Will the US pull an IRAQ if Iran refuses to cooperate with UN demands?

Another question I have, which maybe reflects my naivete: Is Iran having nuclear weapons capability something that is threatening enough to world stability that the United States should forcibly prevent it from happening? What is the liklihood that if Iran had nuclear weapons that they'd actually use them? And why are they so determined to have them? And why does their having them make everyone so uneasy?

From the BBC:

The House Intelligence Committee report says: "Iran is a serious security threat on which the United States needs better intelligence."

If I could choose between walking down a street where people carried guns and walking down a street where people carried no weapons, I'd choose the street without weapons. A world with fewer weapons that could kill me is better than a world with lots of weapons that could kill me. The obvious problem is that we have guns but we don't want other people to have them. Why is Iran a serious security threat? What might they do to us that has us so on edge?

Japan will allow nude photo of Spears after all?

From the BBC News:

Tokyo 'will allow' nude Spears ad

The Spears photo was deemed "too stimulating" for Japan

A poster showing singer Britney Spears nude and pregnant will be displayed on Tokyo's subway system, despite an earlier decision to ban the advert.

Officials initially claimed the photo, which appears on the cover of Harper's Bazaar magazine, was "overly stimulating" for public display.
See More

I have a strange reaction to this article having grown up in Japan. Pornography is everywhere. We found it in parks, we saw people looking at it on the trains, we saw it in 7 elevens, on TV, in newspapers, sports magazines, etc. It's inescapable. But stigma surrounding the viewing of pornography is minimal in Japan. For example, its not unusual to see men scrolling through porn magazines in the magazine isle at a convinient store. In America, the hard core magazines are wrapped in plastic, like, you have to buy it if you want to look at it, and you take it home. You don't look at it in the store in broad daylight.

The funny thing about the Spears photo is that the Japanese subway officials originally said it was "too stimulating" for the train. Spears is nude, but the picture hides her pretty well. Compared to what I've seen on advertisements on trains in Japan that are posted everywhere you look, on the walls, hanging from the ceilings, I fail to understand how this one photography of Britney could possibly have aroused any controversy.

Superstition; Breaking the First Commandment?

In Christian Social Ethics, much lingo gets thrown around to show and explain why the 10 commandments actually cover a whole range of ethical behavior that is actually much broader than what the specific commands refer to. Its actually a lot of fun to preach on, and this way of reading the commandments is old and rooted in tradition. Calvin, for example, took the whole Torah and divided into ten sections, each and every single law somehow coming under the "jurisdiction" or cover of one of the ten commandments.

In our study of the first commandment, we learned that "thou shalt have no other gods before me," covers the entire realm of spiritual allegiances. The positive "force" or impact of this command, from what I can remember, is that we should have allegiance, reliance, and beleif in the all powerful nature of God alone. The negative "force" or impact of this command is that we can not act or think in a way which suggests that we have any allegiances or concerns about other spiritual powers/forces or beings.

Now, I've had this ongoing debate with this nurse that I know about whether or not superstition counts as breaking the first commandment, because, it turns out, nurses tend to be quite superstitious. Ask any nurse about what happens in the hospital on a full moon. Ask any nurse about what's going to happen if you say something to the effect of, "I hope we don't have any more emergencies today," or, "I hope I don't get called in tonight..." It's like, if you say it, then you're jinxed and its gonna happen. So they do the whole knock on wood thing.

Now, in all fairness, this is usually done in a joking manner. Like, if you really pressured one of these nurses to come out and say that they really beleive that if you say such and such won't happen, then it will, they might deny it. But say that its a little bit more than a joke. Does this constitute breaking the first commandment?

I think it does. The implication is that there is some supernatural force that hears what you say and brings about certain events in response. To the extent that you avoid saying things in order to (you think) prevent the unfortunate from occuring, I think a person is showing allegiance to a supernatural power. Whether or not this supernatural power is real or unreal is of no consequence. Presumably, when the law said, "no other gods," the implication was that there Are other "gods," whatever they may be (thats another conversation). But you're not supposed to have them period.

