Obviously I am not a professional blogger.

They say you need to be regular, otherwise no one will read you.  Of course, no one reads this anyway, but I’m not behaving in a manner conducive to attracting followers.   Maybe I don’t want to attract followers.   Maybe this is just my little journal.  Though I don’t consider myself to be a journalist, maybe I am.  Just not a consistent one.

There are many people who struggle financially in this world.  I recently went to Puerto Rico for a very long weekend with my wife, to visit my son.  It was not cheap for me, but not terribly expensive either.  After coming back, I ran into several people who were very impressed that I got to go.  I said to them, “you should go.”  I could tell in their eyes that such an extravagance was simply not in the cards for them.  I am not a “1 percenter”, but according to some charts I am up in those rarified percentiles compared to the rest of the nation.   (Interestingly though, despite my “percentile”, the difference between me and the “1 percenters” can be measured only on a logarithmic scale.    America is messed up.

Maybe that is what I want to say today.   The longer I live, the more socialist I become.   That’s a dirty word in ‘Murica.   I’m not a communist.  Not even a socialist in a Lenin/Marx sort of way.   I support capitalism.  But what we have in the US right now is toxic capitalism (and perhaps this has been the deal at least since WWII… and probably we saw something similar back in the Rockefeller and Carnegie days…  Just before the great depression).  I don’t think it is sustainable.  It is extremist capitalism.    Capitalism only works if there are people to buy the stuff you are selling.   Capitalism only works if there is a planet to live on so that you can buy and sell.   When capitalism is so focused on eliminating taxes and earning a profit above all else, it winds up killing itself.   Profit over environmental sustainability… profit at the expense of the masses– who you need ultimately to keep buying so you can profit.

What we need is a moderate socialism.  One where the companies and people who truly have more money than they know what to do with, pay more taxes so that the government can give people who are trying a leg up.  Yep.  Redistribute the wealth.  Not to keep slackers slacking, but to create a safety net so that people who are trying have less to worry about, and can focus on actually being productive rather than simply existing.

Well, maybe someday I will flesh this out.   I’m rambling.  Journaling, you might say.


Charity. And What Kills It (or, What Reveals it as Fake).

I participate in my local chapter of the St. Vincent de Paul Society.  For the uninitiated, this is essentially an outreach organization, geared towards helping others in need.  Think about the Good Samaritan.  That’s St. Vincent.  We have a van outreach every month, where we bring sandwiches, toiletries, and clothing items down to a homeless shelter in town.  The guys– they are mostly men– actually appreciate our visits and look forward to us coming.  I have wondered why we make such a mark on them, considering that we only go once a month and they are out there every single day.  Surely they need to eat more often than once a month, right? Maybe it is because we indeed do go every single month, on the advertized day, no exceptions.  Always.

But that is not my point.  My point is this:  In January, I brought an old pair of insulated Carhartt coveralls, an old Carhartt winter range jacket, some old LL Bean boots, and a terribly out-of-style blue and green 1980’s sweater.  They were snapped up immediately.  One Ed D____ absolutely loved my sweater, thanked me profusely, and thanked me again.  It made me really happy to have helped him and the others.   A couple of days ago, we were handing out sandwiches.  We ran out of the food, and I realized I had a pair of crappy work gloves in my pocket from the home store.  I offered them to whoever wants them, and they were snapped up in a second by a very appreciative man.   We waived bye to them all as we drove off.

I felt very proud of myself.

Very proud.  When I brought the jackets and coveralls, I “humbly” mentioned this act to my wife.  I even felt compelled to post a picture of Ed D____ on Facebook and announce what I had done, and quite a number of my Facebook friends “liked” my post.   The other day, I “humbly” mentioned to my fellows in the van that I gave up my gloves.  My wife didn’t say much, but one of the van riders said “you will be blessed.”  Each time, these events ruined everything.  I felt like crap after I said what I said.   It was not so much their responses to my revelations, but the realization that I found myself needing to reveal what “wonders” I had accomplished that month in the first place.

