close to a decade now, I have been ministering to a number of young adults with a wide array of relationship issues with the opposite sex. I know I’m not a love guru. I am more than that. I am redeemed by the Lord Himself when He took me out of this scene and allowed me to see the things that He has better in store for me. (Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”) So that merits me to minister to them even as I have been there and as the Lord continually equips me to.

I could pull from my sleeves all the several excuses for my former perspective in dating: like my long running sentiments of having a dysfunctional family of origin, my ultra liberated university I went to for college, the endless drama of the environment convincing people around the globe that we are all needy of a romantic relationship. Everything else. Fact is, these things could be factors, but at the end of the day, it is the choices that I make that defines me. Thus, it is but right to share insights such as this to the dating public and advocate a better way to live life claiming God’s promises along the way.

The dating scene is the ultimate roller coaster ride. You prettify yourself to attract the other, the better foot forward. Hopeful yet clueless of what the future holds for the both of you. But definitely, there is some degree of expectation in your head of what you want. Who doesn’t want the perfect relationship anyway? What’s wrong in the picture is, it all points to our selfish cause. Which is but our tendency. We are selfish beings apart from our Lord. It’s “all about me” syndrome doesn’t just prevail in the dating area but life in general. Whoever has not heard of “survival of the fittest,” “what’s in it for me?” These reflects the sin nature of man.

We all have the tendency to satiate the hunger of our hearts the way we are accustomed to. The factors that I have enumerated may only be a few amongst a probably growing list. The Sacred Romance by Curtis & Eldredge perfectly describes the journey of the heart of man. The enchantment of having a great love is the longing of every person’s heart. That basically drives us to do what we do. We are created with the innate need to be loved and pursued. The richness and the powerful truths shared in this book could really shake one’s view about his existence. Philosophers defines romance as man’s longing for transcendence, a desire to be part of something larger than ourselves.

Passion. Man himself was born to be romanced, loved to the very core. That’s what drives people, young and old towards the dating arena. What we carry with us as we hand over our tickets to that gate is what would matter. I, for the longest time have used Josh Harris’ book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” in my counseling ministry. As negative and appalling the title of the book may sound to many, the principles embraced by it will not just blow you off but would also encourage the reader who would want that “match” the Lord has for Him to start with. It challenges the readers to delay dating until they are convinced not just in their hearts that the person they are considering and praying for would “no doubt” be the one they will meet at the altar (and not just date for the sake of dating) but also are in fact towards getting married soon. It further promotes “The right thing at the wrong time is the wrong thing.” In a world where the norm is “collect and select,” the new attitude that it advocates can be rather infamous. But that is immaterial. God’s ways are not always the most welcomed pieces of advice, but it does prove to be the most effective. It’s like living under the umbrella of God’s protection, you step out of it, you subject yourself to pain and inconvenience of the rain, which usually turns out to be a storm. In hindsight, to follow the principles shared therein is cost-effective, which the wiser bunch of people gets to enjoy for a lifetime.

Up and coming, practical and logical ways to effective dating– I hope to post as one of the follow on entries to this one.

Category:Books
Genre: Parenting & Families
Author: Dr. James Dobson
First, the Book Description:

First, 2005 Gold Medallion Award finalist!

Dr. James Dobson has completely rewritten, updated, and expanded his classic best seller The Strong-Willed Child for a new generation of parents and teachers. The New Strong-Willed Child
follows on the heels of Dr. Dobson’s phenomenal best seller Bringing Up Boys. It offers practical how-to advice on raising difficult-to-handle children and incorporates the latest research with Dr. Dobson’s legendary wit and wisdom. The New Strong-Willed Child is being rushed to press for parents needing help dealing with sibling rivalry, ADHD, low self-esteem, and other important issues. This book is a must-read for parents and teachers struggling to raise and teach children who are convinced they should be able to live by their own rules!

Second, A Review from an Amazon.com Customer:
5.0 out of 5 stars Well Respected Philosophy for Raising Good Kids, Nov 24 2004
This review is from: New Strong Willed Child (Paperback)

James Dobson is one of my favorite parenting authors although I am not a Christian. I have embraced this philosophy that keeps me in charge without feeling guilty that I am the boss as I try to keep the kids safe and on track. I agree to disagree with him only regarding spanking as I feel there are many other effective ways to discipline children. I like the large scope of information offered in this book…references, anecdotes, personal experiences and exact words to try in challenging situations. I think this is a well organized book with a variety of helpful information for parents and teachers relating to children of all ages. However, no one book can cover everything from birth through the teenage years in complete detail.