If a person dodges the 1st commandment question by saying that the "one" who brings about the unfortunate experience as a result of having voiced it is God, then I would respond that this beleif would constitute a breaking of the third commandment which governs the sphere of "language about God," because such a presumption is actually false (that God jinxes us when we verbalize something).

Running Scared. Just not finding a movie I like..

*spoiler*

A good friend of mine is in film school, studying not so much how to make films, but more about film theory, history, and such. To me, he's doing for movies what an English Lit major does for Romantic poetry. Anyway, he seemes to think that all movies (even ones which appear to be promoting some agenda, even a religious one) are made with the primary purpose of making money. According to him, movie making is just too expensive. No one puts that much money into making movies for the sake of the movie alone, no matter what intrinsic artistic value the movie might boast. The extreme version of movies made to cash in on a particular niche of the market are called "exploitation films." From what I understand, they "exploit" certain natural human desires that various people have for a certain element in a movie. In other words, if you like movies that make your skin crawl, an exploitation film would attempt to make your skin crawl, and that might be all it did.

Anyway, my fear is that, in order to make money, movies are becoming increasingly "exploitative" in that they cater more and more to some of the these base instinctual desires that viewers have to want to see, for example, violence, nudity, suspense, thrill, grimy lovable bad guys, and the like. The result to me seems to be that most mass advertized blockbusters are becoming less and less interesting because they are all trying to accomplish the same thing. My problem is that I no longer know how to find movies that I will like. I rarely see a New Release film that doesn't cause me to look at the clock at about 50 minutes in and wonder how much longer this is going to go on. I'm bored. I feel like movies are getting worse and worse, and less and less interesting. Does anybody have this same feeling? Any suggestions?

Running Scared is just another example of what I'm talking about. It's got the perfect blend of my need to see violence that makes me recoil, suspense that makes me sit at the edge of my seet, a hot wife with a thong, an admirable bad guy, a brief meeting in a strip club, and as if they might lose dollars if the hero gets it in the end (because happy endings lose money), the bad protagonist lying but likable father reappears at the final shot with no exlanation as to how he was revived after his wife saw him die in her lap. It was this disappointing resurrection which made me realize that producers and movie directors have, I don't know, resorted to the worst kind of manipulation, the kind that leaves you completely satisfied, disgusted AND not interested in more.

Not free to do nothing

I've been reflecting on Christian freedom lately, and I'm discouraged. Here's the party line as far as the Reformed are concerned. There is nothing that anybody can do to earn salvation. Salvation is a gift from God, imparted to those who have faith. You don't do anything to earn it, you merely receive it the way you might receive a present that someone was giving you. Faith is the instrument by which you receive this gift. Faith itself is a gift. You can not beleive of your own accord. The Holy Spirit must move in your heart to open your eyes to see the gift. The Holy Spirit gives you faith. By faith, you receive salvation.

Fine.

But, people want to know for sure whether or not they have salvation. Funny thing is, part of having faith means having assurance. In other words, faith that isn't assured isn't real faith. Now, is there no room for doubt. Yes. In fact, doubt can be healthy and keeps humble. But what is the difference between real faith that suffers from doubt, and unsaving false doubting faith? It's sort of like being in a castle that's under attack. True faith recognizes the attack, but is firmly lodged inside the castle, firmly aware that God is fighting the battle and that the castle will stand firm despite the attack. Doubting faith rests on no firm foundation and is ultimately unsure of its disposition.

I'm not sure how well the analogy works. But anyway, there's another way to have assurance. A good tree produces good fruit. A Christian's life will reflect the gratitude that comes from having received the gift of salvation. The Reformed creeds suggest that the fruit evident in my life is evidence of salvation working through me. OK, good.

Now, my problem is this. If salvation is a gift that is not dependent upon my works, am I free to do nothing once I've received the gift of salvation? If I'm counted righteous before God because of Christ's atoning sacrifice must I do works in order to maintain that status? Or, isn't it the case that a Christian will necessarilly produce good works because the outpouring of good works is a natural product of being a new creation filled with the Spirit? In other words, I'm afraid that even though my works do not earn my salvation, my works are necessary for my salvation, because if I don't do them, then I've no way of knowing the efficaciousness of my salvation.
Now, the party line is this: you don't do good works in order to be convinced of your salvation. Rather, once you have received salvation through faith, the Spirit works in your life to help you grow in your sanctification, and you live a life of gratitude to God for what he has done for you. It's like James says, without works faith is dead. Faith can't exist without works because real faith can't not bear fruit in sanctification. Loving God and neighbor is essential to faith.

