Dear Christ-followers,

When the Islam wrath came down over a series of cartoons printed in Europe, I was sorely tempted to write scathing essays about fundamentalist Muslims and the hypocrisy in their outrage.

But this situation has made me take a closer look at Christianity, instead, and at how we are viewed by those who don’t believe. And, more importantly, how we treat the unbelievers.

The fundamental mistake made by the Muslim protestors is not in the protesting itself, but in the belief that the non-Islamic world should be held to the standards of the Koran. In the course of these protests, with calls for violence against the cartoonists and editors responsible, and the fire-bombing of buildings, Islam has shown a face to the world that is not only unflattering, but may well prove its downfall.

It is important to remember that Arab Muslims are a people accustomed to enforcing their religion by any means, and to having both respect and compliance to their religion, however coerced. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to be a Christian, and punishable by death. These are not a people accustomed to winning converts through love, compassion and education.

But, is Christianity? Are we ready – or willing – to be meek when it is called for, bold when necessary, but never demanding; never violent?

How often do we, as Christians, seek to impose our own religion, or at least the rules of that religion, on others? How often do we give dirty looks to someone smoking or drinking? How often do we sneer at, or even verbally condemn, a gay couple?

The adherents of Islam intend to gain converts… through force if necessary, as directed by Muhammad. I’ve been disturbed by parallels, however overblown, people have found between Islam and Christianity. We, as Christians, need to remember who we represent, and how He sought believers.

Where Islam has become a sown violence, we must sow peace.
Where Islam has become intolerant, we must show meekness.
Where Islam has propagated hate, we must always love.

Jesus Christ does not need you or me to defend Him; nor does He seek our guidance where grace is concerned. We must always be willing to justify our faith; but we must view with abhorrence any attempt to force that faith upon others.

Jesus Christ suffered foolishness, misapprehension, and violent opposition around every corner; and He did so with love and meekness. In a world sinking deeper every day into corruption and sin, are we better than Christ that we can impose our ways through government, violence or coercion, instead of guiding to Salvation through grace and mercy?

Well, pretty much as expected, the big Roe v. Wade anniversary has renewed debate and protests on both sides of the issue. I'm sure the Alito hearings have helped in this regard.

The major protests, as they always are, were alike in tone and feel to the national debate itself: those on the right (and, I should add, in the right), asking provocative questions like, "what about the child's rights?" and bringing up the scientific evidence pointing to fetal sentience and pain sensation while those on the left respond with cleverly composed sayings such as "Bigots Go Home!"

This isn't out of the ordinary, though, this tendency of the left to respond to fact and logic with slogans and witticisms. In fact, this bumper-sticker intellect has been an identifying mark of liberals for years now (for example: "BushLied(tm)", "Make Love Not War", and "Republicans are Dumb-heads" - this last of the Al Franken/Michael Moore variety).

They might just as well be yelling "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword" or "Mmm Mmm Good!"

Of course, in spite of the obvious flaw in this approach, it does work for Democrats, the self-styled "People's Party" they are. In a world that gets its news and opinions from people who are paid for their acting ability and not their political acumen, slogans often go down easier than logical argument.

Fortunately, in spite of best efforts from the other side, the bumper-sticker pundits, though louder, are still in the minority. Someday, we can hope, even they will allow themselves to be educated rather than simply stirred by chants and posters.

In the meantime, we can hope that the liberals, so in love with their slogans, will finally just get together and chant, "Have it Your Way!"

You know, I don't want to think about gay issues. I'd rather leave it alone, and mind my own business. I really would. I'd rather people just left me out of it.

Instead, the liberal media and the gay community at large are constantly demanding my attention through TV, film, parades, print media, etc. and telling me if I don't listen I'm a homophobe.

Then, of course if I do listen and disagree, I'm still a homophobe. Or at the very least, a hate-monger.

Where did we go wrong as a nation when you can't disagree with someone without being accused of hatred?

It seems to me that certain parties don't actually want me to think about gay issues. What they want is for me to listen to their side and agree with them.

See, the problem is, if you think about the issue, you come to the startling conclusion that homosexuality is, in fact, unnatural.

Let's pretend, for example, I was an evolutionist. If evolutionists were really honest with themselves on this issue, and were to take responsibility for their theories, they'd have to agree that the rate of homosexual increase is improbable if it is in fact a natural, in-born trait. Especially if we come from animals with no higher intellect than instinct. Ingrained homosexuality means no natural mating instinct, and there would have been no social mores to demand propogation of species. Homosexuality would have passed and never resurfaced.

In short, what I'm saying is that liberal propoganda on these issues is innately flawed. You can't have it both ways: if we are the products of evolution, homosexuality is improbable and unnatural.

There. I've said my piece. Now, if only Hollywood and the press would shut up about it so I could concentrate on important things.

So, I was up late a few nights ago thinking, and as occasionally happens, my thoughts split off into two completely seperate tracks. This is the first track, basically uncompleted and somewhat random:

01.09.06 / 01.10.06
Space-Time-Event

Traditional wisdom regarding space-time suggests that Space is the vehicle, and Time the track on which it travels. But what if our logic has reversed the roles? What if Time is the vehicle, Space its path?

It has been suggested that God exists outside of Space-Time. I agree. But what does He see? Is it Space traveling the length of Time, or Time hurtling through Space? God must see the finite edges of both, but which is unchanging in shape and course?

If we can change events in time, have we selected a new path in Space, or have we set down on another strand of Time? Is such an alteration even possible, or as some suggest, do our “choices” mean nothing and the course is set?

Perhaps my generalization of Space-Time is faulted; perhaps the vehicle is Event, and Space-Time is the route. But I see Event as being the course correction and alteration of the Time-vehicle. Or is it the Space-vehicle?

This all leads to God’s knowledge vs. God’s causation. Does God know the future? If so, did He create that future? Are there decisions He does not make, and if so, does He already know the outcome of those decisions?

The Flood: did God create the earth knowing that man would be too sinful and that He would have to destroy the vast majority of the population and start over? Did He cause this to happen, and if so, why? Or, if He is not the cause, but knew this to be the course, why did He allow it through His creation of the actors? Did He, perhaps, guess this would be the outcome, and hope He was wrong?

Does knowledge of a thing equal causation?

Does Event exist before it happens? What is beyond the Event-Horizon before Space-Time catches up to it? Can mass exist in more than one area in Space-Time? If Event is created by Mass (which it must be), can it exist before Mass, riding Space-Time, is there to cause it? And if it does not exist, then can God know it?

God must know His own actions, even before taking them – it is written that His decisions, policies, nature, are unchanging. If He has chosen to take an action, that action will be taken. That course set. But what of our actions? What of the events caused by Man? Certainly, these can be extrapolated, but is there room for choice? For surprise maneuver?

Is it possible to surprise God?