Therefore, if you are looking for further information relating to specific challenging behavior/discipline issues regarding teenagers or toddler/preschoolers and would like an entire book on just those specific years, I also highly recommend 2 books in addition to Dobson’s classic…

…for parents of teenagers–a book called called “How to Keep Your Teenager Out of Trouble and What to Do If You Can’t”

…and for parents of 2-to 5-year-olds–an A-Z trouble-shooting guide called “The Pocket Parent”.

I recommend Dobson for his well respected underlying philosophy and the other 2 books for tons of additional quick read specific practical how-to’s on 2 age spectrums that can definitely test your sanity!

=====================

Third, My Two-Cents:

I have picked out this book for the reason that I got all so concerned about my son’s sudden display of tantrums. He has breezed through almost 2 and a half years without this dreaded “T,” so there I was at a loss for anything that I can pull out from my sleeves. I have took for granted reading the Babywise-Toddlerwise Series for reasons that I get all the wonderful results of the principles shared therein. (Read: bright, happy, healthy and fun to live with baby) I was out clueless that there are more things to come, and having no experience with an actual tantrum, it did not appeal to me so much to read on that, but more on the usual, everyday disciplines which up to this day, Jed is doing very well on. The principles of this book is congruent to the Babywise Series of Ezzo and Dr. Bucknam. Both have biblical principles.

With the more popular positive parenting styles of a handful of authors and child development experts, which I also have investigated on, my vouching for this kind of parenting style may cause frowns to parents of this age. It’s not a new thing for me to be frowned upon, I have always valued to stand on what is right than to please people. That’s how I was built. So in between readings of several parenting principles and theories, I go through their advantages and even the very core of why they come up with theories and principles. No matter how well meaning they are, I apt to go back to the original manual of life. I have to counter check if the principles that they teach reconcile with what the Bible says. Even making sure everything is in context. Checking and cross checking, and then I am just amazed how the Lord would show through how my son responds even as I apply the principles on him, slowly but surely, that God’s teachings are absolute. That’s what He has made me realize.

It’s not an easy read. Especially for parents who are not ready to do the paradigm shift. I just hope to challenge those who so believe in all those glittered positive parenting styles to give this one a shot, and maybe strike a balance between this and that. As I remember Ezzo saying in one of his books, to the effect that we should not be rigid on the schedules. The same way, pick out what works for you without compromising the principles.

To just give you an idea, the book emphasizes on the nature of a child as he grows up. The issue is not the innocence of the babies. Dobson says that no one would question their preciousness as creations of God. The point of disagreement concerns the tendencies and inclinations they have inherited. The humanistic perspective that man by nature is good, which millions of people believe to be true are entirely inaccurate. Starting with the owner’s manual. It teaches that we are born in sin, having inherited a disobedient nature from Adam. (Psalm 51:5). Paul said, this sinful nature has infected every person who ever lived. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23 Therefore, with or without bad association, there is the tendency to do wrong was transmitted genetically. Children are naturally inclined toward rebellion, selfishness, dishonesty, etc. They don’t have to be taught these behaviors. Although this perspective is viewed with disdain by the secular world today, the evidence to support it is overwhelming. Even Plato said more than 2,350 years ago: “Only dead men have seen an end to war.” He was right and it will continue to be that way until the Prince of Peace comes.

These facts are all but necessary to understand the basis of the principles Dr. Dobson imparts in this book. He even said in one instance…

Anyone who has watched a toddler throw a temper tantrum when she doesn’t get her way must be hard-pressed to explain how the phrase “innate goodness” became so popular! Did her mother or father model the tantrum for her, falling on the floor, slobbering, kicking, crying and screaming? The kid needs no demonstration. Rebellion comes naturally to her entire generation – although in some individuals it is more pronounced than in others. He continues on… For this reason, parents can and must train, mold, correct, guide, punish, reward, instruct, warn, teach and love their kids during the formative years. Their purpose is to shape that inner nature and keep it from tyrannizing the entire family.