But I just can't escape this sinking feeling that somehow my salvation depends on me. This is why: every day we are faced with decisions that we need to make. We have sins that we can avoid. We have oppourtunities to do good works. We could be lazy and sit around. Or we could put our faith into action and do whatever it is God places before us to do. Why does it seem like my decision to do or not do a particular work depends on my me? Why is there even a decision to be made? It seems as if the motivation to do good works between Calvinists and semi-Pelagians is really not that different. Whether you do good works to "earn" your salvation or not, you better be out there doing them because if you're not, then you are not saved or elect.

For the Belgic Confession's Answer to this question, see Belgic Confession Articles 17-24

This is my brother and me at our finest. Please notice use of pronoun.

Pupil Dilation

Time to get new glasses. Old ones are pinching my forehead and causing me to develop a rash in front of my ears which is itchy all the time. Costco is cheap. I make an appointment for my eyes even though my eyes aren't bad. Haven't had an eye exam in over two years-protocol. Now, the doctor detects some "tags" on the back of my eye ball that could potentially be tugging at my retina. However, she is not able to tell definitively whether or not this it is a real situation becuase the instrument she is using allows her to use only one eye to see into my eye. Now, to pay an extra 10 dollars, they'll dilate your pupils so that they can use a special instrument which allows then to look at the back of your eyeball with both of their eyes. Now, she wants me to let her do this so that I can help her to do her job better. It didn't make any sense to me. If she wants to do her job better, than why don't they just include the dilation in the regular eye exam instead of presurring me to pay extra so that I can find out for sure whether or not my "tag" is pulling on my retina or I have a whole or something. strange. Anyway, after 20 minutes, my pupil on my right eye dilated completely, and it was quite frightening. In day time sun light, everythign was bleached out in the one eye. I appreciate my pupils more than ever now.

Justifiable Christian Violence?

As I drained calories on the eliptical machine I got to see live coverage of the breaking news about how 21 Pakistanis (sp?) were arrested in England for attempting to carry liquid explosive material onto 6 to 11 airplanes all headed for the US. Bush comes on an explains about how we definitely are at war with Islamic Facists who want to "destroy freedom."

It got me to thinking. Obviously, there are Muslims out there who think that personal involvement in offensive action which involves hurting/killing people is legitimate. Is there ever a situation in which its ok for a Christian to fight and to kill? And I'm not talking about Just War, nor am I talking about joining the military. I'm talking about individual Christians, banding together for some cause, and illegally harming or killing other people?

I tend to think that a Christian can ethically justify killing in the case of self-defense. But I don't think this is illegal. Can a Christian kill for the sake of justice? Does being Christian entail being non-violent? Are Christians in every circumstance ethically obligated to remain within the limits of the law? Can Christians revolt?

Just food for thought.

My own answer: Except in cases where a Christian is persecuted for religious beleifs and prevented from performing the tasks that he/she beleives are essential to the practice of faith, there are few instances I can think of in which Christians are ethically permitted to break the law. It seems opposed to the Spirit of Christ to suggeset that there are situations in which individual Christians could ethically take up arms and harm anyone for any reason. The Bible commands individual Christians to love their enemies and to pray for persecutors. Jesus talked about turning the other cheek. the NT talks about submitting to "the authorities" in matters that do not violate conscience. All this would seem to suggeset that no matter how bad things get, it is not ever the responsibility of Christians to use violent means to accomplish their purposes.

For a bizarre article on this very topic, see:

Is There Such a Thing as Christian Justifiable Homicide?

misconstrued as perverted

In North Haledon, NJ, you can get pulled over for making faces at kids in minivans. Under what conditions? 1) Out of state license plate. 2) smoking a cigarett 3) pointing or laughing at or mouthing words to funny 10 year olds 4) with cop sitting behind you and watching the whole thing...