I wasn’t giving my stuff to these guys in order to get attention– at least consciously–  but nevertheless I found myself inadvertently seeking attention once I gave.  And upon reflection, maybe I did think pretty highly of myself as I was giving my stuff away.   I experienced the truth of Matthew 6:6… “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”  … and Matthew 6:16… “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

My point (can I please get to my point!?) is that I realized that I was giving to make myself feel better.  About Myself.  The evidence of this was that I “just had to” tell somebody.  If I had been giving out of pure charity, it wouldn’t matter if someone else knew of my good deeds.  Sure, they were in fact Good Deeds.  Technically.  But they didn’t benefit me in the least with respect to my own spiritual growth, because I went seeking after the approval of my fellow human beings immediately afterwards.    Just as I have killed a man if I call him a fool, so also I have not loved a man if I only do it to gain the love of others.

But then again… I guess I have benefited after all.  Realization of failure is growth too.  Thank God that he works all things for the good for those who trust in him, that he doesn’t count our transgressions against us but instead uses them to point out to us areas for improvement.

I would feel ashamed for promoting myself here on this revelation, but… no one reads my blog except for me.  Which is comforting.  Thanks for listening.

Uninformed Pope Bashers Make My Blood Boil

One of my good friends in the secular world recently linked to this article from NPR on Facebook and added the comment, “I don’t see him procreating. Makes my blood boil.”

The NPR article carried the headline, “Couples Who Choose Not to Have Children Are ‘Selfish,’ Pope Says”.  Apparently, Pope Francis indeed recently uttered the word “selfish” and indeed linked it to the concept of couples who choose not to have [any] children, with the added context that we are talking about those couples who consider children a burden. Beyond the fact that Francis is neither a “couple” nor has he — neither in the sense nor reasons that he refers to — “chosen to not have kids”, my friend’s lament is nevertheless shortsighted.

What was not stated by (and apparently not heard by) my friend– and unfortunately, not revealed overtly by NPR–  is that Pope Francis made this statement in context of talking about the reality that Europe is falling woefully short of the fertility/birth rate that is needed to sustain their own countries (NPR does quote Francis as saying that societies are “nourished by” children, but doesn’t explain what this means).   It is a true fact (as they say in Washington DC) that many countries in Europe — and really, the Western world in general, if not literally now, then dangerously close– have such a low fertility rate that the average age of their populations is getting older with time.   With no back fill.  Their demographics are starting to look like a mushroom cloud (pun imagery unfortunately intended), with a massive amount of old folks gathering at the top, and only a slender stem representing the younger ages below it.   Eventually, people get too old to work… and eventually people die (a couple of notable Biblical persons excepted).  The European economies are starting to suffer from it.

This isn’t about careers, or feminism, or religion.  It’s about fixing whatever is wrong with the Western world’s values, such that Western society doesn’t kill itself by attrition.  Pope Francis suggests– rightly– that couples who CHOOSE to not have any kids BECAUSE they want the  freedom to have their own careers taken to the maximum like they want, and travel the world whenever and wherever they want, and save as much money as they want (and etc etc etc things that the responsibility of kids would impede)… ARE SELFISH with respect to the life and well-being of of their fellow humans, namely society, particularly at the country level.

The work ethic that says “Job, Self, God (or, God?)” has problems.   We need to return to the work ethic that says “God, Self, Job”.   This not an attempt to promote slacktivism.   Also not an attempt to promote a theocracy.  Working is not antithetical to God.  Follow God first, and all else will fall into place.  If we follow God, he will guide us to Self.  And if we align right with God, we will understand Self to include not only “me” but also our family– and from there, our society, and truly, all of humankind.   The “Job” is merely a means to an end:

…Earn enough to support the people you are responsible for.

But even if an individual wants to eliminate God from their personal equation, they should still put “society” on par with “self”.  Even if they want to work and dream and strive only for “self”, the intelligent atheist should realize that purely egotistical motives necessarily include “support of your own society” as beneficial to “self”.     The larger point being, if the concept of “Job” is conflicting with “Support”… there is a problem.

As an aside, the articles I linked to (including the NPR article) have their share of misunderstanding.  The NPR article, for example, takes the angle that Francis has “contradicted” himself repeatedly.   Others suggest variously that economy drives fertility rate or that fertility rate drives economy (but that is the question, isn’t it).   To the allegations that Francis is “contradictory”, I offer merely the following:  He doesn’t contradict himself– rather, he presents the middle path, dare I say the right path, and he simply excludes the extremes.  (Do have babies, don’t go crazy.   Discipline your kids– but don’t discourage them.)  He contradicts Today’s Official Secular World Views.  In doing so, he pisses nearly everyone off… and you know, if you make everyone mad, you must be on to something.