In another instance, Dr. Dobson cites an example of bad parental advice, which also reflects the positive discipline philosophy. Lini Kabada, writing for the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain: Karen once spanked and called “time-out.” Now she talks about her children’s feelings. When the girls act up, she sweetly and calmly suggests alternative activities and offers support (“I know you’re sad”) in the midst of tantrums, a touchy-feely techniques called “time-in.” She allows what positive-parenting attitudes call “natural and logical consequences” of behavior to flow. For example, her daughter Amanda recently wanted to take a favorite piece of string on an outing. Karen warned that she might lose it, but didn’t argue with the child. She allowed the natural and logical consequence to unfold. Sure enough, Amanda lost it and she cried. Karen didn’t ignore her daughter’s feelings, as pediatricians suggest in the face of a tantrum. she said, that’s sad, it’s horrible, Amanda said she will not bring her toys next time.

He further illustrates a more current example of permissive approaches to child rearing is referred to as “positive discipline,” or the “positive parenting” movement. It sounds good. Consider the following advice, featured on the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s “Positive Discipline” Web Page. It reads, “The goal of discipline is not to control children and make them obey but to give them skills for making decisions, gradually gaining self-control, and being responsible for their own behavior.” Instead of telling a child, “Don’t hit the kitty” or “Stop kicking the table,” they suggest that parents say, “Touch the kitty gently” or “keep your feet on the floor.” The website goes on to assert that “Giving a child choices allows him some appropriate power over his life and encourages decision making.” Parents are advised to redirect childish behavior. For example, if a child is throwing a truck around the house, instead of telling him to stop, they suggest you say to him, “I can’t let you throw your truck, but you may throw the ball outside.” Or if the child is kicking a door, you are to tell him, “You may not kick the door, but you may kick this ball or plastic milk jug.” Their suggestion for dealing with willful defiance is to ignore it or to allow the child to engage in “something pleasant” until he cools off.”

Dr. Dobson comments what a ridiculous advise that is. Notice how hard the parent is supposed to work to avoid being the leader at home. What’s wrong with explaining to a child exactly what you want him or her to do and expecting obedience in return? Why is it unacceptable for a parent to insist that a child engaging in destructive or irritating behavior immediately cease and desist? Why not tell the child, “Kitties have feelings just like you do. You will not hit the kitty”? A youngster whose parent has never take charge firmly is being deprived of a proper understanding of his mom’s or dad’s authority. It also keeps him from comprehending other forms of authority that will be encountered when he leaves the safety of his permissive cocoon. Sooner or later, that boy or girl is going to bump into a teacher, a police officer, or an employer who never heard of positive discipline and who will expect orders to be carried out as specified. The child who has only heard “suggestions” for alternative behavior through the years, which he may choose to accept of reject, is not prepared for the real world.

Dr. Dobson further emphasizes the danger of giving the children the liberty to choose their way into their world prematurely. I remember the same principle in the Babywise series. Parents should give freedom to their children when they have come to learn the responsibility that goes with it. This shapes the will of the child, he then establishes self-control, discipline and respect for authorities.

I love my son so much that I would want him to grow into the person that the Lord has designed him to be. I have so much to say already and I am just doing half of the book just yet. Even as unpopular as this parenting style is, allow me to say that I respect other peoples’ opinions on parenting. At the end of the day, the result of how we brought our child up will stare us in the face whether we like it or not. It is a choice for us to make. Being a pro-active mother that I am, I resolve to raise my child the way God has called me to.

Let me end with this verse that Jed has memorized since he turned two years. Ephesians 6:1 “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.” He may not have the full understanding of what it means just yet. But every chance we get, we explain things to him in bits and pieces what listening and obeying is. Just recently, he would hold my shoulder firmly and say “listen and obey ha.” Just like the way we would remind him when he forgets. It’s really a delight for us to see how Jed is developing. My prayer is that the Lord will continue to give us wisdom in bringing up this child and train him in His ways.

(reposted from Newsweek.com)

The God Debate
At the Summit: On a cloudy California day, the atheist Sam Harris sat down with the Christian pastor Rick Warren to hash out Life’s Biggest Question—Is God real? A NEWSWEEK exclusive.

