Another sad sandwich...

This one from Burger King. Here is what is advertised:

Here is what I got:

Pathetic.

Not sure why I expect anything more. Assembly line process using pre-packaged food by assembly line workers who'd rather be somewhere else.

Went to Panera the other day and paid way too much for a sandwich that didn't look much different than this.  When we went to inquire the guy behind the counter said that's all they are supposed to put on it.  I exchanged it.

Pathetic, that's what it is...

Is Jesus enough?

Gary North is son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony, the "father of Christian Reconstructionism."

Pick out those troubling verses in the Hebrew Bible - all of them - and imagine them being implemented. No more shrimp and lobster for you!

Here's his solution to cursing one's parents:

"When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). - Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 59-60

Is Jesus enough?

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision."

- Gary North, from The Myth of Pluralism (bold italics mine)

Seems to me that this is the very same elevation of the concept of "law" that got Jesus crucified.

Next time you read Paul's writings about the law, grasp them not as speaking of "Jewish law" (almost a caricature about what is packed into his writings on law) but view them in light of the law in general. His writings are quite penetrating and relevant when viewed this way.

We are once again becoming (or have become) a society not of freedom but of laws.

The law is not the solution; Jesus is. And the law is not the way to introduce people to Jesus. The failue is not the law; the failure is the church (i.e. his body, i.e. his followers).

Alternative to capitalism?

What is the alternative to capitalism? The Kingdom of God.

Sounds simple, no? But it depends on your view of the Kingdom. Is it something far off in the future, something that come 'later' when we are long gone? Or is its potential a present reality?

Our view determines our embrace of capitalism's creedo that more (money, stuff, etc.) is better.

I am not saying other 'human' institutions and -isms are better, not at all (nor am I saying that capitalism is the best). Human institutions are all, to use a King James-ism, "vanity" because, well, ultimately they are made up of humans.

While I support the Occupy Wall Street concept, the danger in protests and the drive for change is determining what outcome is expected. This may sound obvious but a protest may start out of anger, out of blame, but it must have a goal to carry on or it just becomes a repository of various angers and will ultimately turn ugly.

What are the goals? To teach greedy folks values and ethics? To look out for the little guy (who may, in essence, long for the very same thing against which they protest)? Legislative change? Redistribution of wealth via government agency?

The Kingdom, however, is not of this world. But it affects change in the world as it is through us that the preparation is made. If we 'sell out' to capitalism, even as a compromise or conciliation, what do we have left for the kingdom?

I see this as a polarity. For every ounce of energy we give over to capitalist pursuit we have that much less energy for the things of the Kingdom.

We have the capacity to display the Kingdom, not through material means, but by our hearts and our relationships with people. The kingdom is within you is not the mystical 'divine spark' that many use as an excuse to opt out of religion and out of relating to others altogether. It is more accurate to say it is 'among' us in the sense of community.

The Kingdom. The body of Christ. It is not about us. It is about Him.

The Kingdom is here, though in a limited sense, but it is present. The goal is 'on earth as it is in heaven' and that means heaven, not earth, is the model. The more we begin to understand the Kingdom, the less fettered we will be by the creed of capitalism or any other human creed.

Alzheimer's and the Bible

Somehow or other I got into a discussion with someone close to me about what Scripture says about Alzheimer's (which is not in the Bible, at least know that I know of...). I pointed out that perhaps it's because the lifespan of people in Biblical times was far less than that of the lifespan of people in "Western" nations.

I've seen estimates of 40 years old, give or take, for the average lifespan of a person in Biblical times. This would go a long way toward explaining why there is no mention of a disease like Alzheimer's.

This person blurted out that people in Biblical times lived to 900 years old. I had to bite my tongue.

Do I believe people lived to be 900 and that it was only after the flood that changed? Not literally. Could be but I don't rely on it either way for my faith. If it's true, cool; if it's not, not a game changer.

Does that mean I have less faith because I question or seek alternative explanations? I don't really think so. My motive for questioning is not to discredit or to disprove anything (though that's always a possible outcome) but reconciliation. For hundred, even thousands, of years, the average lifespan of a human being is nowhwere near the ages of the "older" stories in the Bible.

In light of these facts, those ages seem, well, mythical. So I seek the symbolism, the message they are trying to convey, rather than trying to hold them up as scientific fact (and creationism, to me, seems like a pathetic child clamoring for attention and validation).

I tend toward historicity; others tend toward accepting what the Bible says. At this point, there are two options: debate or just let it go. I opted for the latter.

Either way, I think it brings to light the fact that living to older ages is not without serious consequences and drawbacks. Perhaps all the Bible is trying to say is that our bodies are designed to only live for so long; they are not meant, in their current state, to live a long time.

"As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years, Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly away." (Psalms 90:10)

Psalms speaks of 70 years and, by and large, that seems a reasonable estimate to having lived a full life. Not sure if the writer is speaking for all people or if he is speaking from his surroundings in the court. What about the common people? The writer makes no distinction. There are many who live to be older (80, in good health, the Psalms says) and live rich, rewarding lives; however, there are many who don't.

Whether people lived to be 900 or not, it's certainly a conversation starter and perhaps in any debate on the matter there is wisdom to be found.