God is God. God Bless.

Separation of Church and State

I have waffled on this issue for years.  There are some who would suggest that we need to vote Christian morals into office, to ensure that our laws are based in the Bible– everything from murder to homosexuality to the responsibilities of men and women in the family and perhaps how often people should attend church.  Then there are some who would suggest that “you can’t legislate morality” and perhaps that freedom of religion really means freedom from religion.  That the only good law is one that is antithetical to anything a Christian might say.   Or anything that remotely sounds like something out of a religious book, regardless of which religion.  That church and state must be separated to the point that the average citizen can happily forget that there is a church.

But thanks to the clarity obtained from Panera coffee at 6am a few Saturdays, and a friend of mine listening to me externally process, I have had an epiphany.

Here is how the world should work:

The state’s responsibility pertains solely to life on this planet here and now.  The state has no right to extend past life on earth.  Put another way, the state must pass laws that protect people from physical, financial, mental, and emotional harm.   Thus, the state must pass laws against murder, physical abuse, stealing, mental abuse, neglect, wanton cruelty, etc.  Any harm that happens in these three dimensions in time, that is the state’s job and responsibility.   If it harms another human being in body or mind, the state has a duty to pass a law against it.   Conversely, the state has no right to legislate for or against anything spiritual.  The state cannot legislate against or for any particular spiritual view, nor silence any religion or religious view that does not harm in these three dimensions.   Examples:  Abortion harms a human being.  Thus, it is legitimate for the state to legislate regarding it, and the state has a duty to outlaw it.   This has nothing to do with the Bible or the Qu’ran or the Torah.  Killing a human being harms a human being, therefore, the state must protect that human being from such harm.   Conversely, homosexual behavior between consenting and “monogamous” adults causes no physical or mental harm to the participants.  The state cannot legislate against homosexual behavior because whether it causes harm or not is purely a spiritual question.  Neither can the state legislate against freedom of speech– even religious opinion– so long as such speech does not cause or encourage physical, financial, mental, or emotional harm.   Another example, the state has no right to declare a religious message regarding ones relationship with God and eternal life (e.g., the Christian Gospel) “hate speech” merely because it makes someone feel uncomfortable to hear it.  Since any “harm” done by hearing such a message is by its very nature limited to the spiritual, it has no bearing on life here and now.   If one claims not to care about such matters, then there can be no emotional harm in hearing such “nonsense.”

The church’s responsibility pertains solely to the spiritual (and to whatever overlap the spiritual is understood to impact the physical and mental aspects of the religion’s professing adherents).  The church has no right to legislate among persons outside its care (i.e., non-adherents and deniers), but has a responsibility to legislate among its adherents in matters pertaining to their spiritual health and in any matter in which their physical and mental behavior impacts their spiritual health.  The church has no right to expect or require the state to pass laws consistent with any of its teachings.  Examples:  if the religion understands murder to be a sin, it has every right to legislate against it and council its adherents against it.   And even in the absence of a state law against abortion, for example, the church has every right to legislate and council its members against doing such action.  But the church has no right to expect the state to pass a law against homosexual behavior, for example, merely because such behavior is understood to be a sin and has adverse spiritual implications.  And while church discipline is just as legitimate within spiritual matters as state law is within physical and mental matters, in the same way that the state has no right to pass laws based on spiritual merit, the church as no right to exact discipline or require conduct that causes physical, mental, emotional, or financial harm.  Likewise, the church has no right to expect particular conduct in the here and now from non-adherents to its religion.

So, the state’s laws (or lack thereof) may be anathema and counterproductive to eternal life beyond this world.  And the church’s laws (or lack thereof) may not address everything that needs to be in place to live in a productive society.   But that is ok.   Where we run into trouble is when the state tries to legislate on matters that pertain ONLY to one’s relationship with God and/or eternal life… and when the church attempts to legislate on matters that pertain ONLY to life here and now.

Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech Must Be Upheld.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Today, a group of cartoonists were slaughtered in France for their “crime” of negatively depicting the “prophet” Muhammad, and otherwise disparaging Islam.  I am nearly at a loss for words, so this post may be somewhat disjointed.