Newsweek

April 9, 2007 issue – Rick Warren is as big as a bear, with a booming voice and easygoing charm. Sam Harris is compact, reserved and, despite the polemical tone of his books, friendly and mild. Warren, one of the best-known pastors in the world, started Saddleback in 1980; now 25,000 people attend the church each Sunday. Harris is softer-spoken; paragraphs pour out of him, complex and fact-filled—as befits a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. At NEWSWEEK’s invitation, they met in Warren’s office recently and chatted, mostly amiably, for four hours. Jon Meacham moderated. Excerpts follow.

JON MEACHAM: Rick, since you’re the home team, we’ll start with Sam. Sam, is there a God in the sense that most Americans think of him?
SAM HARRIS: There’s no evidence for such a God, and it’s instructive to notice that we’re all atheists with respect to Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom now nobody worships.
Rick, what is the evidence of the existence of the God of Abraham?
RICK WARREN: I see the fingerprints of God everywhere. I see them in culture. I see them in law. I see them in literature. I see them in nature. I see them in my own life. Trying to understand where God came from is like an ant trying to understand the Internet. Even the most brilliant scientist would agree that we only know a fraction of a percent of the knowledge of the universe.

HARRIS: Any scientist must concede that we don’t fully understand the universe. But neither the Bible nor the Qur’an represents our best understanding of the universe. That is exquisitely clear.

WARREN: To you.

HARRIS: There is so much about us that is not in the Bible. Every specific science from cosmology to psychology to economics has surpassed and superseded what the Bible tells us is true about our world.

Sam, does the Christian you address in your books have to believe that God wrote the Bible and that it is literally true?
HARRIS: Well, there’s clearly a spectrum of confidence in the text. I mean, there’s the “This is literally true, nothing even gets figuratively interpreted,” and then there’s the “This is just the best book we have, written by the smartest people who have ever lived, and it’s still legitimate to organize our lives around it to the exclusion of other books.” Anywhere on that spectrum I have a problem, because in my mind the Bible and the Qur’an are just books, written by human beings. There are sections of the Bible that I think are absolutely brilliant and poetically unrivaled, and there are sections of the Bible which are the sheerest barbarism, yet profess to prescribe a divinely mandated morality—where do I start? Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Exodus and First and Second Kings and Second Samuel—half of the kings and prophets of Israel would be taken to The Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity if these events took place in our own time.

[To Warren] Is the Bible inerrant?
WARREN: I believe it’s inerrant in what it claims to be. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific book in many areas.

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you’re asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don’t. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man’s nose? If you believe in God, you don’t have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it’s fine with me.

HARRIS: I’m doing my Ph.D. in neuroscience; I’m very close to the literature on evolutionary biology. And the basic point is that evolution by natural selection is random genetic mutation over millions of years in the context of environmental pressure that selects for fitness.

WARREN: Who’s doing the selecting?

HARRIS: The environment. You don’t have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain the complexity we see.

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I’m willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.

HARRIS: What does that actually mean?

WARREN: One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He’s an intern at this church, and so I said, “God, I need you to help me with this,” as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, “I’m an immigration attorney; I’d be happy to take this case.” Now, if that happened once in my life I’d say, “That is a coincidence.” If it happened tens of thousands of times, that is not a coincidence.

There must have been times in your ministry when you’ve prayed for someone to be delivered from disease who is not—say, a little girl with cancer.
WARREN: Oh, absolutely.

So, parse that. God gave you an immigration attorney, but God killed a little girl.
WARREN: Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I’ve had to learn the difference between no and not yet. The issue here really does come down to surrender. A lot of atheists hide behind rationalism; when you start probing, you find their reactions are quite emotional. In fact, I’ve never met an atheist who wasn’t angry.

HARRIS: Let me be the first.

WARREN: I think your books are quite angry.

HARRIS: I would put it at impatient rather than angry. Let me respond to this notion of answered prayer, because this is a classic sampling error, to use a statistical phrase. We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations. You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

WARREN: That’s a misstatement there.

HARRIS: Let’s go back to the Bible. The reason you believe that Jesus is the son of God is because you believe that the Gospel is a valid account of the miracles of Jesus.