He pulls us over minutes later and says, I was at the intersection. Give me your license and registration. He said "I was at the interesection," in such a way as to suggest that I would immediately knew what he was referring to. Blank stare. I'm expecting to hear something to the effect of, "You blew through that intersection before the light turned green," or "You broke the speed limit, " or "you were in the wrong lane to go straight." Well, he was at the interesection, and he "saw what we were doing." What? You got to be kidding me. Nope. Did you know the kid in the van next to you? No. Then what were we doing making faces at the kid? Well, the kid was funny, and he was cute, and he was looking at us, so we made a face at him. What was wrong with that. According to North Haledon police, this can be misconstrued as perverted. What were we doing in North Haledon? Looking for an apartment to rent since we were moving into town in three weeks. We had better use a realtor, he told us. Warning: please use realtors to avoid being misconstrued as perverted. I guess its highly suspicious to drive around in neighborhoods with an out of state license plate. Don't make faces or point at kids in vans you don't know. After all, according to the cop, if you had kids would you want some strangers doing that to your kid?

I let my bike get stolen

Actually, it was my wife's bike--a purple/blue mountain bike with an inch or two of front suspension. REally , it was too small for me. But I could ride it anyway, and it was better than not having one. Funny thing we just got it back. My wife had left it at a house that she moved out of for 2 two years. Her friends were "borrowing" it. I went to pick it up a couple weeks ago. Problem was, it wouldn't fit in my car. So, I called my brother and had him meet me at my house. I actually drove it home, about five miles, which for me was quite a strenuous trip because I'd not ridden a bike in years. But it felt good, and I felt like I used to feel when I went on bike trips as a child. So, I was glad to have this bike back. There was no room for the bike in the apartment. So I leaned it against our front step and left it there. Now, I'm sure I was asking for it. But I didn't lock it. Why not? 1. Because I've never had anything stolen in my neighborhood, or broken into for that matter. No CDs, no CD player, no laptops left in unlocked cars, no nothing. We live on a "no outlet" block and I just figured that the kind of rifraff who steal things just didn't ever bother coming through our neighborhood. Plus, I kind of had this sense that if it happens, theft happens locally, i.e., you steal from your neighbors. And because our neighborhood seemed rather innocuous and safe with little kids all over the place and nothing ever getting stolen or broken into, I had a false sense of security. 2. there was a chain on the bike, but my wife didn't remember the combination because she hadn't used the bike in so long. 3. I was too lazy to go and get a new chain for the bike. 4. I'm convinced that chains barely even constitute a deterent because a simple wrench or wire cutter can cut through most security chains. therefore, I wasn't convinced of the usefulness of a chain.

When I walked out my apartment door this morning, I noticed it immediately, and my heart sunk with sadness and anger as I realized instantly what had happened.

I want to call the police and report it, but I can't endure the idea of a cop telling me there's nothing they can do and why in the heck didn't I put a lock on the stupid thing to begin with.

You know what. I've realized that you can do yourself a lot of good by failing to be noticed. People won't steal something they can't see. Cops won't pull you over if you don't catch their attention. Break the speed limit, if you must, but break it with a group of cars.

a calvinist dilemma

This past summer, I've felt what some might call a spiritual slump in my journey with God. I've become dissolutioned with the amount of effort that it takes build and maintain a "relationship with God." I noticed that when I prayed regularly, meditated on scripture, attended various worship services and prayer meetings, I really felt more filled with the Spirit, more pious, more ON. With the busyness of summer and lack of motivation, I've lost that feeling. Now, this might seem naturally but it bothers me. If God is sovereign and holds all things in his providential hand, shouldn't it be the case that I feel close to God when God wants me to be close to him? And shouldn't it be the case that I feel filled with the Holy Spirit when God decides to fill me with the holy spirit? Why then does it seem for all practical purposes that the degree to which I feel ON or "with God" depends, it seems, entirely on how much effort I put into it? I feel as if I am in control of how "close to God" I am and this bothers me. It would lead a person to beleive that the subjective experience of religion is up to the individual. I beleive God is objectively real and in control of the universe. If God has given me the Spirit that I might beleive and be saved, why doesn't God give me the Spirit and make me "spiritual?" If salvation comes free, why is sanctification so much work?