There is a reason why all of these seemingly varied concepts are lumped together in a single amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition of the Government.   The are not so varied.  They are to protect against — at least to provide legal retribution against — exactly what happened today in France.  I am glad to hear that the French have arrested the perpetrators and I hope justice is served.  I only pray that those who align with today’s perpetrators will not someday win the “hearts and minds” of the various nations and overturn these principles in the US and elsewhere.  It may happen: in the name of political correctness or perhaps in the name of fear.

Believing what you want, saying what you want, publishing what you want… these are all essential individual liberties that no man– no human, regardless of how convinced he is that he is right and just — can transgress.  God guides the heart.  Forcing someone to confess a particular faith, or to affirm a particular worldview, is not a true confession.  Why bother?  You can make anyone say “yes” at the metaphorical or real gun point.  But what value is that to you?  Only the naive would think that torture (including terrorism and personal threat) would cause a true conversion.  What have you gained if the entire world agrees with you outwardly, but inwardly disagrees with you (or despises you)?  Have you brought “honor and respect” to your cause?  Of course not.  All you have done is to put balm on your own foolish ears.

In wisdom, the first amendment of the US constitution hastens to include the concept of peaceful assembly.  Whether you are assembling to speak your mind, or whether you are assembling to protest against someone else’s faith or worldview or latest cartoon, peace is key.   Violence is not.  You have a right to disagree with me, call me names, whatever you feel you need to do… but your right to these things ends when you put a gun at my head (or threaten to do so, psychologically, physically, or otherwise).   If you work in PEACE, then when (if) I ever agree with you– or when (if) I ever quit drawing cartoons about your hallowed leader– then you will know that you have won me over.  There will be no question in your mind.  My yes (or my no) will be just that.

If the government ever tries to take a side that injures you– or me– you and I have the right to ask them to stop, to air our grievances and expect to have them redressed to our satisfaction if they have merit.  Without consequence to our persons. Without fear.  And this helps maintain the ability to know that our yes is yes and our no is no.

I am opposed to the movement by certain Christians to try to institute prayer in public schools.  Why?  Because I do not want my kids and grand kids being someday forced to pray towards Mecca five times a day.   Today, you might get your wish:  A prayer to Jesus after recess.  Tomorrow, the tables may turn and the precedent you set will give you no recourse but to comply.

The United States is not a Christian nation.  It is a free nation.  And thank God for that.   Even if the majority in this democracy is currently Christian (a “fact” that I question), tomorrow it may not be.  Democracy is about electing leaders and making general decisions that impact life here and now on this planet; not about forcing the minority to adopt the worldview of the majority or to subscribe to the same God just to put more notches on your stick.  Someday– when, not if– Islam will be the most populous religion on the planet.  Christians must avoid setting precedents that undermine the first amendment principles, if only to protect the Truth from literal and unbounded democracy.

A friend of mine lauds the legal limits on “hate speech” that some countries have in place.  Agreed: hate is bad.  But if hate remains peaceful, it is only hate.  Further, one man’s hate is another man’s love– being offended is not being hated.  Stating something your listener does not wish to hear is not hate.  You may think I am “judging” and “hating” if I preach the gospel to you.  But I may think I am doing you a favor (i.e., my motive may be love, though you hate me for it).   You may be in error, or I may be in error.  But if all I am doing is voicing opinions and making observations, then you are not harmed.   Beauty is in the eyes– and ears– of the beholder, and the same goes for ugly.  Anything you do not want to hear is ugly.  Anything you want to hear is beautiful.    But what if I state that I hate you — what if it is not the gospel, but instead is just me trying to make you feel bad and lonely for no reason except my own narrow minded worldview?  The whole world may agree that I am an ass.  But it is still only words.    If I point a gun at you, or worse, pull the trigger, it is a completely different issue.  But until I act against you on my (apparent? real?) hate against you, then allow me to run my mouth– because by doing so, you have preserved your right to say what you will in response. Without fear.  In sincerity.

1 Peter 3:

13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

My History, Continued. And An Observation

I was once a Calvinist.  Well, I was once a Catholic, then I was an atheist, then I was a Calvinist.  Now I am a Catholic again.  But I am still a Calvinist.  Or more accurately:  I am an Augustinian or a Thomist, if you must put a label on me.  I am what I think Calvin would have been if he hadn’t been so irritated, bitter, and reactionary.

I believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence — and I thank God for this weekly (even daily) grace.  I also sometimes pray (that is, to converse without use of audible sound limited by these three dimensions) with those innumerable witnesses described in Hebrews 12– one of whom being (God forbid!…?) Mary– asking them to pray to God through Christ for me and with me, as I am sure they would have done for me before they kicked the bucket.  But that is why the Church recognizes them as saints:  The Church understands that they would have prayed for me in person before they kicked the bucket.  That’s a little simplistic, but whatever.  By the way, “canonization” does not mean– as the popular media, even lay Catholics imply– that the Church has “made” someone a saint.  It means rather, that the Church has discovered certainly that the person is in fact a saint.  I know some might quibble on the authority of the Church to be able to figure this out (much less declare it), but all I’m saying is, that is all she is (we are) doing.

I hold God’s Grace in high esteem.  I hold God as sovereign over my will– though not to say my will is not free.  In a nut shell:  I can do– and I accomplish– whatever I want most at any given instant.  If God willed otherwise, it couldn’t happen.  But it does happen.  Therefore, I am free.  Since God is sovereign, if he didn’t actively will me to pick my nose (at least in the permissive sense), there is no way that I would ever want to pick my nose.  More on this later, I have the sensation.

For now, one of the reasons I am Catholic again is that there are different schools of thought within the Catholic Church.  Generally speaking, from a  Protestant perspective, there are the equivalent of Wesleyan/Methodists (a.k.a. Molinists– currently Jesuits seem to embrace the essentials of this view), and there are the equivalent of Reformed/Calvinists (a.k.a., Augustinian/Thomists– currently Dominicans seem to embrace the essentials of this view).  The Catholic Church is a big box which you can bang around in as much as you want… the difference between the Catholic Church and the “Protestant Church” (so to speak) is– beyond talking to Mary and eating Jesus and the priesthood– is… we consider anyone banging around in the big box to be our brother or sister in Christ.  Shoot, we even consider those who don’t eat Jesus and talk to Mary our brothers and sisters (though sadly and hopefully temporarily wayward).  Where the various schools of protestantism bicker among themselves sometimes to the point of anti-love (don’t want to actually say hate), the Catholics debate in unity and love.  It’s all the same stuff– only that it is done with understanding and love.  And Unity.  Unity in the essentials, all else is schools of thought…. paraphrase of Augustine.

Anyway, I was once a Catholic.  I grew up Catholic, did the thing, went to CCD (I was in public school after all).  I was an altar boy, and once I fell asleep at the 5:30 am Mass next to Monsignor.  The congregation laughed.  So did Monsignor.  All in all it was good times except when the Catholic school kids threw holy water on me because I was a public school kid.  And also that time that my friend from the “Church of Christ” asked, “What religion are you?” I answered, “Catholic.”  He said, “Oh.”  I asked, “What religion are you, then?”  He said, “Christian.”  That puzzled me. In my mind, “religion” was synonymous with “denomination”, but we were all Christian.  But not to him.  He had decided that there were “Christians” and then there were “Catholics”.  For a while, I thought he was an idiot.  Then later, I believed the same as he did.  And now, I realize both why he said that and also that he –and I– were wrong.  Catholic is not only Christian, it is the culmination of Christianhood (even as it continues to culminate).  I don’t know where he is with his faith today.  But I understand, and while I think he was misguided, I no longer think he is (was?) an idiot.

More history…. One day, not unexpectedly yet somehow so, Grandma died finally, and my dad took this as his opportunity to move on.  I moved on with dad and mom and family to the Presbyterian Church (USA).  There I learned, through the miracle of a church-sponsored spring break retreat, that La Jolla, California, is an awesome place.  I had my first sushi there– learned the miracle of what pickled ginger can do for the burn of wasabi–  and I had a great time in the hotel hot tub.  I blew off the required bible studies.  But I also learned that you can throw your bible on the ground and God will not kill you.. That lesson stuck with me.  Point being, God does not live in those pages.  God is not “being” in those pages.  It’s his word, it is not his person.  Not that we should desecrate the bible, but it was freeing to learn that God is bigger than that collection of papers.  I had a great time in La Jolla, and that is all I remember from my early PC-USA days.  That, and the pastor brought a live sheep onto the stage one time.