WARREN: It’s one of the reasons.

HARRIS: Yeah. It’s one of the reasons. Now, there are many testimonials about miracles, every bit as amazing as the miracles of Jesus, in other literature of the world’s religions. Even contemporary miracles. There are millions of people who believe that Sathya Sai Baba, the south Indian guru, was born of a virgin, has raised the dead and materializes objects. I mean, you can watch some of his miracles on YouTube. Prepare to be underwhelmed. He’s a stage magician. As a Christian, you can say Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories are not interesting, let’s not pay attention to them, but if you set them within the prescientific religious milieu of the first-century Roman Empire, suddenly miracle stories become especially compelling.

Sam, what are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code?
HARRIS: Well, I don’t think that the religious books are the source. We go to the Bible and we are the judge of what is good. We see the golden rule as the great distillation of ethical impulses, but the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates. I’m not at all a moral relativist. I think it’s quite common among religious people to believe that atheism entails moral relativism. I think there is an absolute right and wrong. I think honor killing, for example, is unambiguously wrong—you can use the word evil. A society that kills women and girls for sexual indiscretion, even the indiscretion of being raped, is a society that has killed compassion, that has failed to teach men to value women and has eradicated empathy. Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses, and we can even teach the golden rule without lying to ourselves or our children about the origin of certain books or the virgin birth of certain people.

Rick, Christianity has conducted itself in an abjectly evil manner from time to time. How do you square that with the Christian Gospel of love?
WARREN: I don’t feel duty-bound to defend stuff that’s done in the name of God which I don’t think God approved or advocated. Have things been done wrong in the name of Christianity? Yes. Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot. There is a home for atheists in the world today—it’s called North Korea. I don’t know any atheists who want to go there. I’d much rather live under Tony Blair, or even George Bush. The bottom line is that atheists, who accuse Christians of being intolerant, are as intolerant—

HARRIS: How am I being intolerant? I’m not advocating that we lock people up for their religious beliefs. You can get locked up in Western Europe for denying the Holocaust. I think that’s a terrible way of addressing the problem. This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism. There are many kinds of dogmatism. There’s nationalism, there’s tribalism, there’s racism, there’s chauvinism. And there’s religion. Religion is the only sphere of discourse where dogma is actually a good word, where it is considered ennobling to believe something strongly based on faith.

WARREN: You don’t feel atheists are dogmatic?

HARRIS: No, I don’t.

WARREN: I’m sorry, I disagree with you. You’re quite dogmatic.

HARRIS: OK, well, I’m happy to have you point out my dogmas, but first let me deal with Stalin. The killing fields and the gulag were not the product of people being too reluctant to believe things on insufficient evidence. They were not the product of people requiring too much evidence and too much argument in favor of their beliefs. We have people flying planes in our buildings because they have theological grievances against the West. I’m noticing Christians doing terrible things explicitly for religious reasons—for instance, not fund-ing [embryonic] stem-cell research. The motive is always paramount for me. No society in human history has ever suffered because it has become too reasonable. WARREN: We’re in exact agreement on that. I just happen to believe that Christianity saved reason. We would not have the Bill of Rights without Christianity.

HARRIS: That’s certainly a disputable claim. The idea that somehow we are getting our morality out of the Judeo-Christian tradition is bad history and bad science.

WARREN: Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn’t matter, my life doesn’t matter.

HARRIS: That is a total caricature of—

WARREN: No, let me finish. I let you caricature Christianity. If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it’s survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. For years, atheists have said there is no God, but they want to live like God exists. They want to live like their lives have meaning. HARRIS: Our morality, the meaning we find in life, is a lived experience that I believe has, to use a loaded term, a spiritual component. I believe it is possible to radically transform our experience of the world for the better, very much the way someone like Jesus, or someone like Buddha, witnessed. There is wisdom in our spiritual, contemplative literature, and I am quite interested in understanding it. I think that medita-tion and prayer affect us for the better. The question is, what is reasonable to believe on the basis of those transformations?

WARREN: You will not admit that it is your experience that makes you an atheist, not rationality.

HARRIS: What in your experience is making you someone who is not a Muslim? I presume that you are not losing sleep every night wondering whether to convert to Islam. And if you’re not, it is because when the Muslims say, “We have a book that’s the perfect word of the creator of the universe, it’s the Qur’an, it was dictated to Muhammad in his cave by the archangel Gabriel,” you see a variety of claims there that aren’t backed up by sufficient evidence. If the evidence were sufficient, you would be compelled to be Muslim.

WARREN: That’s exactly right.

HARRIS: So you and I both stand in a relationship of atheism to Islam.

WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: “I’m still searching for the truth.” Muhammad said, “I am a prophet of the truth.” The Veda says, “Truth is elusive, it’s like a butterfly, you’ve got to search for it.” Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, “I am the truth.” All of a sudden, that forces a decision.

HARRIS: Many, many other prophets and gurus have said that.

WARREN: Here’s the difference. Jesus says, “I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father.” He is either lying or he’s not.

Sam, is Rick intellectually dishonest?
HARRIS: I wouldn’t put it in such an invidious way, but—

Let’s say Rick’s not here and we’re just hanging out in his office.
HARRIS: It is intellectually dishonest, frankly, to say that you are sure that Jesus was born of a virgin.

WARREN: I say I accept that by faith. And I think it’s intellectually dishonest for you to say you have proof that it didn’t happen. Here’s the difference between you and me. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong in certain areas, and you are not.

HARRIS: Oh, I am absolutely open to that.

WARREN: So you are open to the possibility that you might be wrong about Jesus?

HARRIS: And Zeus. Absolutely.

WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?

HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—

WARREN: A low probability? When there are 96 percent believers in the world? So is everybody else an idiot?

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn’t occur.

WARREN: That’s an arrogant statement.

HARRIS: It’s an honest statement.

Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?
WARREN: There’s no doubt where you’re born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, “God likes variety.” I say, “God likes beauty.” I say, “God likes order,” and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.

HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.

WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.

HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?

WARREN: I am responsible to do something about it. No doubt about it. I am responsible to do something about the 500 million who get malaria every year and the 40 million who have AIDS, because I will be held accountable for my life. And when I say, “God, why don’t you do something about this?” God says, “Well, why don’t you? You were the answer to your own prayer.”

HARRIS: I totally agree with Rick: it is our responsibility to help bridge these inequities, but I think you become even more motivated, potentially, to help people when you realize there is no good reason, certainly not a supernatural good reason, for the fact that I have so much and my neighbor has so little.

Do you think that religiously motivated good works are actually harmful?
HARRIS: The thing that bothers me about faith-based altruism is that it is contaminated with religious ideas that have nothing to do with the relief of human suffering. So you have a Christian minister in Africa who’s doing really good work, helping those who are hungry, healing the sick. And yet, as part of his job description, he feels he needs to preach the divinity of Jesus in communities where literally millions of people have been killed because of interreligious conflict between Christians and Muslims. It seems to me that that added piece causes unnecessary suffering. I would much rather have someone over there who simply wanted to feed the hungry and heal the sick.

WARREN: You’d much rather have somebody—an atheist—feeding the hungry than a person who believes in God? All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman’s right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.

HARRIS: You bring up slavery—I think it’s quite ironic. Slavery, on balance, is supported by the Bible, not condemned by it. It’s supported with exquisite precision in the Old Testament, as you know, and Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it, and Peter—

WARREN: No, he doesn’t. He allows it. He doesn’t support it.

HARRIS: OK, he allows it. I would argue that we got rid of slavery not because we read the Bible more closely. We got rid of slavery despite the profound inadequacies of the Bible. We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.

Rick, what is your role as a pastor in encouraging reformation of other faiths?
WARREN: All of the great questions of the 21st century will be religious questions. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What’s going to happen to the influx of Muslims into secular Europe, which has lost its faith in Christianity and has nothing to counteract this loss in religious terms? What will replace Marxism in China? In all likelihood it’s going to be Christianity. Will America return to its historic roots—will there be a Third Great Awakening, or will America go the way of Europe?