Then I went to college.  I became a practical atheist.  I never was an atheist per se— I always figured that God was out there somewhere.  But I didn’t think he cared, and I didn’t care about him.  I wasn’t rebelling actively, I just didn’t give a rip.  But still, when I gazed at the blue sky or the expanse of the stars at night, I couldn’t help but think that God was there…. somehow.

One day in college, I had a rather large life experience that made me realize I am mortal.  Some Christians of various persuasions tried to reach out to me during that time.  I appreciated their efforts but they didn’t quite strike the nail on the head, as it were.  Then I graduated and got on with my life.  But I was not happy.

My mom and dad had joined a congregation of the Reformed Church in America.  The denomination was a Dutch Reformed church.  Essentially Calvinist.  I don’t know why (well, I do… God was pulling me back… but I didn’t have any conscious idea about that at the time).  I started attending.  I got more involved.  I was in the worship band, I was in the youth ministry.  But I think I was still Catholic.  Or, I didn’t think I was Catholic, but I still sort of actually was according to what I thought I knew.  There, in a fortuitous (providential..) conversation with the pastor one day, I said, “I’m not so arrogant to think that I have a chance at heaven.”  (Turns out I wasn’t Catholic either, but more on that another day).   He took notice and had a pointed conversation with me.  My take home message was that “you can’t get away from predestination in the bible.”   More later… maybe.

To shorten this story, let’s just leave it at this:  I read RC Sproul’s “Chosen by God” and it transformed me.  No longer was I afraid of God (though I still feared Him).  No longer did I worry whether I “measured up” (thanks to God through Jesus Christ– Jesus did the work to measure me up to the measure).  Through some very deep and at times disturbing introspection, I realized that I actually do care about God and want to be with him.  And through scripture I realized that there is no way he is going to walk away from me (even if I might do something utterly stupid).  God has invested too much. His son willingly went to the extreme.  For me. For everyone who would ever believe, ever.  It is finished.  I am humbled and thankful.  The fact that there is nothing I can do to impress God, makes me ever more humble and thankful.  Now I can focus on making the world a better place without worrying about my status with God.

Why did I return to Catholicism?  This will likely be a topic for later posts (plural).  But the short answer is (have I said that before?) is that I quit listening to what Protestants and anti-Catholics had to say about the Catholic Church and I looked into what she had to say for herself.   That’s it. Turns out she ain’t so bad. Turns out she is better than not bad.  Good even.  Even the best thing out there.  And she is not all that others crack her up to be.

What is my observation? Oh yeah… I am supposed to have an observation.  That’s what the post title says, right?  Who is in charge of this thing?  Ahem…..    Anyway.  I have many observations. I guess that is why I am restarting my blog career… or so I think.   Today, my observation is this:  Just because you think you know what you know and that is all there is to know, doesn’t mean that you know the truth.   Even when we are certain upon all certainties, we need to keep our mind open to the possibility that we aren’t.

My History, and a Disclaimer

I used to blog a reasonable lot on Blogger.  Then I quit.  I made the mistake of deleting my Blogger.com ID, and almost immediately some spammer stole my blogger ID,  URL, and former posts and claimed it all as his own.   I learned my lesson.  Short story long, you may run across this site in your googling: http://theojunkie.blogspot.com/ .  That is no longer me… Please don’t click on any of the links as I am sure they will only bring evil.  That blog was me at one time, but it is not me anymore.   It’s not me because I can’t access the spot and I no longer have any control over that situation.  But also it’s not me because, in reading my plagiarized former posts that previously were made by me but no longer are mine, I realize that I have moved on in my theology much more than I ever thought I would.   Theojunkie thinks different now, thanks be to God.

In this blog, I may likely say something that offends you. I will likely post about religion, politics, and even taxes.  God knows… I don’t.  I have learned over the years that my worldview and theology offends nearly everyone on the planet.  Right, left, black, white, up, down, red, yellow, newtonian, quantum, republican, green, communist, democrat, reformed, lutheran, methodist, jesuit, thomist, and martian.  If you are inclined to comment, remember that more is learned about the one giving feedback than the one receiving it.

God is God.  Get used to it.

Around the World and Back Again

The Hero's Descent

Just another WordPress.com site