HARRIS: I think the answers, in spiritual and ethical terms, are going to be nondenominational. We are suffering the collision of denominations, specifically the collision with Islam. Whatever is true about us isn’t Christian. And it isn’t Muslim. Physics isn’t Christian, though it was invented by Christians. Algebra isn’t Muslim, even though it was invented by Muslims. Whenever we get at the truth, we transcend culture, we transcend our upbringing. The discourse of science is a good example of where we should hold out hope for transcending our tribalism.

WARREN: Why isn’t atheism more appealing if it’s supposedly the most intellectually honest?

HARRIS: Frankly, it has a terrible PR campaign.

WARREN: [Laughs] It’s not a matter of PR.

HARRIS: It is right next to child molester as something you don’t want to be. But that is a product, I would argue, of what religious people tell one another about atheism.

Sam, the one thing that I find really troubling in your arguments is that I am guilty, to quote “The End of Faith,” of a “ludicrous obscenity” when I take my children to church. That is strong language, and it doesn’t exactly encourage dialogue.
HARRIS: To some degree the stridence of my writing is an effort to get people’s attention. But I can honestly defend the stridence because I think our situation is that urgent. I am terrified of what seems to me to be a bottleneck that civilization is passing through. On the one hand we have 21st-century disruptive technology proliferating, and on the other we have first-century superstition. A civilization is going to either pass through this bottleneck more or less intact or it won’t. And perhaps that fear sounds grandiose, but civilizations end. On any number of occasions, some generation has witnessed the ruination of everything they and their ancestors had built. What especially terrifies me about religious thinking is the expectation on the part of many that civilization is bound to end based on prophecy and its ending is going to be glorious.

WARREN: I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection. And the Resurrection is not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the hope of the world: it says there’s more to this life than just here and now. That doesn’t mean that I do less, it means that this life is a test, it’s a trust and it’s a temporary assignment. If death is the end, shoot, I’m not going to waste another minute being altruistic.

HARRIS: How do you account for my altruism?

WARREN: You have common grace. Even in people who don’t believe in God, there is a spark God has put in you that says, “There’s got to be more to life than just make money and die.” I think that that spark does not come from evolution.

Sam wrote that without death, the influence of faith-based religion would be unthinkable.
WARREN: Because we were made in God’s image, we were made to last forever. That means I’m going to spend more time on that side of eternity than on this side. If I did not believe that there is a Judgment, if I believed Hitler would actually get away with everything he did, that would be a reason for great despair. The fact is, I do believe there will be a Judgment Day. God is not just a God of love. He is a God of justice. So death is a factor. On the other hand, even if there were no such thing as heaven, I would put my trust in Christ because I have found it a meaningful, satisfactory, significant way to live.

HARRIS: How is it fair for God to have designed a world which gives such ambiguous testimony to his existence? How is it fair to have created a system where belief is the crucial piece, rather than being a good person? How is it fair to have created a world in which by mere accident of birth, someone who grew up Muslim can be confounded by the wrong religion? I don’t see how the future of humanity is in good care with those competing orthodoxies.

Rick, let’s be blunt. Is Sam’s soul in jeopardy, in your view, because he has rejected Jesus?
WARREN: The politically incorrect answer is yes.

HARRIS: Is that the honest answer?

WARREN: The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, “Oh, I just believe them all,” is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other. You cannot believe in reincarnation and heaven at the same time.

Sam, let’s be blunt as well. Has Rick, in your view, wasted much of his life on behalf of a Gospel that you think is a first-century superstition?
HARRIS: I wouldn’t put it in those stark terms, because I don’t have a rigid view how someone should spend their life so as not to waste it.

WARREN: What’s your politically incorrect answer?

HARRIS: I think you could use your time and attention better than organizing your life around a belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the best book we’re ever going to have on every relevant subject.

How would the ideal world work, in the Sam Harris view?
HARRIS: Right now, we have to change the rules to talk about God and spiritual experience and ethics. And I’m denying that that is so. You can have your spirituality. You can go into a cave and practice meditation and transform yourself, and then we can talk about why that happened and how it could be replicated. We may even want, for perfectly rational reasons, to say we want a Sabbath in this country, a genuine Sabbath. Let’s realize that there’s a power in contemplating the mystery of the universe, and in reminding yourself how much you love the people closest to you, and how much more you could love the people you haven’t met yet. There is nothing you have to believe on insufficient evidence in order to talk about that possibility.

WARREN: Sam, do you believe human beings have a spirit?

HARRIS: There are many reasons not to believe in a naive conception of a soul that kind of floats off the brain at death and goes somewhere else. But I do not know.

WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?

HARRIS: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.

WARREN: OK, then why can’t you just take the next step? Because right now you’re talking in extremely nonrational terms.

HARRIS: There’s nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that “I’m just spirit, and I can transcend the body.” That’s not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don’t think it’s the best conclusion.

WARREN: You’re more spiritual than you think. You just don’t want a boss. You don’t want a God who tells you what to do.

HARRIS: I don’t want to pretend to be certain about anything I’m not certain about.

Rick, last thoughts?
WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We’re both betting. He’s betting his life that he’s right. I’m betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he’s right, I’ve lost nothing. If I’m right, he’s lost everything. I’m not willing to make that gamble.

It’s a puzzle how people can get so complicated and react in all various crazy ways when all they’ve got is all the wrong concept and understanding of things. I have had a hard time coming up with a title for this entry but I refuse to linger on getting ahold of what to call it. Maybe later I’d get the title edited of sorts. But for now I just hope to post this and remind myself that for as long as the human specie exists, hang ups and questions will remain. It just makes me all the more thankful that there is a God to go back to when confusions and the craziness of life gets in the way. He has answers to all of life’s questions. They may not always be as tangible and as logical as we might hope they’d be. But life is good, great even when we’re in tune with Him. And the relationship that we personally have with Him will grow depending if we choose to nurture it. Relational christianity is what I call it. All the other what-have-you’s are just plain deceptive substitutes.

Ms.Barbara of Philstar’s Dec 9, 2006 column entry was rather controversial, which she appropriately titled “Little girls and priests.” And today as I read her follow up entry on that piece, given the infamous subject that it was, I was left flabbergasted as I read one crazy catholic’s reaction, I just couldn’t believe my eyes I had to run through that reader’s reaction twice or thrice. Obviously, he/she did not get it. He/She was eaten up by hatred towards religions other than his/her own. I don’t know Ms. Gonzalez (the column writer) and it was actually the first time a piece like that caught my eye and actually read. When I read that last Saturday, I felt for them. No one has to go through that. But true, even as things happen for a reason, these things have made a mark upon their very souls. “Toys” this was the word that started all these talks. It makes me just sigh and be sad for all those wounded men and women. But even as I feel for them, I’m also amazed how people like them can come together and start the healing process.

Here is that reader’s reaction. . .

* * *
Twenty-five years ago I was and still am a Catholic defender. I say to you, stay away from us Catholics. You Ms. Gonzalez, you flipped-mind devil-disguised protestants! Don’t use the STAR to further your lessening your ranks! I say to you once, don’t speak your mind against us, if you do, I ask God that you be cursed and all of your family! I demand a written public apology if you don’t do it, I curse you, if you have family I ask God that they should die of painful sickness or accident!
* * *

That was the unedited response of that person. It was so uncalled for that I immediately texted Ms. Barbara Gonzalez (the writer) a piece of my mind. Here’s our exchange of texts…

Me: Good morning, Ms. Barbara! I can’t help but react to that crazy, angry catholic who responded to your last week’s column entry. It wasn’t about the faith that you were talking about! These things are actually happening right in front of our noses and I salute you for making that stand. It took you years to do this. I’m not a catholic alright but whoever sent you that curse-ridden response sure gave catholic a bad name! It’s a shame not to see through one’s defenses. Should it be that you who experience those things to keep mum and stay invalidated? How stoic and naive can people get? We need more people like you, Ms. Barbara. And the way you responded to that person was with class and I just hope to encourage you to press on. God bless! – jennie aspacio (I really don’t mind you quoting me on this)

Barbara Gonzalez: Thank you very much. May I use your name?

Me: No problem po.
——-

It’s a crazy world, and all of us can get just as vulnerable as that reader is. Now, I have to remind myself that, otherwise I’d cringe for as long as I can and still find no answer. Ultimately, God has to deal with us one way or another. Craziness is one of man’s permanent characteristics. That is until we get to sport those glorified bodies in the heavenlies. For now I have to remind myself to just shake this off, even as I have already said my piece.